October, 17 2008, 11:41am EDT
Turkey: Conspiracy Trial Should Probe Military's Role
Historic Opportunity to Tackle Violence by Security Forces
LONDON
The prosecution of an alleged ultranationalist conspiracy aimed at the overthrow of Turkey's democratic government should investigate whether current members of the military, intelligence services and state bureaucracy were involved, Human Rights Watch said today. The trial of 86 people accused of being members of the so-called Ergenekon gang, some of them senior retired military officers, begins on October 20, 2008.
"This case gives Turkey a chance to make clear that it will hold security forces accountable for abuse," said Benjamin Ward, associate Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "But that can only happen if the investigation follows the evidence wherever - and to whomever - it leads."
The 2,455-page indictment alleges that an ultranationalist gang calling themselves Ergenekon (the name of a mythical homeland of the Turks in Central Asia) conspired to create the climate in Turkey for a military coup in 2009 through a campaign of planned assassinations of politicians, journalists, judges and others, as well as civil disturbance and incitement to violence against minorities.
The 86 defendants include senior retired military personnel, convicted and alleged members of the criminal underworld, leading figures from the media, academics, lawyers, and activists from civil society organizations. Two retired top generals (the former head of the gendarmerie and the commander of the First Army) will stand trial later for their alleged involvement in the gang. The case is being prosecuted before Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 13.
Turkey has a poor record of bringing to justice members of the military, state bodies and the government implicated in grave human rights abuses. Most suspected of these crimes have escaped prosecution.
The indictment in the case contains evidence linking the Ergenekon gang to bomb attacks on the premises of the daily newspaper Cumhuriyet in May 2006, and an armed attack in April 2006 on judges at the Council of State, in which judge Mustafa Yucel Ozbilgin was killed. The alleged gang members will also be tried on suspicion of plotting assassinations of figures in public life, including the prime minister, and numerous other crimes. Among those facing trial are former senior members of the gendarmerie associated in the past with covert networks established within the state apparatus and military in the name of counterterrorism in the conflict between the military and the armed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). In previous investigations, these networks were alleged to have resorted to unlawful and extrajudicial tactics, including arbitrary killings and enforced disappearances.
While the indictment concludes that, through these actions, the gang demonstrated its intention to foment the conditions for the Turkish military to attempt a coup to overthrow the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, it also explicitly notes that the General Chief of Staff's office and the National Intelligence Agency (MYT) have denied that the military and intelligence services were involved in the conspiracy.
However, a diary of the retired Naval Commander, Admiral Ozden Ornek, which was leaked and published in April 2007, included descriptions of two separate plans in 2004 to carry out coups. The current indictment makes no reference to the diary, although the Ergenekon gang was allegedly active at the time of the planned coups.
"To get to the bottom of the conspiracy, it is essential that the Istanbul court fully investigate the allegations of military involvement in coup plots, including those in the Ornek diaries, and probe possible connections between alleged coup-plotters and the Ergenekon gang," said Ward.
Critics of the Ergenekon gang investigation have suggested that some of the evidence in the indictment is flimsy and that the arrest of some individuals has been motivated by the government's desire to muzzle its most outspoken critics and opponents.
However, the prosecution and judicial authorities still mostly fail to deal with crimes allegedly committed by state officials and the security forces. They are notoriously lenient toward members of the security forces, and have in the past repeatedly demonstrated insufficient will or independence to investigate the military and intelligence services or to pursue evidence that could lead to the identification and prosecution of members of these institutions who are alleged to have committed crimes.
In hearing the case against the Ergenekon gang, the judges of Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 13 must demonstrate its independence and capacity to uphold the rule of law by thoroughly examining all the evidence against the defendants and providing them with a fair trial, Human Rights Watch said.
Background
The Turkish public learned of the so-called Ergenekon gang on January 22, 2008, when 33 individuals, including retired senior military personnel, lawyers and individuals associated with criminal gangs, were taken into custody. The investigation had started seven months earlier with the discovery on June 12, 2007 of 27 hand grenades and explosives in an Istanbul house belonging to a retired noncommissioned officer in the Turkish military.
