Showing posts with label fethullah gulen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fethullah gulen. Show all posts

Monday

The Sledgehammer Facts

By Etyen Mahcupyan


Although the Sledgehammer (Balyoz) trial, in which the defendants stood accused of attempting to overthrow the democratically elected government in 2003, was concluded on Sept. 21 by the İstanbul 10th High Criminal Court at the 108th hearing of the case, debates surrounding the Sledgehammer trial still continue. This is why there is merit in summarizing the major developments in the case.
But I would first like to touch upon two important points: First, we see that the court’s decision concerning the sentences of the defendants (especially the low-ranking officers) varies from person to person and is not consistent. The second is that the intricate background of the Sledgehammer (Balyoz) coup plan is linked to many other coup attempts. The journals kept by Özden Örnek and Mustafa Balbay, the Ergenekon terrorist organization, the Council of State attack, the murder of Hrant Dink, the murder of Christian missionaries at the Zirve publishing house in Malatya, the murder of priest Andrea Santoro in Trabzon, National Intelligence Organization (MİT) reports, the statements of the General Staff and the content of documents found under the floor tiles at the Gölcük Naval Base are the major building blocks of this background. It is possible that this picture had an impact on the court’s decision but we need to underline that the picture is “real” and that these are not individual incidents. Now let’s turn to the Sledgehammer facts.
1) In early 2003, a seminar was held at the 1st Army Headquarters and the participants staged a war game. However, the content of the seminar was changed and the participants focused on a plan to eliminate internal enemies under the pretext of external threats. (The prosecutor claimed that the seminar was held without permission from the Land Forces Command, and low-ranking officials provided incomplete or incorrect information to their superiors. On the other hand, the defense lawyers claimed that although the content of the seminar was not approved by defendants’ superiors in the first place, the report on the details of the seminar was prepared and presented by their clients to their superiors.)
2) After the exposure of the Ergenekon terrorist organization, 19 CDs containing voice recordings of the seminar were leaked to the press. The CDs numbered 11, 16 and 17 list the strategies to be used for provocations and sabotage and the names of the officials tasked with these jobs. The other CDs do not contain this kind of information. The prosecutor claimed that these are the documents which were not discussed but used as presentation material during the seminar. They also added that these lists could not have been prepared without the permission of the officials mentioned in the lists. While some of the defense lawyers claimed the low-ranking officials were not sufficiently informed about the plans of their superiors, others have argued that all these documents are fabricated.
Of course these two things affected the court’s decision concerning the case, but they were not the real matter of controversy.
3) Many of the CDs contain information which was added to CDs later on, such as the names of foundations and companies established after 2003. (While the prosecutor claimed that the coup plotters might have updated the information on the CDs, the defense said that this was evidence of a fairly comprehensive plot against the defendants.)
4) There were some anachronisms in the documents which were deemed reliable by the prosecutor. (The prosecutor said that the same anachronisms in the 2003 documents also exist in the other documents described as criminal and that this situation also explains inconsistencies found in other documents. Claiming that these anachronisms are a result of human error, defense lawyers demanded they be separated from the previous documents.) Actually, this observation indicated that the documents were changed, but there was much debate surrounding who changed them. But in the meantime, something unexpected happened.
5) The same documents were on a hard drive which was found hidden under the floor tiles of the Gölcük Naval Command. The password of some of the documents on disc No. 5 from Gölcük was the same as the one for the computer of the major who was in charge of the secret cache in Gölcük. (The prosecutor considered it conformation of the coup plans, but the defense lawyers described it as part of a fairly comprehensive plot against their clients.)
This development supported the claims of the prosecutor because the documents in Gölcük were found in a storage area in the counter-intelligence section of the naval base, where security was very tight, and there was a major who was in charge of the secret cache in Gölcük and had access to many documents. The defense lawyers claimed that security was not very tight in the counter-intelligence section of the naval base and that anyone who had access to the hard disk could have forged any document.
The assumption of the defense lawyers can be considered an option, but they do not have even a single piece of evidence identifying those who planned the conspiracy against the military. This claim is based on the presumptions of the defense. On the other hand, there is the intricate background, a seminar whose content has been changed and computers assigned to specific officials. As for the anachronisms, unfortunately, they do not indicate a conspiracy against the military. They could be human error, as Çetin Doğan’s son-in-law, Dani Rodrik, has claimed, or the efforts of some coup plotters who are attempting to pervert judicial processes.
Now you decide which is more convincing. Is the Sledgehammer plan a conspiracy against the military or a coup attempt prepared by the military?

Tuesday

Dani Rodrik's Facts



Just hours after my article that referred to Dani Rodrik was posted on the Internet, Rodrik issued a response in his blog "Balyoz Davası ve Gerçekler" (Balyoz Trial and Facts). Apparently urged by a sense of duty, Rodrik naturally didn't want to lose any time in correcting my “misstatements.”


At the beginning of the blog post, three hypotheses are stressed. First, he says that the Balyoz (Sledgehammer) plan was not discussed in the 1st Army seminar held in 2003. There are similarities between some of the discussions at the seminar and phrases used in the coup documents, but these similarities "could have been easily introduced by those who fabricated the documents." Second, he claims that Çetin Doğan, the former head of the 1st Army and Rodrik's father-in-law, did not lie to his military superiors about what occurred at the seminar. He ended up going with a version of events that "differed from the version his superiors had asked for," but it "was distributed to his superiors beforehand." Third, Rodrik maintains that the seminar did not refer to a "coup" or "who would come to power following it." All of this information can be found on the evidential CDs.  Rodrik tries to create a protective framework for his father-in-law. He prioritizes the voice recordings about the seminar, but trivializes the evidential documents. At the same time, since he knows this wouldn't secure sufficient protection for Doğan, he not only suggests that those documents could have been planted by "fraudsters," but also attempts to prove that Doğan's superiors have taken part in the crime. He does not address the fact that the “possibility” that the documents in question could have been planted by fraudsters does not automatically prove that these same documents were not created by Doğan and his cronies. Rodrik avoids any discussion of why Doğan's superiors attempted to prevent Doğan from disclosing the seminar records if there is no incriminating content, or why Doğan insisted on his version of the full scope of events or whether he communicated the content of that seminar to his superiors without any change. We should understand why Doğan acts this way: If you set out with the intention of diverting people from the facts, you will naturally not be eager to uncover the facts.

Rodrik's blog post then enumerates various arguments in response to my article. But first let me make a correction: Rodrik argues that the General Staff has acknowledged that they had the originals of some of the Balyoz documents, but that they are not related to coup plans. However, the General Staff had merely declared that not "all" of the Balyoz documents fall within its area of responsibility and that some plans which were part of the Balyoz coup were not in its archives any longer when the court's request was made. It provided the names of those documents that were not in the archives, and in so doing, the General Staff indirectly accepted the fact that the documents that it didn't name could have been in its archives. The General Staff has also not refuted the documents belonging to the major who was in charge of the secret cache in Gölcük. Unfortunately, we don't have any dignified reason for assuming that Rodrik is not capable of correctly reading even a simple General Staff statement.

