“the public authorities are obliged to provide every kind of information and documents to those who ask them in accordance with the principles of equality, impartiality and openness which are requisites of transparent and democratic administration in accordance with article 4 of the Right to Information Act.”

The Ministry of Finance received the judgment of the 4th Administrative Court on 24 April 2007. Subsequently, on 11 May 2007 the Ministry of Finance appealed with a stay of execution request. On 20 June 2007, the 10th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the stay of execution request of the Ministry of Finance. On 31 July 2007, the applicants applied to the Ministry of Finance with a request of the execution of the judgment of the 4th Administrative Court of İzmir. On 29 August 2007, the Ministry of Finance sent a letter to one of the applicants stating that the appeal case at the 10th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court had not yet been concluded. The Ministry argued that once the notification was received by the Ministry of Finance the necessary action would be taken.

On 29.08.2007, the 10th Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal of the Ministry of Finance concerning the rejection of the request of a stay of execution decision about the judgment of the 4th Administrative Court of İzmir. On 20 September 2007, the applicants once again applied to the Ministry of Finance with a request of the execution of the judgment of the 4th Administrative Court of İzmir. The applicants stated in a petition that the agents of the Ministry have been deliberately blocking the use of the law by not acting in compliance with their duty. The applicants stated that the agents should be prosecuted in accordance with article 237/1 of Turkish Penal Code (negligence of public agents). The applicants argued that subject to section 28, entitled Consequences of Judgments, of the Administrative Procedure Code, (Law no: 2577), the administration must take the necessary actions required by the judgments and stay of execution orders given by the Council of State, regional administrative courts, administrative and tax courts without delay. According to the Administrative Procedure Law, this period can under no circumstances exceed thirty days from the notification of the decision to the administration. However, in the actions concerning the implementation of distraint and sequestration, the act shall be implemented by the administration after the judgment becomes final. The Ministry of Finance did not comply and refused to answer to the applicants’ petition.

Although the Ministry of Finance received the decision of 4th İzmir Administrative Court in April 2007, it did not comply with the decision by September 2007 and refused to provide the requested information. As of writing (May 2008) the Ministry of Finance has not provided the requested information to the applicants. As the applicants had exhausted the domestic ways in connection with their complaints, they took their case and complaint once again to the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants argued an article 6 violation with regards to the non execution of the judgment of 4th İzmir Administrative Court which violates the fair trial clause of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicants alleged that the State party has repeatedly violated article 6(1) of the Convention by not complying with the requirements of the Right to Information Law as well as the judgment of the 4th Administrative Court of İzmir. The applicants also claimed an infringement of article 10 as their right to receive information under the Right to Information Act was denied despite a Council decision and an Administrative Court decision in their favour. The applicants referred to the European Court’s recent decision in the case of Sdruženi Jihočeské Matky v. Czech Republic, which for the first time explicitly recognized application of Article 10 in cases of a rejection of a request for access to public documents. Finally, as the application of the Right to Information Act was rendered null and void by the public authority’s lack of compliance, the applicants claimed an article 13 violation. This second ECHR complaint was lodged with the Strasbourg court on 25 September 2007 and an admissibility decision is yet to be issued.

The long Bergama saga shows how difficult it can be to obtain information under the Right to Information Act in Turkey as well as difficulties to enforce the decisions of the Turkish Right to Information Review Council, and administrative courts. On the one hand, the applicants in the Bergama saga should be applauded for their determination to obtain the requested information from a public authority and for taking their cases to the European Court of Human Rights. On the other hand, resistance to disclose information by the Ministry of Finance despite a decision of the Council to the contrary approved by an Administrative court should be condemned.

Such a resistive action sends the wrong message in terms of transparency, openness, and democratic values in Turkey. On the contrary, it shows to other public authorities that the Turkish Right to Information Review Council lacks teeth and is incapable of enforcing its judgments, and so far the Council has done nothing to ensure that its decisions are not ignored by public authorities. For example, the Council itself could have taken judicial action by appealing to an administrative court on the behalf of the applicants. It could have sought political action and an inquiry could have been initiatied at the Prime Ministry or Parliament level. The Council could have also made recommendations in terms of amending the existing law so as to enforce its judgments. However, the actions of the Council seems to be politically motivated and the Council prefers to keep silent in terms of serious problems of compliance, and prefers to keep out of the dispute between the applicants and the public authorities once it lays down its decisions.

