Which were the operation-banned regions?

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said in a televised interviewed in one of the “pool” channels about 10 days ago, “Here, in this process, our security forces, of course said, ‘Let us not be involved in any clash, this way or that way’ but later on we understood that all through this process they have done this.”

Following these words, I asked him in this column, “Was this not a political order? Or were you under the tutelage of security forces?” 

The president’s state-run TRT speech the other day was in papers Sept. 17, where he said this on the same subject:  

“Within the resolution process, our governors, according to the instructions we had given them, were not engaged in operations in any serious manner against the terror organization as today. They could have arrayed themselves; maybe they would not have continued as like this but unfortunately they did not pull themselves together. On the contrary, during this process, unfortunately, they were engaged in a preparation period; we have evaluated this.”

In other words, the president, with a 10-day delay, has accepted that it was his personal orders to condone the arms and bomb stocking of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) during the “peace process.”  

We already knew that but it has now been confirmed by him. 

The government ordered governors to condone PKK activities and instructed security forces not to make operations without permission from governors.

Now, I am curious and want to ask somethings: 

1- How many times, during this period, did the military and the police ask permission for operations and were rejected? 

2- The regions where no operations were allowed, are they the same regions where the PKK is now conducting its major attacks? 

3- Are there settlements like Cizre among the regions where it was overlooked that the PKK was stockpiling?   

I am sure that the Office of the Chief of General Staff and the General Directorate of Security are keeping files of these. If they release them, we will all learn.

The prosecutor creating perceptions

The prosecutor Selami Hatipoğlu of Istanbul’s Bakırköy district, who started an investigation based on a fabricated piece of news printed in a “pool” newspaper, gave an interview to another “pool” paper.

According to that story, the chief prosecutor said, “Those who are claiming there is an interference with press freedom are trying to manipulate our investigation. If there was interference of the freedom of press then they would not have been able to write these.”

Obviously, the chief prosecutor is in need of a serious education about the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). 

He does not even know that the launching of an en masse investigation for a media group based on fabricated stories is an open violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, a higher legal text for Turkey. 

The chief prosecutor said the investigation was conducted by the anti-terror bureau headed by acting Bakırköy chief prosecutor İdris Kurt.

“Within the framework of the investigation, all the stories and columns in favor of terror organizations PKK and DHKP-C [Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front] published and broadcast in the newspapers and televisions of the Doğan Group are being scrutinized. In connection with these publications and broadcasts, which are determined one by one, their writers and producers as well as top level names responsible will be called to testify.”

I am wondering what they have determined “one by one.”

You will not be able to find not even one such story or column in the publications of this group. 

Interestingly enough, the prosecutor has given an interview to the Ankara reporter of this “pool” newspaper. Why, I wonder. Were there no available reporters in Istanbul? Or could it be that some people in Ankara told the prosecutor to “speak?” I am really curious. 

Normally, prosecutors do not give such interviews or such statements concerning investigations they are conducting. 

With all these years of experience, I can say that there can only be one reality if a prosecutor is talking pedantically about an investigation he is conducting to newspapers: He is not confident of his file. By giving such statements to the press he is trying to create a perception on the justification of the case, trying to create preconception.

Let us wait for the investigation to proceed, then we will all see what is what and what is not.