On to Rodrik's reasoning: We have three interconnected assumptions: (1) "The files on the disputed CDs also exist on the authentic CDs, the veracity of which has not been challenged by the defendants," but the fraudsters could have planted them on the disputed CDs. (2) The documents in Gölcük were found in a storage area in the counter-intelligence section of the naval base, where the security was not very tight. Since many documents could be leaked to the outside, it is possible that some documents could likewise be brought inside. (3) Hard drive no. 5 from Gölcük was not password protected. Some documents were password protected, but coup documents were not. Therefore, he concludes, anyone who had access to the hard disk could have forged any document.

In other words, from Rodrik's perspective, the military has such a poor security system and such an undisciplined and heedless mentality that anyone can forge the military's documents. If they could do it, then we can assume that they have done it. If we can assume this, then Çetin Doğan is innocent. Well, let us suppose that the documents have been forged, but then how on earth is it possible that no military official has realized it? After the forgery, hasn't anyone had access to them? Or is that they have had access to them and realize what's in them, but they don't care? Rodrik fails to follow the trail of his own reasoning, and therefore he feels obliged to rely excessively on the possibility that there could have been an imaginary criminal.

If coup documents were forged by fraudsters, then how can we explain the anachronisms? Rodrik has an extremely humane, tolerant response to this. "They are isolated instances that obviously crept in as a result of human error," he says. Moreover, he says this in an effort to prove that there was no systematic updating of those documents. That is, there was no systematic updating because anachronisms were clearly the result of human error. Supposing that the anachronisms in the 2003 documents were the result of human errors made by the members of the military, how can he argue that the anachronisms in the “disputed documents” said to have been prepared in 2009 are not the result of the human errors made by the members of the military? Based on the anachronisms in CD no. 11, how can he claim that there was a conspiracy against Çetin Doğan? 

Documents Reveal How Military Carried out Internet Campaign

This interesting article is from Sunday's Zaman.

Documents retrieved from computers of the Information and Support Unit of the General Staff clearly reveal how a pro-coup junta nested within the Turkish military, the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), has engaged in propaganda to discredit the government and faith-based groups in the eyes of the people.

The documents are currently being examined by a group of computer experts at the İstanbul 13th High Criminal Court, which is involved in a trial against anti-government websites allegedly established by the military. The General Staff recently sent hard disks of its computers, used by the Information and Support Unit between 2005 and 2009, upon a request from this court. After examining the documents, the computer experts prepared a preliminary report about their findings and sent it to the İstanbul court. The court is now awaiting a final report from the experts.

Weekly news magazine Aksiyon has devoted its latest cover story to details emerging from the preliminary report. According to the report, the documents show that the pro-coup junta carried out three kinds of propaganda against the government and faith-based organizations: white, gray and black. In military terms, white propaganda seeks to inform people. Black propaganda, on the other hand, works to discredit something or someone. And gray propaganda is a mixture of the two.

Special unit to fight ‘harmful elements’

According to the documents, the TSK set up a unit to carry out the propaganda campaign against groups or individuals that the military thought were harmful to its existence. This unit was established in the 1950s and had branches both in the Special Warfare Department of the TSK and the General Staff’s department of intelligence. The documents said the unit did not initially work effectively in the years after it was established, but it began to be more active as of 1980 when the military staged a coup d’état and set up some institutions, such as the National Security Council (MGK), to put the civilian will under the control of the armed forces. The unit was called the Information and Support Unit in 1995. “Even though the unit carried out some effective operative and tactical activities at those times [after 1995] when acts of terror and religious fundamentalism reached their peak, it failed to turn into an establishment to act in line with the national strategy and in the light of science. And its scope of psychological warfare has been further narrowed since 2002 as part of plans to curb the role and effectiveness of the TSK in the social and administrative areas. And the psychological warfare unit [or the Information and Support Unit] has become a formation taking passive measures [against acts of terror and religious fundamentalism] and failing to even protect the dignity of its name,” according to the documents.

The latest activity of the Information and Support Unit of the General Staff’s Mobilization Department is the setting up and running of a number of websites to support the unit’s propaganda campaigns against the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government and civilian groups. A deepening investigation into the websites shows that the unit, led by jailed Col. Dursun Çiçek, established 42 websites to back their psychological warfare campaign against civilian groups they deemed “religious fundamentalist,” “separatist,” “pro-AK Party” and “anti-TSK.” Former Chief of General Staff retired Gen. İlker Başbuğ was arrested in 2012 as part of the investigation.

Documents retrieved from the hard disks of the General Staff also included information gathered by the military staff about the Hizmet movement inspired by internationally renowned Turkish and Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen. According to one such document, the movement is well respected among the people in Turkey because “its followers stay far away from conflicts or clashes with others, serve peaceful purposes, live in harmony with other groups and do not seek to work against the interests or welfare of others.” “There is a widespread conviction [among people] that the Gülen group [as the Hizmet movement is referred to by some circles in Turkey] poses no threat to Turkey,” said the document.

In the documents, the General Staff’s Information Support Unit discussed how to bring the financial sources of the Hizmet movement under control so that the movement would be unable to work. The documents also suggested that a conflict that would emerge for leadership after Gülen dies would lead the movement to collapse.

In attempts to prevent the Hizmet movement from working, the General Staff suggested that its harmony with the US and other countries should be damaged. “The US should end its policy of supporting moderate Islam, documents and required information should be seized and shared with the media to show the real faces of Gülen followers to the people, and a widespread conviction should be created in Turkey and Muslim countries that the movement is controlled by the US and serving the purpose of imperialism,” the document notes and adds that schools and other educational institutions currently operating in roughly 50 countries worldwide should be shut down.

The documents seized from the hard disks also feature plans by the General Staff to launch a propaganda campaign to allege that the Hizmet movement and its followers are the driving force behind some ongoing trials in Turkey that aim to cleanse the country of anti-democratic formations.

“Propaganda should be spread that the news [of anti-coup investigations] is leaked to the media by Gülen followers who are nested in the police force and that there is a large number of senior officers in the police force,” according to one of the documents. The same document also reveals plans to discredit the investigations against clandestine networks nested in various state bodies, an alliance that is often referred to as the “deep state.” “We should spread claims that people captured as part of the ongoing fight against the deep state are indeed too weak to be members of the deep state and that the deep state in fact has nothing to do with those weak people, that Gladio is controlled by the US, that the deep state [in Turkey] was rooted out with Turkey’s alliance with NATO, that groups, individuals and institutions that seek to protect national rights have become [by their opponents] a center of accusations and that the US has helped the pro-Gülen formation infiltrate the police force.”

The General Staff, at this point, sought the help of some media outlets to help it spread those claims. Officers at the General Staff wrote news stories and columns to downplay the investigations launched against coup plotters and the deep state and sent them to some newspapers to publish them as if staff members at those newspapers wrote them. “The said campaigns are being carried out by sending documents to columnists, newspaper administrators, editors-in-chief and civil servants via e-mails that feature an imaginary username and e-mail addresses,” one of the documents retrieved from the hard disks of the General Staff indicates.