The above examples also show that despite judicial review and court action at administrative courts, a number of public authorities still do not comply with right to information requests and it has been documented that they do not disclose the requested information. Subsequent complaints and requests for criminal investigations through the State Prosecutors’ Office lead to nowhere. Article 29 complaints in terms of civil servants for crime of duty abuse within the public authorities are also largely ignored, or lead into no punishment or internal investigation.

Subsequently, during March 2005 the applicants appealed to the Right to Information Assessment Council. In June 2005, the Council issued its decision in favour of the applicants and rejected the reasons raised by the Ministry of Finance. The Council decided that 12 out of the 14 questions should have been answered and the requested information should have been provided to the applicants. The Council, in its decision, rejected the confidentiality arguments put forward by the Ministry of Finance by stating that the Ministry is under obligation to provide the information requested under the Right to Information Act 2003. According to the Council, article 5 of the Tax Procedure Law is not compatible with the subsequently enacted Right to Information Act. Article 5(2) of the Right to Information Act states that “the contradictory provisions of other codes [and laws] can not be applied after the date this law came into force.” According to the Council, article 5 of the Tax Procedure Law is one of those inapplicable provisions and cannot be used as an excuse to deny information to the applicants. Based on the principles of openness and transparency, the Council unanimously held that there was no legitimate excuse in not disclosing the information requested and this kind of information should be in the public domain, and is in close interest of the public.

Although it was expected that the Ministry of Finance would comply with the Council decision, the Ministry decided not to comply and the applicants were denied information for the second time in July 2005. In their response letter, the Ministry cited the same excuse based on article 5 of the Tax Procedure law. The applicants contacted the Right to Information Assessment Council for the second time on 27.07.2005 and informed the Council that the Ministry of Finance was ignoring its decision and was not complying with the Right to Information Act.

In August 2005, the Council issued a statement by writing to the applicants and stated that there was no need for the Council to render another decision on the same topic. The Council advised the applicants to submit a complaint petition against the responsible civil servants to the Ministry of Finance and ask the Ministry to take disciplinary action under article 29 of the Right to Information Act. Furthermore, the Council advised that the applicants can file a criminal complaint petition to a competent State Prosecutor’s Office against the responsible civil servants. The Council also reminded that the applicants can take an action before an administrative court in order to review the actions of the Ministry of Finance.

The applicants took an action before the Ankara Administrative Court for a judicial review of the decision of the Ministry of Finance dated 13.07.2005 No. 32509. Furthermore the applicants requested the court to issue a stay of execution decision as to the denial of information decision of the Ministry of Finance on the grounds that the information requested was in the public interest. On 04.05.2006 the 4th Administrative Court of Ankara rejected the applicants’ stay of execution request.

On 07.09.2005 the applicants filed a complaint petition against Mr. Savaş Balkan who is the highest civil servant of the Group Presidency of the Revenue Administration of Ministry of Finance on the grounds that Mr. Balkan committed a crime of duty abuse by not complying with the decision of the Council and by violating the provisions of the Right to Information Act by not disclosing the information requested. The complaint petition was sent to the head of the Ministry of Finance. However, this complaint action led to nowhere as a non-prosecution decision was issued by the Presidency of the Revenue Administration on 06.12.2005. However, the applicants appealed against the decision not to prosecute before the Ankara Regional Administrative Court on 20.12.2005. The applicants pointed out the value of rule of law and democratic culture in a democratic society where citizens have access to information without any unnecessary criteria. On 08.05.2006 the Ankara Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal application without giving any reasoning for the questions raised by the applicants. Therefore, there were no punishment or investigation in terms of the highest civil servant who was responsible for the non-disclosure of the requested information.

The dismissal decision of the regional Administrative Court is absolute in nature in accordance with the Turkish domestic law. In other words, the applicants exhausted the domestic ways in connection with their complaints, and decided to take their case and complaint to the European Court of Human Rights by arguing an article 6 violation as they were obstructed to access a fair and just court trial.