The evidence suggests that the grenades were similar to those used in attacks on the Istanbul offices of the daily newspaper Cumhuriyet in May 2006 and the armed attack on judges at the Council of State in April 2006. The investigation that followed uncovered evidence pointing to a much larger conspiracy, including evidence of plans to assassinate the prime minister, the former chief of staff, several members of Parliament from the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party, the writer Orhan Pamuk, and others.
On July 25, 2008, the Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No.13 formally accepted the prosecutor's 2,455-page public indictment. The charges against those alleged to be in the leadership of Ergenekon include "attempting by force or violence to remove the government or obstruct it partially or wholly from carrying out its duties" (Turkish Penal Code, article 312), punishable with aggravated life imprisonment; "leading an armed uprising against the government," "inciting the population to armed uprising against the government," "participating in such an uprising" (article 313), punishable with aggravated life imprisonment for those in the leadership and to prison terms ranging from six years to 25 years for others involved; "establishing or being a member of an armed organization" (article 314), punishable with prison sentences ranging from five to 10 years for membership and from 10 to 15 years for leadership of an armed group, and "providing weapons" (article 315).
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Mistrial Declared in Abu Ghraib Torture Suit Against US Contractor
"This will not be the final word; what happened in Abu Ghraib is engraved into our memories and will never be forgotten in history," one plaintiff vowed.
May 02, 2024
The federal judge presiding over a case filed by three Iraqis who were tortured by U.S. military contractors in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison two decades ago declared a mistrial Thursday after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
After eight days of deliberation—a longer period than the trial itself—the eight civil jurors in Alexandria deadlocked over whether employees of CACI conspired with soldiers to torture detainees. The Virginia-based professional services and information technology firm was hired in 2003 during the George W. Bush administration to provide translators and interrogators in Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion and occupation, conspired with soldiers to torture detainees.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema—who said Wednesday that "it's a very difficult case"—declared a mistrial.
Plaintiff Salah Al-Ejaili toldThe Guardian that "it is enough that we tried and didn't remain silent."
"We might not have received justice yet in our just case today, but what is more important is that we made it to trial and spoke up so the world could hear from us directly," he added. "This will not be the final word; what happened in Abu Ghraib is engraved into our memories and will never be forgotten in history."
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights—which filed the case—said that "we are, of course, disappointed by the jury's failure to reach a unanimous verdict in favor of our plaintiffs despite the wealth of evidence."
"But we remain awed by the courage of our clients, who have fought for justice for their torment for 16 years," Azmy added. "We look forward to the opportunity to present our case again."
Al Shimari v. CACI, which was first filed in 2008 under the Alien Tort Statute—a law allowing non-U.S. citizens to sue for human rights abuses committed abroad—plaintiffs Suhail Al Shimari, Asa'ad Zuba'e, and Al-Ejaili accused CACI of conspiring with the U.S. military to perpetrate war crimes including torture at Abu Ghraib. The men suffered broken bones, electric shocks, sexual abuse, extreme temperatures, and death threats at the hands of their U.S. interrogators.
The case marked the first time a U.S. jury heard a case brought by Abu Ghraib survivors. Along with the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, the prison became synonymous worldwide with U.S. torture during the War on Terror. Dozens of Abu Ghraib detainees died while in U.S. custody, some of them as a result of being tortured to death. Abu Ghraib prisoners suffered torture and abuse ranging from rape and being attacked with dogs to being forced to eat pork and renounce Islam.
A 2004 probe by Maj. Gen. Anthony Taguba found that the majority of Abu Ghraib prisoners—the Red Cross said 70-90%—were innocent. Women and girls were also imprisoned at Abu Ghraib as bargaining chips to lure militants wanted for resisting the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of their homeland. Some reported rape and sexual abuse by their captors, which reportedly led to the "honor killing" murders of multiple women.