‘Less than psychological warfare’

Such activities were, however, not psychological warfare, according to the General Staff. “Having a place in the media [creating news reports and columns published by some newspapers] does not mean launching psychological warfare. Carrying out psychological warfare requires us to make our activities in a manner to impact the opinions, feelings and stance of the target group.”

In one other document, the General Staff complains that websites are not an effective means to carry out a propaganda campaign because it is very easy for computer experts to find out who set up and administered the websites. “The virtual network is an area where covert and semi-covert psychological warfare methods may effectively be applied. It is not appropriate for open methods. For this reason, we are carrying out white propaganda campaigns on our websites. And this decreases the yield we may derive from the websites [and propaganda campaigns]. Websites run by us are subject to bureaucratic transactions, and we always face the risk of being exposed as the administrators of those websites.”

The documents go on to state that the General Staff sought to cooperate with secularist civil society groups and individuals who also oppose the trial against Ergenekon, a clandestine criminal network accused of working to overthrow the government, in attempts to discredit the trial in the eyes of the people. The documents indicate the General Staff should prepare books and brochures about the risk of rising religious fundamentalism in the country and send them to those civil society groups. “In addition, important writings and opinions [denouncing the Ergenekon trial] could be sent to opinion leaders, editors-in-chief of newspapers, leading columnists, civil society organizations and websites of those organizations and deputies,” the documents add.

The End of a Myth

Today's Zaman's Ihsan Dagi wrote a piece about the Sladgehammer case.

The Balyoz coup trial, which started on Dec. 16, 2010, was concluded on Friday.

Most of the 365 defendants have been sentenced to 20, 18 or 16 years imprisonment. With one exception, all of those who have been acquitted are non-commissioned military officers. This shows that the court has conducted a fair and careful review vis-à-vis the low-ranking officers, who might have been involved in the coup attempt unknowingly. Of course, there is also the appeals process, following which the case will be finalized. However, though there might be some modifications to the convictions, it could be said that it is established the crime of coup plotting has taken place.

In the criticisms raised against the Balyoz trial, it is commonly argued that the case was politically motivated. Of course, a coup investigation has a political dimension. In a country like Turkey with a past of many coups, the people know the meaning of coup well. The impunity in past coups had a political dimension which contributed to the emergence of subsequent coups; the effective action against the coups now has a political aspect as well.

It has been possible to raise political discourse independent of the Kemalist elites and military bureaucracy following the rise of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) to power on Nov. 3, 2002. During this process, some coup attempts have been made against the AK Party. The April 27 memorandum and the Constitutional Court's decision on the presidency of Abdullah Gül were of a political nature; they were explicit support by the judiciary of coups. True, politics is everywhere. But which politics are we talking about?

Is it political preference or action to halt an elected government, stage coups and rely on the state institutions to achieve these goals? Is it not a better policy to create a country where these acts would not go unpunished? Support from people who are sick of coups and who have lost sons to the coups for a government backing coup trials is, true, a political stance.

Besides, the defense side has adopted an extremely political attitude and position since the beginning of the case. They have insistently and frequently argued that the defendants were secular and Kemalist military servicemen, and that for this reason they could not be considered criminals, and that they were dealing with conspiracies performed by the AK Party and the Gülen movement. Back then, nobody complained that this approach could harm the case and put pressure on the court.

Of course, the convicted parties have families and relatives; and they are sad now. I wish this had never happened. We are not happy when others suffer out of revenge. But justice should also be served. Had this coup taken place, I would not have written this column. This is very serious. A serious coup attempt was identified, and a competent independent court investigated it. The updated list of names of people to assume roles in the interim government formed following the coup is out there. We have seen this before. By this ruling, the structure of the Turkish military, which generates coups and harbors the pro-coup juntas, has also been convicted. The military would have remained reconciled to these structures if the Taraf daily had not published the Balyoz coup plans, if brave prosecutors had not initiated a process of investigation and if the government had not backed these initiatives.

And this is exactly what should be questioned. This coup mindset might be in decline now after the Balyoz and Ergenekon cases, but does that show that it is therefore completely gone and eliminated, and that it has not turned into something else? I made this point in my previous column. The army has made many mistakes since Uludere, but because the incidents are not properly identified and investigated, we are unable to understand what is going on. I cannot help wondering whether a different method is being tried against the democratic regime.

There is big difference between the submission of the military to the government and a truly democratic military. And the military has not gone through that process of reform. There is reason for us to believe that further coup attempts in Turkey may be possible.

Coup suspect confesses to discussing coup at 2003 seminar

A Sledgehammer coup case suspect on Thursday confessed that instead of an official military plan, three action plans regarding the post-coup period were discussed at a seminar in military barracks in 2003, during which preparations were allegedly made for the Sledgehammer coup plot.
Sledgehammer is a suspected coup plot believed to have been devised in 2003 with the aim of unseating the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government through violent acts. According to the Sledgehammer plan, the military was to systematically foment chaos in society through violent acts, among which were bomb attacks on the Fatih and Beyazıt mosques in İstanbul.

One of the Sledgehammer suspects pending trial, Lt. Gen. Tevfik Özkılıç, made his defense at the 75th hearing of the Sledgehammer case at the İstanbul 10th High Criminal Court on Thursday. During the hearing one of the jailed suspects in the case, Ayhan Taş, asked Özkılıç whether he had sensed the alleged preparations for a coup during the 2003 seminar, which he participated in as an observer. In response Özkılıç said “no,” adding that instead of discussing the official military plan named the “Egemen Action Plan,” a proposal was made to discuss “private matters,” which included a “martial law plan,” a “rear area security plan” and a “state of emergency security plan.”

Özkılıç also noted that he was opposed to the proposal to discuss other issues on the grounds that the subject of a seminar could not be changed three months prior to the seminar.

After the remarks from Özkılıç, retired Gen. Çetin Doğan, a key suspect in the case who is currently under arrest, took to the stand and asserted that he did not demand that the Egemen action plan be completely removed from the seminar.

In response to a question from retired Gen. Recep Rıfkı Durusoy, a jailed suspect in the case, who asked if the Sledgehammer action plan included any actions against the government, Özkılıç said he did not remember and that he did not know if such actions were included.

Doğan had said in a hearing on June 16, 2011 that only the Egemen action plan was discussed at the 2003 seminar.

Another suspect in the case pending trial, Meryem Kurşun, also delivered her defense at Thursday's hearing. She said: “I applied to the military as a sociologist in 2005. I was informed by the military which websites I should follow [anti-government propaganda websites constructed to disseminate propaganda against the government with the intention of overthrowing it with the military], so I didn't have the ability to choose what news to post on the websites. These websites are not my personal websites; I only did what was done by the rest of the officers serving in the information support department of the military.”