The applicants alleged in their European Court of Human Rights application that the Turkish Administrative court, without making any merit examination about the applicants’ allegations, endorsed the decision of the institution where the suspect is employed. The applicants allege that the Regional Administrative Court without holding any hearing or requesting any observation from the applicants issued its judgment. The applicants argued that the administration and the judicial system have to issue their decisions by referring to the facts and the questions raised by parties in order to enable them to understand why their application is dismissed. The applicants also alleged that the current Turkish system concerning the investigation and prosecution of civil servant does not have impartial and independent standards. Therefore, the applicants alleged that the current system concerning the investigation and prosecution of the civil servants is absolutely ineffective. Accordingly the applicants state that article 13 of the European Convention was violated by the State Party. The applicants also argued that they were well aware of the tendencies of the government and of its agents in protecting the operations of the mine in Bergama. The application concerning Özkan and Others v. Turkey was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 03.10.2006 and an admissibility decision is yet to be made.

(Via Today’s Zaman, your gateway to Turkish news :: News.)

According to a report on queries made by individual citizens to public agencies in 2007 prepared by the Prime Ministry’s Council on Information Acquisition (BEDK), higher judicial organs have been the most resistant of all state institutions to comply with a law governing the right to information.

Those agencies reluctant to respond to requests for information in the first few years after the law’s enactment were much more responsive to queries in 2007. Another report released in May of this year compiled by Yaman Akdeniz, a senior lecturer in law at the University of Leeds, assessing the implementation of the Right to Information Act, agrees that agencies have been more responsive, but highlights that resistance still remains in place.

The most notable example, however, is undoubtedly the Constitutional Court, which received 3,389 requests and rejected 2,367 of them. None of the inquirers appealed the court’s rejection. Nearly 1 million requests were made to public agencies across the country last year and only about 7 percent were rejected. The Constitutional Court’s rejection rate last year stood at 69.8 percent.

The Supreme Court of Appeals rejected all 154 inquiries made to it last year and the Council of State rejected 115 out of 146 requests. The law went into force on April 24, 2004 as a necessary means to ensure a democratic and transparent administration. The BEDK was set up when several agencies refused to respond to queries from citizens.

Under the law, if an agency refuses to respond to a request for information, the inquirer has the right to appeal the agency’s refusal by turning to the BEDK, which decides whether an agency can provide the information sought or not.

Akdeniz’s report, released in May, incorporates data and research gathered between 2004 and 2008. It suggests that higher numbers of right to information requests in the latter years after the law went into force suggest broader awareness of the existence of the law and the right to information and access to official documents in Turkey. However, the right to information is not being completely complied with, Akdeniz’s report found.

At the time of the release of the report Akdeniz said: “Although the enactment of the Right to Information Act is a very important step towards openness, transparency and democratization, the report has identified several problems with the application of the law. As the report will show, despite the BEDK’s decisions and administrative court orders, resistance to give information remains and a high number of public authorities dispute the council’s decisions either by ignoring them or by appealing to administrative courts to challenge them. Therefore, there needs to be significant improvements to the current system to break down the culture of secrecy and resistance to provide information.”

Akdeniz, a freedom of information activist since 1998, is also the co-founder of the BilgiEdinmeHakki.org lobby group, which has monitored the implementation and application of this law since 2003. The full report can be acquired from their Web site.

The BEDK report

According to the BEDK report released last week, 395,557 queries were made to public agencies around the country in 2004 compared to a total of 998,442 applications demanding information in 2007. About 5 percent of the queries were denied an answer in 2004 and 7 percent in 2007.

The report found that the attitude of security-related institutions was changing positively on the right to information. For example, the National Intelligence Organization (MİT), which put up some resistance in the beginning, was one of the most responsive public agencies last year. No queries were made to the Military High Administrative Court and the Military Supreme Court of Appeals. The Constitutional Court received 3,389 queries while the General Staff received 8,405 requests for information. Only 89 requests were made to the National Security Council (MGK), a sharp fall from 128 queries in 2004 when the MGK had not yet been reformed to become a more civilian institution.

The General Staff responded to 6,100 out of the 8,405 queries it received, partially responded to 91, refused to respond to 1,654 and redirected 549 to other public agencies. Only four inquirers appealed rejected queries last year. In comparison, of the 2,017 requests made in 2004 to the General Staff, only 278 inquiries received a response, 365 received a partial response, 139 were rejected and 638 were unanswered, with the involved agency citing classified or sensitive information as the reason.