CACI denies any wrongdoing and still gets millions of dollars worth of U.S. government contracts each year. In February, Fortunenamed CACI one of the "World's Most Admired Companies" for the seventh consecutive year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Hobbs Signs Repeal, Arizonans Push Abortion Rights Ballot Measure
"We cannot afford to celebrate or lose momentum. The threat to our reproductive freedom is as immediate today as it ever was," said the campaign behind the ballot initiative.
May 02, 2024
While Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs on Thursday signed legislation repealing an 1864 abortion ban, reproductive rights advocates in the state reiterated that fuller freedom over family planning requires passing a November ballot measure.
In response to an
Arizona Republic opinion piece noting that there is no emergency clause in House Bill 2677, the law repealing the ban, "which means it won't go off the books until 90 days after the Legislature adjourns," Arizona for Abortion Access stressed that "Arizonans will still be living under a law that denies us the right to make decisions about our own health."
"We cannot afford to celebrate or lose momentum. The threat to our reproductive freedom is as immediate today as it ever was," the campaign behind the ballot initiative said, adding that only passing the Arizona Abortion Access Act "changes that for good."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prohibit many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient. Arizonans were fighting for it even before the state Supreme Court reinstated the 160-year-old ban.
Even Hobbs recognized that the battle for reproductive freedom is far from over, saying Thursday that "today, we should not rest, but we should recommit to protecting women's bodily autonomy, their ability to make their own healthcare decisions, and the ability to control their lives."
"Let me be clear: I will do everything in my power to protect our reproductive freedoms, because I trust women to make the decisions that are best for them, and know politicians do not belong in the doctor's office," the Democrat pledged.
Her signature came just a day after the Arizona Senate approved H.B. 2677, following its state House passage last month. In both cases, a couple of Republican lawmakers voted with Democrats to advance the legislation—defying not only party members in the state but a national GOP that is hellbent on ending access to abortion care.
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said Wednesday that the Senate vote "to repeal the draconian 1864 abortion ban is a win for freedom in our state" and she was looking forward to Hobbs signing the bill.
"However, without an emergency clause that would allow the repeal to take effect immediately, the people of Arizona may still be subjected to the near-total abortion ban for a period of time this year," Mayes acknowledged. "Rest assured, my office is exploring every option available to prevent this outrageous 160-year-old law from ever taking effect."
Law Dork's Chris Geidner pointed out that "on Tuesday—though technically unrelated—Mayes' office asked the Arizona Supreme Court to stay the issuance of the mandate in the case holding the near-total ban enforceable."
According to Geidner:
If granted, that would push the issuance of the mandate to July 25—90 days beyond the date when the Arizona Supreme Court denied Mayes' request for reconsideration—which would then block enforcement to at least 45 days beyond that, to September 8.
At that point, the repeal law passed on Wednesday likely will have gone into effect—meaning that the 15-week ban would remain the applicable law throughout this entire time—and the expected vote on the proposed constitutional amendment will be less than two months away.
Planned Parenthood Arizona took similar action after the Senate vote on Wednesday. The group's CEO, Angela Florez, explained that "we have said all along that we will use every possible avenue to safeguard essential care for our patients and all Arizonans, and that's exactly what we're doing with today's motion."
"While anti-abortion extremists in the state Legislature will continue to do everything in their power to undermine Arizonans' freedom and criminalize essential healthcare, Planned Parenthood Arizona is taking action to prevent a harmful total ban on abortion from taking effect in our state," Florez continued. "The court's April 9 ruling was both tragic and wrong, but it rested on trying to discern legislative intent. The Legislature has now spoken and clearly does not want the 1864 ban to be enforced."
"We hope the court stays true to its word and respects this long-overdue legislative action, by quickly granting our motion to end the uncertainty over the future of abortion in Arizona," added Florez, whose group supports the ballot measure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOE Investigating Columbia University for Anti-Palestinian Harassment
"Students have the right to speak out against the genocide of Palestinians, without fear of unequal treatment, racist attacks, or being denied access to an education by their university," one lawyer said.