The Sledgehammer plot allegedly sought to undermine the government to lay the groundwork for a coup d'état. The military, which has overthrown three governments since 1960 and pressured a conservative government to step down in 1997, has denied that such a plan existed. All suspects are accused of a failed attempt to destroy Parliament and overthrow the government. Such a charge calls for a jail sentence of up to 20 years in prison.

The Cihan news agency reported on Friday that the head of the İstanbul 10th High Criminal Court conducting the trial, Ömer Diken, said that there are still suspects pending trial who did not attend the hearing, although the court ordered district gendarmerie commands to make the suspects available the day before the hearing. In the Sledgehammer case, Article 250 of the Code on Criminal Procedure (CMK) says that a person facing charges that fall under the scope of terrorist activities cannot benefit from any immunity, regardless of his or her rank.

Diken went on to say that the court will take necessary measures for the suspects who did not attend the hearing and the district gendarmerie commands that did not bring these suspects to court on the day of their hearing.

A full 171 suspects are under arrest and 41 who are pending trial attended the 75th hearing of the Sledgehammer case on Thursday. However, 78 of the suspects who are under arrest -- including War Academies Commander Gen. Bilgin Balanlı and former military prosecutor Ahmet Zeki Üçok -- did not attend the hearing. Gen. Levent Ersöz, who is currently in jail as a prime suspect in the investigation of Ergenekon and also pending trial as a suspect in the Sledgehammer case, as well as Col. Dursun Çiçek, who is in jail as part of an anti-government Internet campaign probe and is also pending trial as a suspect in the Sledgehammer case, did not attend the hearing on Thursday.

European court says Turkey’s Ergenekon arrests legal

Europe's top court has said the arrest of chief Ergenekon defendant Tuncay Özkan is legal, rejecting the plaintiff's complaint that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial.
 
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) accepted Özkan v. Turkey despite the fact that Özkan had not exhausted all domestic judicial remedies, but rejected some of his core complaints, including his claim that he was denied the right to a fair trial and the legality of his arrest.

The ECtHR defined Ergenekon as a “terrorist organization attempting to topple the government by the use of force” and said it will wait until the judicial proceedings of Özkan's case are finished. The European court also rejected Özkan's claim that his right to freedom was violated. His complaint regarding the time he has spent in jail will be assessed later in an interim decision.

The European court also said there is “strong evidence” regarding the existence of the Ergenekon clandestine terrorist organization and rejected Özkan's demand to be tried without arrest. The court said Özkan's trial without arrest would make it difficult for security forces to fight organized crime.

ECtHR sources also told the Cihan news agency that Özkan v. Turkey might set a precedent for other Ergenekon-related complaints. The decision is also the first official assessment of the European court with respect to Ergenekon. Ergenekon is a clandestine network of individuals who appear to be nested within the state hierarchy and who are currently on trial for multiple counts of murder and causing public disorder that ultimately aimed to overthrow the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government.

The court said Özkan was deprived of his freedom for being a member of a terrorist organization aiming to topple a democratically elected government. It also added that Özkan seized many documents that belong to security forces, directed a TV channel that broadcast programs designed by Ergenekon and kept a bomb in his own home.

The European court judges also said there are telephone transcripts of conversations between Özkan and military members of Ergenekon that strengthen the evidence against him and underlined that his arrest is legal. The Strasbourg-based court added that the arrest of Özkan by Turkish judicial authorities is based on “tangible evidence” and “legitimate reasons.”

Özkan, the former owner of the Kanaltürk TV station, was detained in İstanbul in late September 2008 as part of an investigation into Ergenekon. The court said Özkan's arrest is not in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The European court also rejected Özkan's allegation that he is not aware of what he has been charged with, claiming that İstanbul police informed him that he was under arrest for being a part of a coup plot and that he had been sufficiently informed of the accusations against him so as to be able to defend himself.

Friday

Where is Paul Williams?

I found an article on Paul Williams, who has long been disappeared. Looks interesting...

Did you notice that Paul Williams has been lying low in the last a few months? Where did he go? His notorious website (The Last Crusade) has suddenly disappeared due to some unknown reasons! Before his website disappeared, he had already been inactive since last February adding no new inflammatory and provocative content about Islam, Fethullah Gulen (and his so-called Gulen Charter Schools) and his radical perspective on some Muslims around the world.

The last unfortunate incident in Norway must have scared some people like Paul Williams, Brigitte Gabriel and Daniel Pipes, because in the last a few years they have been doing nothing but fear-mongering with their boogeyman concepts like Islamophobia, radical Islam etc.

Anyway, Paul Williams' The Last Crusade is now gone even though its blog-type version is still active with some funny narratives. For example, he tried to display a kitsch example of yellow journalism with his false article on Fethullah Gulen. He made some weird claims about Gulen: "Fethullah Gulen has established a 45 acre mountain fortress. The fortress remains protected by 100 Turkish guards and a sentry post. Local residents have complained of automatic gunfire coming from the complex and of a low flying helicopter that surveys the area for would-be intruders."

Of course those claims had to be verified by some upright journalists like Dan Berrett of Pocono Record. He published a rather neutral piece contradicting what Herr Williams had to say. 

Upon seeing his yellow journalism was refuted by the real journalists, Paul Williams, in his blog version of his website accused Mr. Barrett of being deceived by the sweet rhetoric of Gulen comparing the latter to Hitler.

Those reactions really bug me. OK, you were just exposed and what you had to do was to sit still instead of accusing a neutral journalist who did his best to portray a somewhat controversial figure in the United States.

He was also adept in false descriptions as well. He once talked about a Harmony Science Academy, but showed a picture related to Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy. This clearly shows his biased and hate-filled approach about any charter schools like Harmony Public Schools. 

Maybe Paul Williams is busy with the lawsuit McMaster University brought to him. I won't go into detail on this issue. You can find more information on Goose Network website. Whatever the reason, Paul Williams, such a fervent and zealous guy, suddenly disappeared leaving a number of accused people and coined concepts (like Gulen Charter Schools) behind him.

He is more than welcome to return as long as he gives up his old antics!

Wednesday

If Whoever Touched Gulen was Doomed, We'd Be Ashes by Now

Anti-Gülen and anti-Gülen movement books are sold in bookstores throughout Turkey. The books are available at airport bookstores as well.


“A number of things have been published against me; dozens of books have been written. However, I have never done anything to keep an unprinted book from publication.
I only pursued my rights as a citizen by legal means in the face of baseless accusations, slander, and assaults against my individual rights. Even books which were identified as illegal by court decisions and whose authors were sentenced to pay compensation have been reprinted.