In 2007 MİT replied to 2,388 queries out of the 3,398 it received. It gave a partial response to 85 and refused to give any information at all to 837 queries. It redirected 88 queries to other public agencies. In 2004 MİT replied to 4,260 out of 6,185 questions and rejected 1,797.

In 2007 Parliament received 1,865 queries, 18.5 percent less than the year before. Nearly 70 percent of these queries received a full response while 17 percent were rejected. Parliament redirected 228 queries that should have been addressed to other institutions to the relevant public agencies.

Allegations that the government bugged Republican People’s Party (CHP) Secretary-General Önder Sav’s private office without authorization were proven false when the daily that sparked the controversy revealed the source of the conversation transcript the CHP had based its accusations on.

Politician: What is the political atmosphere like in Bolu?
Governor: Your job is not that easy. However, it wouldn’t be right to give up just because it is difficult.

Politician: Do you have the determined and careful human resources required to facilitate the political formation that will win the public over in the town?

Governor: Yes, we do, albeit small. It is necessary to know that we don’t have many people.

Politician: How do you view Bolu, in particular from the political perspective? What can be done?

Governor: Bolu’s base is the Republican People’s Party [CHP]. We can see that the CHP’s votes are growing — particularly in local elections. If a large group is established in Bolu, things could change for the better for the CHP to such an extent that the CHP may well win the elections.

This dialogue is from a conversation that took place between Önder Sav, the CHP secretary-general, and Mehmet Ali Serindağ, the former governor of Bolu, who has been relieved of duty through a recently enacted bylaw on governors. I should first of all note that this type of relationship and conversation should never take place between a political party official and the highest-ranking bureaucrat who represents the state in his province. It’s impossible for us to approve of either this dialogue or relationship. An understanding of public administration based on impartiality and a democratic culture never allow for such a relationship or dialogue.

Being a high-ranking CHP official, Sav’s conversation with a governor who is still in office as if this governor was a party official from the province and the governor sincerely adopting this role reveals the level of the symbiotic relationship known to exist between the CHP and the bureaucracy. If we remember that this party’s past is riddled with fascist practices such as appointing governors from among those who were also the heads of party organizations in the provinces, the gravity of the situation increases.

Without a doubt, these conversations cater to the suspicions and the claims that the CHP has ties to the bureaucracy, the judiciary and the military. It is a prevalent opinion that the CHP, which has repeatedly failed to win the right to represent people democratically by losing one election after another, has the power to mobilize all the military, civil and bureaucratic elements in line with its own political agenda. This is a valid enough reason for the public to anticipate a statement from the CHP regarding its deep reach into the state, particularly after the exposure of the above conversation, because this type of relationship evokes memories of the CHP despotism which is still fresh in our social memory, while strengthening the doubts that all the recent undemocratic bureaucratic and judicial interventions into the democratically elected political power have been made through the coordination of the CHP.

On the other hand, however unacceptable the content of this dialogue between CHP Secretary-General Sav and former Bolu Governor Serindağ may be, the coverage given to this dialogue in newspapers — in whatever fashion it may be — is unacceptable in terms of our democratic culture and individual rights. All illegitimate acts, such as illegal wiretapping, which violates the privacy of people and institutions, deserve — as much as the CHP’s illegitimate pretension to be the political power not based on public support — to be condemned in the harshest way possible.

However, I should not fail to note that the CHP’s statement that Sav’s office was wiretapped is but an unproven claim, because nothing so far has been found during efforts to uncover the source. This being the case, the CHP’s attempt to stir up winds of political terrorism and to transform the situation into a regime crisis based solely on its own claims is completely incomprehensible. What is currently in our hands is nothing but the conversation, which proves the constantly mentioned deep and organic bonds between the CHP and bureaucrats. And the authenticity of this conversation was proven by a speech delivered by CHP leader Deniz Baykal during a press conference held on Wednesday. Much as we can’t approve of the way it was obtained, we can comfortably state that this conversation has made it into the annals of history. With the exception of this concrete proof, the statements of the CHP, the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and the government do not go beyond being claims. Who is right or wrong will be determined at the end of the investigation launched by the chief prosecutor’s office.

