Last week, Chief of Staff General Hilmi Ozkok complained that the army is carrying out its struggle against the separatist terrorist organization with "limited authority." Onen, Diyarbakir Bar Association Head Sezgin Tanrikulu and Professor Doctor Levent Koker from Ankara's Atilim Univeristy talked to bianet about the military demands for "increased authority". They all converged on the opinion that the demands for more authority could lead to rights violations.
"Ensuring security is always difficult in a democratic state governed by the rule of law," said Koker, who believes the current legislation is adequate.
According to Tanrikulu, preventive police forces are authorized to bring violence under control within the rule of law.
The Hurriyet newspaper on August 9 published a news story by Saygi Ozturk, on the reasons for this "complaint." According to that news story, the general staff feels that there are limitations on their authority because;
* There is a requirement for permission from the civilian administration for military operations,
* There is a requirement for permission for conducting searches during routine road controls,
* There is a need to report the number of casualties after a clash and an investigation has to be launched against the security forces if no weapons are found in posession of those who were killed during a clash.
Onen: Such a situation would be worst than military rule
"They want unlimited authority, from searches to operations," said Yavuz Onen. "Such a situation would be worse than military rule. They don't find the current mechanism adequate. This shows where we stand in terms of democratization and transparency and proves that our security is in danger."
Onen argued that if the authority they demand is granted to the army, then the right to access to information, security, and the right of impunity would be jeopardized:
"Most importantly, that would abolish the limitations on weapons usage. That's the most critical issue. It makes the conditions under which weapons can be used uncertain. They say 'if the security forces have used a gun, that cannot be investigated, and no information can be given out.' All these are unacceptable in a country where there are human rights..."
Tanrikulu: In a lawful state even such demands should not be tolerated .
"Such demands by the military show their attitude against the democratization that is taking place slowly in this country," said lawyer Tanrikulu. He continued:
The fact that the civilian administration must grant permission for operations:
"Leaving the authority to the army in operations and completely excluding the governor and the prosecutor would be in a way to hope for help from unlawful procedures..."
Road controls: "The important thing is to conduct the search. With the new penalty law that went into effect on June 1, search can be conducted with a court order, or a written order by the prosecutor, or in urgent cases, the written permission of the police forces.
"All these demands are demands that would create the basis for unlawful and arbitrary executions," said Tanrikulu. "In a state where there is rule of law, even demanding such measures should not be tolerated."
Koker: The legislation is adequate
"Are they trying to say: 'Some reforms were carried out during the democratization period, and these were not positive for us. Now we are inadequate in fighing against terrorism. We went to far in democratization?'" asked Professor Doctor Koker. "The more democracy is improved, the more limitations will appear in combating terrorism."
Onen argued that with the current legislation the security forces do not need additional authority.
Sezgin Tanrikulu once again underlined the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR):
"ECHR has a written history about Turkey... the unlawful executions, arbitrary detentions and the violations of property rights. Turkey cannot remain within the international justice system by ignoring justice." (TK)