“Particularly during the period that started with the Feb. 28, 1997 unarmed military intervention, many books, manipulated by certain parties as part of a psychological war against me, have been marketed. The allegations in these books were no different from the allegations raised in the courts where I was acquitted. These books were even part of the case dossier and their contents were included in the indictments. The value of the allegations in these books is well known by the public. It is clear that it is impossible in this age of information to prevent any publication from reaching readers. It is also apparent that such attempts would only result in greater interest in the publication one sought to prohibit. Personally, I have made no appeal or complaint about the said book or its author.” These are the words of Turkish Islamic Scholar Fethullah Gülen. The book Gülen referred to is “İmamın Ordusu” (“The Imam’s Army”), whose draft manuscript was prepared by journalist Ahmet Şık, who has since been arrested in connection with the Ergenekon investigation, and included a compilation of past allegations that the Gülen movement has seized control of the Turkish state.
Şık shouted “Whoever touches him is doomed” when he was taken into custody; shortly after his arrest, his lawyer Bülent Utku made the following comment: “My client informed us that he was arrested because of a book he had recently drafted that he is planning to name ‘İmamın Ordusu,’ depicting how Fethullah Gülen’s movement is entrenched within the state.”

The party to which Şık’s accusations were directed was now identified as the Gülen movement. On March 3, 2011, in addition to Şık, Ergenekon suspects Professor Yalçın Küçük, journalist Nedim Şener, OdaTV Coordinator Doğan Yurdakul, OdaTV writer İklim Bayraktar, OdaTV writer Müyesser Yıldız, journalist Sait Çakır, OdaTV Ankara representative Mümtaz İdil and Aydın Bıyıklı were taken into custody after their houses were searched. Former National Intelligence Organization (MİT) member Kaşif Kozinoğlu’s house was also searched, but he was taken into custody later because he was abroad. The persons who were detained had allegedly assumed roles in carrying out media activities on behalf of Ergenekon. The İstanbul 12th High Criminal Court decided to confiscate the draft of the book seized during the search in Şık’s house because its publication would “serve the goals of the Ergenekon armed organization and prevent a fair trial.”
‘Şık’s draft manuscript was written to undermine and devalue the Ergenekon investigation’

Police notes, issued on March 16, 2011, stated that a draft manuscript by Şık, titled “The Imam’s Army,” was seized during the search at OdaTV on Feb. 14, 2011. It was also noted that the draft seized at OdaTV was 189 pages long and that a document titled “Ulusal Medya 2010” as well as Microsoft Word documents titled “000KITAP,” “Nedim,” “Hanefi” and “Sabri Uzun” were seized during the same search. The notes go on to say: “A review of the documents revealed that ‘Ulusal Medya 2010’ details the current strategy of the Ergenekon terrorist organization, while the Word document 000KITAP contains a draft manuscript of ‘The Imam’s Army.’ The Word documents ‘Nedim’ and ‘Hanefi’ contain notes showing that a book by Hanefi Avcı, ‘Haliçte Yaşayan Simonlar,’ was written upon instructions by the Ergenekon terrorist organization, and the Word document ‘Sabri Uzun’ includes a note reading: ‘Sabri has reservations about the book matter. Let us try to convince him. The book should be ready before the elections. Nedim will see Ahmet Şık about this matter. Be brave while working on the book. Do not hesitate on making additions to removals from the book. This should be more comprehensive than ‘Simon.’ I congratulate Nedim. He should force Ahmet to work.

Hanefi will get out and join you. Extend moral support to Emin and Sabri. Try to convince Sabri to allow himself to be cited as an author. It should be quick. It should be ready before the elections’.”

The search notes also state that the digital data seized during the search carried out at Şık’s house as part of the investigation included three separate Word documents, ‘000KITAPSON’ (299 pages), ‘Ahmet Kitap’ (301 pages) and ‘KİTAPPPPPPPPPPPPP’ (302 pages), and that there was no significant difference between these three versions of the book. The relationship between the draft seized at OdaTV and the drafts found in Şık’s house was explained as follows: “The draft manuscript seized at OdaTV included a section at the end with the headline, ‘Notes,’ suggesting that these were notes on the manuscript, and it seemed that these notes were relevant to the first two pages in the copies of the manuscript seized at Şık’s house. The police logs kept during the seizure of the drafts also said that the draft manuscript found during a raid of the OdaTV offices did include the part titled ‘Notes,’ but this part was included in a different section of this version than in the copy seized at Şık’s home. There were also some sentences left out in the OdaTV version that were present in the version found at Şık’s house.”

The notes further say that in line with the instructions in the Word document “Sabri Uzun,” seized at OdaTV, members of the organization made additions to and removals from the draft forwarded to Şık. The search notes concluded as follows: “The notes seized at OdaTV, the notes in the draft manuscripts and other evidence reveal that the book ‘The Imam’s Army’ was a product made under the instruction and direction of the Ergenekon terrorist organization and that this work was done actively by Ahmet Şık, Nedim Şener, Soner Yalçın, Sabri Uzun and OdaTV staff as well as other unidentified suspects.” The 49-page review note also stated that the book was a work prepared in accordance with the strategies spelled out in the file “Ulusal Medya,” and that its ultimate goal was to undermine the Ergenekon investigation in the eyes of the public.
The draft seized by prosecutor Zekeriya Öz was uploaded to the Internet as part of a campaign of civil disobedience on March 31, 2011. The uploaders argued that Şık’s book included the assertion that the Gülen movement was in control of the state apparatus. However, Şık’s allegations were nothing new: The book makes references targeting Gülen and the Gülen movement. Some journalists and writers who have been observing the growing interest in Fethullah Gülen since the 1980s have made strong criticisms against the movement of which he is the spiritual leader, with some publishing extremely derogatory books and articles. Was the argument that whoever touches him is doomed? Has anything happened to those who criticized him?

‘I published the harshest pieces against Gülen and nothing happened to me’

One of the most suitable people to satisfactorily answer this question is İsmail Arlı, owner of Togan Publishing since 2003. Arlı owns a publishing house that sent some tapes which he claimed belonged to Gülen to private TV stations during the Feb. 28, 1997 coup. He also published, among a number of anti-Gülen titles, “The True Face of Fethullah Gülen,” which served as the basis for an indictment against Gülen, as well as books by Ergün Poyraz, who is now in prison as an Ergenekon suspect. We asked Arlı: “You are probably the one person to have ‘touched’ Gülen the most. What happened to you?” He has already responded, remarking: “If whoever touches him is screwed, it should have been me who would have gotten screwed first; I should have been in ashes by now because I have published the harshest material against Gülen. I have published the most derogatory books against him. Even the Cumhuriyet Publishing House is inspired by my cover designs. Nothing has happened to me so far.”

Books that ‘touch’ him become best-sellers

Arlı has published many books harshly criticizing Gülen and the Gülen movement and directing serious accusations against them, including Ergun Poyraz’s “Kanla Abdest Alanlar (Those Who Perform their Ablutions with Blood)” (2007), Zübeyir Kandıra’s “Cemaatin Copları (The Batons of the Cemaat)” (2010) [Cemaat is the word used by Gülen’s critics and dissenters to refer to the movement], Serdar Öztürk’s “AKP ve Gülen’i Kurtarma Planı: Made in CIA (The Plan to Save the AKP and Gülen: Made in CIA)” (2011), Ahmet Akgül’s “Küresel Fesatçılık ve Fethullahçılık (Global Evilism and Fethullahism)” (2010) and Eren Erdem’s “Nurjuvazi (Nur-geoisie)” (2011) [from the combination of the word “Nur,” a follower of the religious community that follows Islamic writer Saidi Nursi, and bourgeoisie].