Conversely, the claim of the Vakit newspaper, which has become a party to the incident by publishing the Sav-Serindağ dialogue, is not based on wiretapping. They say that they directly listened to the dialogue through a mobile phone conversation which Sav forgot to end. Executives at Vakit noted that they can prove their claim using Türk Telekom records upon a request by the chief prosecutor’s office.

It’s of utmost importance to state at this point that if it is found out in the investigation that the statements of Vakit executives are true, there will be no choice left for Baykal, who has left nothing negative unsaid and has slandered the government, the police and a certain segment of society, but to apologize and resign in a dignified way. We will see whether Baykal and his close staff will resign with dignity or continue doing politics at the cost of trampling it.

The wiretapping of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) headquarters is a very grave situation despite the ruthlessness, rashness and inconsiderateness of CHP leader Deniz Baykal’s statement about it. The duty of taking the very first action is incumbent on the government and the judiciary.

It is a clear that the CHP doesn’t pursue the illegal activities in the state surrounding Ergenekon-type criminal formations. It is also clear that Mr. Baykal sends his salutations to Ergenekon suspects from under Parliament’s roof and supports them, that he disregards the Şemdinli case. It is obvious that he is not concerned with the fact that the Hrant Dink murder had been known beforehand, with the connection between the hand grenades thrown at the Cumhuriyet newspaper and the Council of State murder, with the coup attempts named Ayışığı and Sarıkız or with anything illegal and any contraventions of law committed against the state.

So be it. Let the CHP play the democrat only in regard to what concerns itself. However, now the real democrats — those real democrats who are not democratic only toward themselves — should stand up to this inhuman practice and should insist that the perpetrators be exposed and brought to justice. The rule of law is a necessity for everybody. One of the obstacles hampering our democratization process is infringements upon people’s private lives. Perpetrating the worst type of backbiting by prying into people’s mistakes, faults, and embarrassing imperfections and then revealing them to millions of people through the media can never be condoned or tolerated. Nobody can say, ‘Oh, they asked for it!’ Yes, it is also true that the CHP is trying to pursue political interests in this situation. Accusing ‘the deep state in the AK Party’ and turning a blind eye to the real deep state is enough to show the aim of the CHP is ‘eating grapes while beating the tar out of the winegrower.’

Actually, who was the CHP wiretapped by?

One of the most striking answers to this question has been given by Professor Mahir Kaynak, a former intelligence chief of the National Intelligence Organization (MİT): ‘This is a plot devised against the AK Party. Let’s presume they did wiretap the CHP; they would have hidden that. They would never say, ‘O people, know that we have been wiretapping the CHP!’ This is nonsensical. Operations are being carried out in the country. The real problem is that the society and the elites buy into such stuff.’

There is another aspect of the matter. Some people who always await such opportunities just jump at them and start asking questions such as, ‘Have the police formed a special wiretapping unit? And are the members of this unit affiliated with a certain religious congregation?’ in their publications to send a message to certain segments of society, confuse people and establish targets. Particularly while the glorious wind of the Turkish Language Olympics is moving, exciting and encouraging the entire nation, they are trying to cast a blight on the people of the heart committed to the cause of serving humanity.

They perpetrate this same thing remorselessly and heinously every time an important incident hits the headlines across the country. The Şemdinli prosecutor writes an indictment, and here they are, saying, ‘This prosecutor grew up in the ‘enlightenment houses’ of the Gülen movement.’ Certain Web sites carry out the most despicable denigration campaigns against the top-ranking officer of our armed forces and some newspapers, in a most contemptible and dishonorable manner, run news articles claiming, ‘These sites are controlled by such and such congregation.’ Today, we all know from the chief of general staff’s statements who these despicable denigration campaigns are operated by. The security forces have been risking their lives, tirelessly carrying out operations against the Ergenekon criminal network, and the same newspapers label them as ‘the units of the congregation within the police.’

