Four-and-a-half months ago, prosecutors were in possession of a photocopy of the document. At the time, the chief of general staff denied responsibility for the plot and said it was a “piece of paper” aimed at undermining the credibility of the armed forces. The leader of the main opposition party, Deniz Baykal, jumped on the conclusion and declared that whatever the “chief” said was absolute and unquestionable truth. Now, it seems the “chief” has ordered that his “piece of paper speech” be removed from the official Web site of the armed forces, leaving Baykal to ask why the issue was not illuminated in the past four-and-a-half months and why the document was only disclosed recently.The only declaration the General Staff made, once again on its Web site, claimed that “the fact that the document was made public by the media and not by the prosecutors is found meaningful and worrisome.”
I wonder what “meaning” is found in this “meaningfulness.”
There are several individual and institutional acts in the process of disclosure of this particular document. Let’s see what is meaningful in this process.
Somebody somewhere ordered the preparation of this document, and somebody prepared the document. Whether it was prepared in order to make it public and undermine the credibility of the army or whether it was prepared for what is written in it is a separate question. A photocopy of the document was made public and the military judiciary decided that since the original was not at hand, it would be impossible to confirm the authenticity of the document. The case was dropped. Now, what is meaningful here?
Even after a photocopy of this document was revealed to the media and during and after the case in the military court, somebody knew that this document existed somewhere in a box and he or she did not inform the court, the prosecutors or the media. What is meaningful here?
It was revealed that the colonel who allegedly prepared the document intentionally or unintentionally changed his signature during the interrogation process. He was not suspended from duty. High-ranking generals declared their full-fledged support for the colonel, “to the end.” What meaningful message can we extract here?
Somebody somewhere managed to find/acquire/steal this document from the box it was in. S/he thought about what to do with it. Thinking that it would be illegal/unwise to get rid of the document without revealing it to the prosecutors/the media/the public, s/he decided to send this document to somebody. Now, who should s/he send the document to? This person knew that high-ranking army generals already unconditionally supported the colonel. S/he knew the military court was already not willing to investigate the case and that the judges in the military court were under the rule and order of the General Staff. This person knew it was only through the pressure of the media that the army and the courts were mobilized in this country to secure justice. S/he decided to send the document to civilian prosecutors and either this person or somebody in the office of the civilian prosecutors thought that without the support of the media and the general public, they would not be able to duly investigate the case. Now, what is meaningful here?
The document was sent to a particular media organ and that newspaper decided to publish it. The General Staff decided to investigate -- not the content and preparation of the document, but the “leaking” of the document. What a meaningful act!
I find the fact that my armed forces load meanings onto journalistic acts very meaningful and worrisome.
Benzer Haberler 