Noting that he has never faced any prosecution or pressure in relation to the marketing of these books, Arlı says: “Kandıra’s book was published by another publisher 13 years ago. I hold the publication rights for two years; we have sold 8,000 copies; and we are still selling it, the fourth edition is in circulation now. We have sold 1,500 copies of Hüseyin Özalp’s book, and 5,000 copies of Serdar Öztürk’s book. Even though it is a new publication, we have sold 8,000 copies of ‘Nur-geoisie.’ It is in its fifth edition. The total number of [anti-Gülen books] we have sold exceeds 30,000.”

Noting that he did not find Şık’s remark “whoever touches him is doomed” sincere, Arlı argues that Şık’s draft included in its first 40 pages many direct quotes from his publication “The Batons of the Cemaat.” After reading a draft of “The Imam’s Army” on the Internet, the author of that book asked Arlı, as his publisher, to file plagiarism charges against Şık.

İsmet Arslan, owner of Asya Şafak Publishing, which published an anti-Gülen book last year titled “Ergenekon ve Fethullah-Yeni Osmanlı Misyonuyla Kürdistan’ın İnşası” (Ergenekon and Fethullah: The Building of Kurdistan with a Neo-Ottoman Mission), says: “We consider some points before publishing an item. Nothing happened to us.”

The ‘curious’ case of Saygı Öztürk

Arlı also noted that Saygı Öztürk was another author extensively quoted in Şık’s draft manuscript. Öztürk, a veteran journalist, “touched” Gülen in his book “Okyanus Ötesindeki Vaiz” (The Preacher on the Other Side of the Ocean) published by Doğan Books in 2010. Öztürk, who also writes a column for the Sözcü daily in which he makes very strong criticisms against the AK Party and the Gülen movement, says that his book has sold 25,000 copies in a year. Öztürk hosts a TV program on the ART television network known for its neo-nationalist orientation, as well as on news station S Haber, a Gülen-affiliated network. Noting that he has never faced any investigation or pressure in relation to his book, Öztürk says: “When I was about to send the draft to the publisher, an old colleague of mine said to me: ‘I have a favor to ask. The conditions are just not right. It would be better if you do not send it to the publisher.’ I told him: ‘You either do journalism, or you don’t. If I have documentation, I do not insult anyone, and I do not take sides, then this book should be no different from any other.’ There has been no problem at all with the publisher.”

Noting that his books are based on evidence and documentation and that he makes sure to speak to the relevant people before publication, Öztürk says he has never been accused of anything except breach of confidentiality. Once his book was released, he received an offer from the Samanyolu News TV station. Öztürk, who “touched” the Gülen movement with this book, explains why he accepted the offer to host a TV program on a channel close to the movement as follows: “At the time my book had just been published, and I got an offer. For me whether it’s with A TV or B TV does not matter. I am hosting a TV show on ART TV right now. I am a frequent guest on a program aired at Kanal D. I am a commentator on a radio program. I am just a journalist. I am doing what journalism ethics requires. I would not think, ‘Well, let me not hurt these people just because I am with STV [the network that owns S Haber]. [Hiring me] was the producer’s decision. I am not insulting anyone; I pay attention to that. I did not make any effort to attract attention and praise. I am in favor of the truth. I am friends with everyone at STV, including the tea server and the cameraman. Just like at other TV stations…just the way I see friendship and love at other channels, I see the same at S Haber. I have no considerations other than journalism. I have never been treated negatively.”

Etyen Mahçupyan: Şık and Nedim Şener’s attitudes support argument that they are part of an operation

Etyen Mahçupyan, who brought the arrests of Şık and Nedim Şener under the spotlight in his column in the Zaman daily on March 10, 2011, wrote the following:

“Şener and Şık have both written and are currently writing books based on documents and information that fall outside of regular journalistic sources. The information they are using comes from one of the shadowy and illegal groups within the state. It is therefore legitimate to ask who the actual writer is. You may write the book by yourself, but what you write depends on the sources that influence and manipulate you. Furthermore, the reliability of the information provided to you is another matter of controversy. … The name of Şık’s book is ‘İmanın Ordusu’ (The Imam’s Army). It is very suspicious for someone seeking to write a book about the Gülen movement and give objective analysis on the role of the movement within the police force to choose this title. It is too provocative and aggressive of a title. This choice suggests that the author of the book has an ideological motive rather than writing the book out of purely journalistic reasons. Of course every writer is entitled to call his book whatever he wants and every title has a function, but this particular case just goes to show that the book isn’t just about journalism. When he was arrested, Şık said, ‘Whoever touches him is doomed.’ A number of books, however, have been published against Gülen’s movement so far and none of the authors of these books have been doomed. This suggests that this is not about ‘touching’ Gülen, but about what you do and whose interests you serve and what group you are a part of when you do the touching. Şık’s reaction unfortunately shows that he does not have an objective stance and that he might have violated the limits of journalism.”

Mahçupyan said that journalist Şener’s words “For Hrant Dink, for Justice” as he was being carried away by the police were unfortunate. Mahçupyan stressed that the case of Dink -- a close friend of his -- had become a subject open to abuse and exploitation and that Şener wanted to take advantage of this. Mahçupyan concluded his column with the following sentences: “In conclusion, the argument that Şener and Şık’s supporters put forth is meaningless. The question is whether their recent activities should be considered proper journalism. And, sadly, their attitude supports the view that they have become part of a larger plan.”

Faruk Mercan: We haven’t seen anyone who writes about Fethullah Gülen doomed in the last 25 years

Journalist Faruk Mercan is one of those who best know the legal process against Gülen in Turkey. He responds to the question as to whether he has experienced any incident where publications against Gülen faced legal action as follows: “Many people, including Professor Alpaslan Işıklı and Emin Değer, the advisor to the General Staff on legal affairs during the March 12, 1970, military intervention period, have published against Fethullah Gülen. Hikmet Çetinkaya alone has written about 15 books. Saygı Öztürk authored five-to-six books on Gülen. Starting in the mid-1980s, journalists started writing books and articles about Fethullah Gülen. If whoever touches him had been doomed, we should have seen at least a few such incidents over this period. No one has been doomed in this 25-year period. Besides, those who argue that they were doomed are not journalists who had shown an interest of any kind in the Gülen movement previously. They appear from nowhere with a book on Gülen. The prosecutor concludes that they assume this task upon directions from a certain circle. And this task is to undermine and delegitimize the Ergenekon investigation. They were not interrogated in regards to the content of the books on Gülen.”

Mercan notes that the evidence held by the prosecutors shows a link between Şık, Şener, OdaTV and other Ergenekon suspects. Mercan goes on to say: “Considering that the various parts of these books were also found on other computers, the question ‘Who wrote the final draft of this book?’ is a fairly legitimate one to ask. Editorial contribution to these books is normal; however, who decided to assign the authors to write these books, why were these parts changed and who drafted the final version of these parts are important questions that need answering. Therefore, the way they wrote these books is not usual. Above all, it is not the content of the books that is being questioned. What is under investigation is the objectivity of these books that the prosecutors say were part of a plot. The goal here is to undermine the Ergenekon case and to intimidate the police officers and judges handling this case. In fact, the actual target is not Gülen. He is used as an argument and a tool here. Even Gülen himself declared that he had no complaints or plans to file a lawsuit with respect to the books.”

‘That book did not befit Ahmet Şık,’ says Alper Görmüş, his former boss at Nokta newsweekly

These remarks by Faruk Mercan may also be considered together with statements by Alper Görmüş, who in 2007 served as editor-in-chief of the Nokta newsweekly, where Şık was also employed at the time. Görmüş, who was strongly criticized after the arrest because he did not stand up to defend Şık, made the following comment on Şık in a book launch meeting held in İstanbul on May 11: “Ahmet Şık’s book is very poor; it is a book of propaganda that includes no new information. I hope Ahmet is released so that we can discuss this. That book did not befit him. There is nothing in it that was newsworthy. However, the masses still think that the book presents extraordinary information, and for this reason the Gülen movement took action to make sure that it was prohibited. This is a big mistake.” Noting that the prosecutor has the right to track the process in the case of Şık’s arrest, Görmüş says: “It is the right of the prosecutor to pursue the trace of the notes on an unpublished manuscript seized at OdaTV. But it was a big mistake that the book was not published.”

Court of Appeals unanimously acquitted Gülen of charges of seizing the state in 2008

In an indictment he drafted on Aug. 30, 2000, then-Ankara State Security Court (DGM) Chief Prosecutor Nuh Mete Yüksel filed a lawsuit against Gülen in the Ankara 2nd DGM, requesting his conviction under Article 7/1 of the Counterterrorism Law (No: 3713) and claiming that he had since 1989 been involved in activities to establish an illegal organization to create a state based on religion by changing the secular state structure.
His indictment included the same allegations voiced by those who today claim that whoever touches Gülen is doomed. The allegations against Gülen in that indictment were as follows: “That he seeks to create a theocratic Islamic dictatorship by imposing Islamic provisions in all systems of the state; that he plans on eradicating the Republic of Turkey, a democratic and social state governed by the rule of law, replacing it with an Islamic state governed by Shariah law; that he would use the youths brainwashed in his schools to achieve this goal; that he is eager to create a support base by relying on the foundations, schools and study centers under his control and on the effective financial power he has in hand using an Islamist ideological approach; that he seeks to ensure that his followers find employment in public posts, including the police department and the Ministry of Education; that he wants to raise youths that hold positive sentiments towards political Islam in Turkey; that he attempts to govern all Muslims in the world by meeting with the pope and that he abuses the secular regime to attain his goals through his movement’s infiltration into state institutions.”

The indictment made no reference whatsoever to any concrete action constituting a crime as spelled out in the Counterterrorism Law. Instead, the charges in the indictment were based on his views in print and visual media as well as his social activities. In other words, his ideas and beliefs constituted the basis for the charges against him.

The Ankara 11th High Criminal Court, in judgment number 2000/124 E-2003/20 K on May 5, 2006, decided to acquit Gülen upon the trials and hearings due to unsubstantiated claims. An appeal was filed with the 9th Chamber of the Court of Appeals, which unanimously endorsed Gülen’s acquittal by the Ankara 11th High Criminal Court on March 5, 2008.

The Office of the Prosecutor at the Court of Appeals objected to this verdict on April 4, 2008, under Article 308 of the Code on Criminal Procedure (CMK), which offers an extraordinary course of law with the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeals. The chamber, however, dismissed the objection by the office of the prosecutor on June 24, 2008. In this way, the acquittal was ascertained and finalized.

Çetinkaya: I wrote what I wrote about Gülen. I have nothing else to write about him

The most serious and protracted opposition to Fethullah Gülen was carried out by Cumhuriyet columnist Hikmet Çetinkaya, who did not even hesitate to depict Fethullah Gülen on the front pages of his books as an American accomplice with an “angry Uncle Sam” portrait.

He authored the following books on Gülen over the years: “Kuzu Postunda Kurt Türkiye’de Tarikatların ve Cemaatlerin Örgütlü Siyasi Gücü, Fethullah Hoca’nın Önlenemeyen Yükselişi” (1996) (Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: The Political Power of Organized Religious Orders and Communities, the Unstoppable Rise of Fethullah Hoca); “Fethullah Gülen’in 40 yıllık Serüveni 1” (2004) (The 40-year Venture of Fethullah Gülen-1); “Fethullah Gülen’in 40 yıllık Serüveni 2-Yol Arkadaşı Nurettin Veren Anlatıyor” (2005) (The 40-year Venture of Fethullah Gülen-2: His Best Friend Nurettin Veren Speaks Up); “Fethullahçı Gladyo” (2008) (The Pro-Fethullah Gladio); “Amerikan Mızıkacıları” (2009) (American Musicians).

In legal terms, he was most probably the man who had most frequent legal disputes with Gülen. In these days when the slogan “whoever touches him is screwed” has become popular, Çetinkaya’s visit to the Journalists and Writers’ Foundation, of which Gülen is the honorary chair, is actually meaningful.

Doğan Akın, who covered this visit on July 10, 2011 on the website of the T24 News Portal, where he works as editor-in-chief, uses the following direct quote from Çetinkaya: “They invited me to the foundation; so I went there. We had breakfast for two hours. Jokes were exchanged. Yes, in the past, they made kids [in the Turkish Olympiads] recite Necip Fazıl rather than Nazım, Cemal Süreyya and Atilla İlhan. The world is changing, so we have to change as well. I am improving myself. I am changing. I wrote what I wrote about Fethullah Gülen. I have nothing else to write about him anymore. The guy has been living abroad since 1998.”
Çetinkaya, who stressed in the same piece that he always based his allegations against Gülen and the Gülen movement on court decisions, further said: “No information was leaked to me from the police. I never received information or intelligence from the police or the military. I never went through the doors of the General Staff. They would never call me anyway. I have been writing these things since 1973, but I never received information from the police. I do not know Hanefi Avcı or others. Some of my colleagues, let me keep their names to myself, file reports based on information coming from the police.”

Noting that Gülen has filed a number of lawsuits against him, the Cumhuriyet columnist says: “I won some of these and he won some. In the cases lost, I was ordered to pay fines and compensation. I will write again if there is anything new. I would not write the old stuff as that would be me repeating myself.”

Journalist Doğan Akın, who reiterated remarks made by Journalists and Writers’ Foundation Chairman Mustafa Yeşil, quoting from Gülen, saying: “Hikmet Çetinkaya has always bravely written what he believed. I never damned or cursed him.” He further noted: “We have to think about the Gülen movement and Çetinkaya’s venture. That venture, no matter what we think, says we have to try to understand and at least listen to each other. Trying to agree to disagree will be even better than chanting slogans because democracy does not promise anything more valuable than tolerance of diversity. And everything that is solid is evaporating.”

Because it was out of business, we could not ask Günizi Yayıncılık, which published Çetinkaya’s books, whether they faced repercussions when they “touched” him.


Dozens of the anti-Gülen and anti-Gülen Movement books on the shelves

Ahmet Akgül “Küresel Fesatçılık ve Fethullahcılık” (Global Troublemakers and Fethullahism), Togan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2010.
Hanefi Avcı “Haliç’te Yaşayan Simonlar: Dün Devlet Bugün Cemaat” (Simons Living in Halic: Yesterday the State, Today the Community), Angora, İstanbul, 2010.
Serdar Öztürk “AKP ve Gülen’i Kurtarma Planı: Made in CIA” (Plan to Save AKP and Gülen: Made in CIA), Togan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2011.
Nedim Şener “Ergenekon Belgelerinde Fethullah Gülen ve Cemaat” (Fethullah Gülen and the Community in Ergenekon Documents), Güncel Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2009, Destek Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010.
Mehmet Ali Soydan “Devlet, Medya ve Siyaset Üçgeninde Fethullah Gülen Olayı” (The Fethullah Gülen Case in the State, Media and Politics Triangle), Birey Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 1999.
Ali Dağlar “Operasyon Adı: Ağa 01 -- İsmailağa Cemaatinden Gülen Cemaatine Uzanan Bir Davanın Perde Arkası” (Operation Code: Ağa 01 -- The Backstage of a Case from the İsmailağa Community to the Fethullah Gülen Community), Destek Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010.
Soner Yalçın “Bu Dinciler O Müslümanlara Benzemiyor: İsim İsim... Olay Olay...” (These Fundamentalists Do Not Look Like Those Muslims: Name by Name; Case By Case), Doğan Kitap, İstanbul, 2009.
Yusuf Akdağ “Din Kapitalizm ve Gülen Cemaati” (Religion, Capitalism and the Gülen Community), Evrensel Basım Yayın, İstanbul, 2011.
Nurettin Veren “Kuşatma / ABD’nin Truva Atı Fethullah Gülen Harekatı” (The Siege: Fethullah Gülen Operation as the Trojan Horse of the US), Siyah Beyaz Yayınları, İstanbul, 2007.
Merdan Yanardağ “Türkiye Nasıl Kuşatıldı? / Fethullah Gülen Hareketinin Perde Arkası” (How Turkey Was Surrounded? The True Face of the Fethullah Gülen Movement), Siyah Beyaz Yayınları, İstanbul, 2006.
M. Emin Değer “Bir Cumhuriyet Düşmanının Portresi ya da Fethullah Gülen Hocaefendi’nin Derin Misyonu” (A Portrait of an Enemy of the Republic or the Deep Mission of Fethullah Gülen), Cumhuriyet Kitapları, İstanbul, 2000.
Faik Bulut “Kim Bu Fethullah Gülen” (Who is This Fethullah Gülen), Ozan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2009.
Saygı Öztürk “Okyanus Ötesindeki Vaiz” (The Overseas Preacher), Doğan Kitapçılık, İstanbul, 2010.
Zübeyir Kındıra “Fethullah’ın Copları” (The Truncheons of Fethullah), Su Yayınları, İstanbul, 2001.
Zübeyir Kındıra “Cemaatin Copları” (The Truncheons of the Community), Togan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2010.
Kaan Turhan “Ergenekon ve Fethullah: Yeni Osmanlı Misyonu’yla Kürdistan İnşası” (Ergenekon and Fethullah: Construction of Kurdistan Through New Ottomanist Mission), Asya Şafak Yayınları, İstanbul, 2010.
Aytunç Erkin “Fethullah Hoca’nın Şifreleri: Şifreleri Başmuavini Nurettin Veren Anlatıyor” (The Codes of Fethullah Gülen: His Chief Assistant Nurettin Veren Exposes the Codes), Kaynak Yayınları, İstanbul, 2005.
Bayram Balcı “Fethullah Gülen Okulları: Orta Asya’da İslam Misyonerleri” (Fethullah Gülen Schools: Islamic Missionaries in Central Asia), İletişim Yayınları, İstanbul, 2005.
Ergün Poyraz “Fethullah’ın Gerçek Yüzü / Said- i Nursi’den Demirel ve Ecevit’e” (The Real Face of Fethullah: From Said-i Nursi to Demirel and Ecevit), Otopsi, İstanbul, 2000.
Ergün Poyraz “Kanla Abdest Alanlar” (Those Who Perform their Ablutions with Blood), Togan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2007.
Ergün Poyraz “Patlak Ampul” (Bright Lamp), Togan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2007.
Hikmet Çetinkaya “Fethullah Gülen’in 40 Yıllık Serüveni -1” (The 40-Year Venture of Fethullah Gülen-1), Günizi Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2004.
Hikmet Çetinkaya “Yol Arkadaşı Nurettin Veren Anlatıyor: Fethullah Gülen’in 40 Yıllık Serüveni-2” (His Best Friend Nurettin Veren Speaks Up: The 40-Year Venture of Fethullah Gülen-2) Günizi Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2005.
Hikmet Çetinkaya “Fethullah Gülen ABD ve AKP” (Fethullah Gülen, the US and AKP), Günizi Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2007.
Hikmet Çetinkaya “Amerikan Mızıkacıları” (American Musicians), Cumhuriyet Kitapları, İstanbul, 2009.
Hikmet Çetinkaya “Fethullahçı Gladyo” (The Pro-Fethullah Gladio), Günizi Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2008.
Hikmet Çetinkaya “Kuzu Postunda Kurt Türkiye’de Tarikatların ve Cemaatlerin Örgütlü Siyasi Gücü, Fethullah Hoca’nın Önlenemeyen Yükselişi!” (Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: The Political Power of Organized Religious Orders and Communities, the Unstoppable Rise of Fethullah Hoca), Çağdaş Yayınları, İstanbul, 1996.
Aytekin Gezici “İmamın Ordusu Son Sığınak: Dün Haliçte Yaşayan Simonlar, Bugün İmamın Ordusu” (The Army of the Imam -- Last Shelter: Yesterday Simons in Golden Horn, Today the Army of the Imam), Fertif Yayınları, İstanbul, 2011.
Hüseyin Özalp, “Ak Asker: Bir ABD-AKP ve Cemaat Projesi” (White Soldier: An American-AKP and Gülen Movement Project), Togan Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2011.
Alpaslan Işıklı “Said Nursi, Fethullah Gülen ve Laik Sempatizanları” (Said Nursi, Fethullah Gülen and His Secular Supporters), Hasat Yayınları, 2007; Kaynak Yayınları, 2010.