And now there is this wiretapping incident. The same newspapers and TV stations have started spreading misinformation again by making publications or broadcasts that begin with, ‘The congregation members in the police.’ The slanders in these media organs have been refuted by courts thousands of times over. The slanderers have been fined and sentenced. If those who make these claims are honest people and really support the supremacy of the truth, why are they not questioning the fact that the necessary legal steps are not being taken? This is my first question. Right, this country has many other intelligence agencies in addition to the intelligence bureau of the police department; it has MİT, JİTEM and there is also military intelligence. Why on earth is the state not taking any legal action against these accusations against innocent people? This is my second question.

Casting a shadow on innocent people is as immoral and merciless an act as the immoral and illegal act of wiretapping. Extrajudicial execution is a nauseating media practice.”

Unusual things are happening in Turkey. At a time when the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) closure case is being reviewed at the Constitutional Court, one of the 11 members of the court met with Turan Çömez. Who is Çömez?

He is a former AK Party member who left the party on unfriendly terms and has been making offensive remarks and statements directed at the leader of his former party. Is it proper that Constitutional Court member Osman Paksüt appeared in the same place as this person? It is at least politically incorrect.

Çömez held another meeting with Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Deniz Baykal following the meeting with Paksüt. His political traffic is busy. Something serious took place amid these interesting developments. Paksüt and his wife asserted that they were being chased and that they were wiretapped; subsequently, they called the Ankara police chief to the scene. The allegation is fairly serious. However, some time later, the Paksüt family preferred to remain silent on the matter. Why? It has become apparent that there was no incident of chasing or wiretapping. Another police officer who was at the scene of the alleged incident asked whether Paksüt’s wife would use a parking spot; otherwise he intended to do so. The police do not even recognize the Paksüt family. Interior Minister Beşir Atalay, who initiated a thorough investigation into the incident, underlines that everything was under control in regard to the matter and that there remained no single question unanswered. In a press conference, he said everything is clear on the matter. Who cares? While the police were in charge of making an investigation into another incident, Paksüt’s wife made an inference based on the condition of a rear tire on her car, assuming that the car had been planted with a wiretapping device. In this way, she made a historical mistake. The incident has been adequately explained, and some circles are still busy with the fabrication rather than the true details of the case.

Let us move on to the case of Önder Sav. This gentleman made offensive remarks to a CHP member who stated his eagerness to perform the hajj at a party meeting in Elmadağ. A Cihan news agency reporter was also at the meeting. The audience, viewers and even the party management was aware of his presence at the venue. Recently, some papers reported this as ‘secret recording.’ Nothing could be said on this matter. The renowned Hürriyet daily and Vatan, which was recently sued by the chief of general staff for false reports, presumed that the news report prepared by Cihan was a secret record.

The Turkish people expect an apology from Sav. He has failed to make an apology; furthermore, CHP leader Baykal is also hesitant to take steps on this matter. Is it that difficult to apologize to the Muslims because you made offensive remarks in regards to the hajj and Islam? While Sav carefully avoided media attention following the incident, the CHP cried, ‘The party has been wiretapped.’ Here is another bugging scandal.

What was the case? A governor met with the CHP secretary-general at the party’s headquarters, where he put forward his opinions on how the CHP could win in the city where he served as a former governor. A transcript of the meeting was subsequently published by the Vakit daily. So? The party must have been wiretapped for the transcript to be published verbatim. If the allegation is true, the situation is grave. Let us deal with illegal wiretapping, and ask ‘Are you taking this country to fascism?’ We have to ask this question. But what if the essence of the issue is not related to wiretapping? What if the CHP and Sav seek to escape from massive criticism by relying on such actions and plan to put the ruling party in a difficult position? The person who made the speech is known; the speaking venue is known; the reporter who narrated the speech and the whole incident is known. While this is the case, some have accused individuals who had nothing to do with the case. This is not happening for the first time. Some rely on the famous legend of the religious community following every controversial incident to clear their part in the case. Where is the evidence? The owner of the allegation has to prove their assertion. Is it fair to accuse a party of wiretapping and then force it to prove that it did no such thing? What kind of logic can make this kind of inference? It is dishonest to wiretap people in illegal ways. But it is also dishonest to launch black propaganda against uninvolved circles, alleging that they should be held responsible for the wiretapping. This country suffers from fear of bugging; but this bug has taken captive not only some rooms but also some hearts that rely on prejudices and defamation.”

Watergate scenes in Ankara: Who bugged the CHP? - Turkish Daily News May 29, 2008: ” It was two weeks ago when the Constitutional Court’s Vice President Osman Paksüt alleged he was being stalked, and yesterday a political party also denounced security officials for eavesdropping on private meetings in the party’s headquarters and providing the illegally acquired information to an Islamic daily, likening it to a Turkish Watergate.

Leader of the main opposition Republican People’s Party, or CHP, Deniz Baykal claimed that the room of the party’s general secretary was bugged by security forces, and tapped conversations were leaked to an Islamic daily, Vakit, at a press conference yesterday.

Some illegal organizations nestled within state institutions are systematically employing technological means against some citizens. It is obviously the government who controls these actions, Baykal said.

Ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, Vice President Dengir Mir Mehmet Fırat accused Baykal of being paranoid and speaking nonsense, during a press conference.

Fırat said the conversation between the CHP’s general secretary, Önder Sav, with former Bolu Governor Ali Serindağ, which was published in daily Vakit, is ugly talk, and it is a violation of law. ‘We will take Baykal’s claims to court. We will make him carry the burden of his words, and stay committed to this,’ he said.

Interior Minister Beşir Atalay said he ordered the Ankara governor to file a criminal complaint, and summoned prosecutors to investigate claims. We must shed light on this event, if the claims are true, it is a dire violation not only of law, but also of ethics, Atalay said.

The Islamic daily and the formation within the state was unveiled and they were caught red handed. Turkey has never witnessed such an incident before, said Baykal, and compared the event to the Watergate scandal in the United States, when a series of illegal eavesdropping activities were discovered to be authorized by the then U.S. President Richard Nixon, ultimately leading to his resignation in 1974.

The party headquarters were thoroughly searched, but no trace of bugging was found, raising suspicions that the office was being tapped from outside the party’s premises.

Atalay nevertheless criticized Baykal for going too far in his claims. Baykal said security structure is responsible for the tapping. But as yet there is no full investigation. I reject Baykal’s words. If he has some information, he should share it with us, Atalay said, stressing that spewing unfounded accusations is wrong.

If a similar thing happened in any democracy in the world, the responsible minister and prime minister would leave his post immediately, Baykal argued.

CHP takes parliamentary action

Sav said his private meeting with Serindağ on May 23 was published word by word in an �Islamic daily� (Vakit) with the title �As If He Is a CHP Governor.� �I called Serindağ, who was reappointed to the center, and wanted to console him. Our conversation lasted for about an hour, and he left my office. Governor Serindağ called me Sunday and told me that people claiming to work for this daily asked him about our meeting,� Sav said and accused a deep network within the state. Serindağ refused to comment on the event.

The CHP’s acting group parliamentary leader, Kemal Anadol, said his party is preparing a motion of censure on claims of bugging. Anadol pointed to the accuracy of the report in Vakit. �It is published exactly the same, as if they were assembly minutes,� Anadol told reporters. The CHP will take the incident to the assembly’s agenda either through a motion of censure or a parliamentary inquiry, said Anadol. Acting party group member, Suha Okay, urged Atalay to resign, and called on prosecutors to take the necessary action.

MHP is concerned, too

The Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP, voiced similar concerns yesterday. The MHP’s general secretary, Cihan Paçacı, said his party’s officials harbor the same doubts of being tapped. �It must be found out who has these instruments and for what purposes they use them,� Paçacı said, noting that he would support a discussion in Parliament on the question, if a motion of censure is submitted by the CHP.

Interior minister rejects jurist’s claims

Paksüt had shared his suspicions in mid-May on being followed for the past two months. Paksüt’s concerns had drawn particular attention as the court is working on important cases like the closure case against the AKP.

�Mine is not a groundless suspicion. I have been stalked by vehicles of the same type for the last two months. The license plate of one of the vehicles turned out to be fake,� Paksüt had said.

Atalay maintained that it was revealed that no tapping was involved at all in Paksüt’s case during yesterday’s press announcement. ”

(Via .)

Britain Opens Archives on UFO Sightings: “More than 1,000 reported sightings of unidentified flying objects, heretofore kept locked away in the National Archives, have been released. Of particular interest is a 1984 sighting, made simultaneously by several experienced (and sober) air traffic controllers.

”

(Via Wired News.)