Rule of Law: What journalists do not understand in Turkey

Sedat Ergin, a well known investigatory journalist in Turkey, recently published an article on his interception of communications between 2008 and 2011.

In his article the current situation of Turkish journalists' in the face of this issue can be observed: trapped in political oppositions which obscures the necessary foundations of the Rule of Law in Turkey.

His interception of communications was requested by the Security Forces along with a 'fake / encrypted name' to the judiciary and the permission has been taken, which was also, by the security forces, shown as 'surveillance on IBDA-C terrorist organisation', for the legal cause.

In Turkey, as in many countries, terrorist organisations are enlisted by the State. It enables the prosecutors and security forces to do their task for countering the terrorist organisations more efficiently, in the essence.

However, the cases applied to the judiciary and the permissions taken after is usually not controlled by the governments or other bodies which should also be responsible for transparency and security of the public in fact such struggles with terrorist organisations longs usually more than the legal duration of governments between the elections:

What Sedat Ergin does not understand, in his dilemma of being also journalist and a citizen of Turkish Republic, is the employment of the judicial cases of surveillance on terrorist organisations to effectuate mass surveillance.

Sedat Ergin emphasise that it was a libel against him by showing him as affiliated to a terrorist organisation but he can not understand such security operations like surveillance are only managed in the circumstances of terrorist threat. Judicial authority is a must, for such operations and he also suggests there were also interception of communications to him without judicial authority.

In the DPR Germany, it was only Stasi who was holding the mass surveillance, as a central authority. But we have seen, in Turkey, each judicial case for countering terrorism has been employed for target or strategic surveillance and, however, it is only revealed in the case of journalists and only when there is a conflict among the political body, which concerns only the last 5 or 10 years.

If we take only AKP's era, their administration, ministers has changed more than many, may be you can have 9-10 different political party if you sum up. Many judges and prosecutors, security and intelligence officials.

We have no account for the administration and state bodies relation.

All in all, such journalism only 'reminds' us how precious the journalists are and they shouldn't be surveilled by terrorists:

But what about the public?