May 02, 2024
Palestine Legal announced Thursday that the U.S. Department of Education has launched a federal investigation into "extreme anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and Islamophobic harassment" at Columbia University a week after the advocacy group filed a complaint on behalf of four students and a campus organization.
"While the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) looks into all complaints it receives, it only opens a formal investigation when it determines the facts warrant a deeper look," Palestine Legal pointed out on social media. "The complaint explains how Columbia has allowed and contributed to a pervasive anti-Palestinian environment on campus—including students receiving death threats, being harassed for wearing keffiyehs or hijab, doxxed, harassed by [administration], suspended, locked out of campus, and more."
"Instead of protecting Palestinian and associated students when their voices are most needed to oppose an ongoing genocide, Columbia has taken actions to reinforce this hostile climate in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," added the group.
"The law is clear, if universities do not cease their racist crackdowns against Palestinians and their supporters—they will be at risk of losing federal funding."
Palestine Legal senior staff attorney Radhika Sainath stressed that "the law is clear, if universities do not cease their racist crackdowns against Palestinians and their supporters—they will be at risk of losing federal funding."
"Students have the right to speak out against the genocide of Palestinians, without fear of unequal treatment, racist attacks, or being denied access to an education by their university," the lawyer added.
Since the filing, which highlighted that Columbia University President Minouche Shafik invited "the New York Police Department (NYPD) onto campus for the first time in decades to arrest over 100 students who had been peacefully protesting Israel's genocide of Palestinians," the Ivy League leader has called officers back to the school for more arrests.
On Tuesday night, the NYPD "violently arrested and brutalized dozens of student protestors, some with guns drawn, using sledgehammers, batons, and flash-bang explosives," noted Palestine Legal, which represents Maryam Alwan, Deen Haleem, Daria Mateescu, and Layla Saliba as well as Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).
Columbia is one of many American campuses where administrators have called the police, who have behaved aggressively toward students and faculty nonviolently demonstrating to demand that their schools and the U.S. government stop supporting the Israeli assault of Gaza, which has killed at least 34,596 Palestinians in under seven months.
The Interceptrevealed last week that OCR opened an investigation into the University of Massachusetts Amherst after Palestine Legal filed a complaint "on behalf of 18 UMass students who have been the target of extreme anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab harassment and discrimination by fellow UMass students, including receiving racial slurs, death threats and in one instance, actually being assaulted."
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)—who has supported peaceful student protests and whose daughter Isra Hirsi was suspended from Columbia's Barnard College for protesting last month—highlighted the reporting on social media and some of the verbal attacks that students have endured.
OCR has opened a probe into Emory University following a complaint filed by Palestine Legal and the Council on American Islamic Relations, Georgia (CAIR-GA), according toThe Guardian. The newspaper noted Thursday that complaints have also been filed about Rutgers University in New Jersey and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Emory spokesperson Laura Diamond said in a statement that the university "does not tolerate behavior or actions that threaten, harm or target individuals because of their identities or backgrounds."
CAIR-GA executive director Azka Mahmood said that she hopes the investigation into Emory helps "make sure that the systems put in place against bias are used for everyone across the board—so we can produce a comfortable, equitable place for Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab students in the future."
The probes and complaints are notably being conducted and reviewed by an administration that has condemned campus protests while arming Israeli forces engaged in what the International Court of Justice has called a plausibly genocidal campaign in Gaza.
After U.S. President Joe Biden delivered brief remarks on the demonstrations Thursday morning, Edward Ahmed Mitchell, a civil rights attorney and national deputy director at CAIR, said his "claim that 'dissent must never lead to disorder' defies American history, from the Boston Tea Party to the tactics that civil rights activists, Vietnam War protesters, and anti-apartheid activists used to confront injustice."
"And if President Biden is truly concerned about the conflict on college campuses," Mitchell added, "he should specifically condemn law enforcement and pro-Israel mobs for attacking students, and stop enabling the genocide in Gaza that has triggered the protests."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular