Stop the threats and answer these 20 questions

So why then did Erdogan order legal proceedings now that MiT has been shown, using photographic evidence, as having sent arms across the border?
2. When the article in question was published in the Cumhuriyet daily, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoilu told Agence France-Presse in Kayseri that and”the aid in question was for the Free Syrian Army and the people of Syria.and” (http:www.hurriyet.com.trgundem29154186.asp)
The next day, at an election rally in Ankara, he amended his previous statement, saying, and”Actually, that assistance was headed for the Turkmens living in Syriaand’s Bayirbucak region.and” (http:www.milliyet.com. trdavutoglu-o-yardimlarbayirbucaksiyasetdetay2066874default.htm)
What prompted the prime minister to change his statement the next day?
3. Davutoiluand’s deputy assistant and Justice and Development Party (AK Party) Siirt deputy Yasin Aktay said on May 18, and”Those arms were headed for the Free Syrian Army.and”(http:www.hurriyet.com.trgundem29036154.asp)
So was he, too, misinformed?
4. If the arms were in fact intended for the Turkmens of Syria, why were the trucks heading for the Reyhanli border gate — which is under the control of the Nusra Front — rather than a border crossing closer to the Turkmens?
5. Is it or is it not a crime for state officials to lie to the citizens and to Parliament? And to threaten journalists that uncover this lie? Or, more pointedly, perhaps we should ask which one of these actions constitutes a greater crime, the lying or the threatening?
6. When an action carried out by the state constitutes a crime according to national and international law, is it right to expect a journalist to shoulder the blame? And when a newspaper does not publish the truth, is it not guilty?
7. Were the images of the trucks censored because they reflected the truth or because they were misleading?
8. If in fact what those trucks were carrying was and”humanitarian aid and assistance,and” why the secrecy, when all other humanitarian aid has been sent off with such fanfare by Ankara? If the content of the trucks was in fact just medicine and blankets, why are these counted as and”state secretsand”? Why censure images that might otherwise be a source of pride in the press when shown?
9. The Adana Public Prosecutorand’s Office has begun an investigation into the incident based on charges that the newspaper article shared and”non-genuine images that did not reflect the truth.and” But if these were not genuine images, why was the case based on charges of and”exposing state secretsand”? And if we are talking about secrets, why was the word and”fakeand” even used?
10. The same prosecutorand’s office has begun an investigation into the and”exposing of information that should have remained secret.and” According to whom, and for whose sake, should these images have remained secret? For the people of Turkey? For MiT? For the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)? Who decides, and according to what criteria, that it is in the interest of the state that this information remains secret?
11. Can the seal of a and”state secretand” be used to cover up a crime? When an action is and”criminal,and” is labeling it and”secretand” enough to empty it of its criminal content? For example, could calling coup plans and”state secretsand” be enough to keep them from being exposed publicly? And if such plans were exposed, who would be guilty: the coup plotters, or those who had exposed them?
12. Letand’s say for a moment that the arms in question really were headed for the Syrian Turkmens and not to the Free Syrian Army. Why would a transfer of arms that is legitimate and in accordance with national and international law need to be covered up and lied about? Why was Ankara made so uncomfortable by the images in question?
13. Had the arms in the trucks somehow exploded while being transferred, who would have claimed responsibility for anyone killed in the mayhem? Would the government have found some group on which to blame the incident?
14. Prime Minister Davutoilu has commented, and”It is of no concern to anyone what was on those trucks.and” But, in fact, does he not owe Parliament an explanation, as Parliament is held accountable for these sorts of incidents, and to the people of Turkey, whose lives were at risk during this dangerous transfer of arms?
15. Does MiT really have the duty of transferring arms internationally? Is this a duty that has been clarified by the law?
16. If the arms were really headed for the Turkmens and not to ISIL, does this change the reality that this was an illegal operation? Does it confer legitimacy on the operation?
17. If this arms transfer was really the result of a state decision, why were the authorities of the province in which the trucks were stopped, not to mention the prosecutors and the gendarmes, and even the MiT regional head, not aware of what was going on?
18. When the trucks were stopped, MiT officials presented the prosecutors with this written explanation: and”The goods are ours. This was part of a transfer between units in Turkey.and” Is it usual to see one state unit lie to and present false documents to another state unit?
19. If this entire scandal — including the interrupted arms transfer, the failed attempts at secrecy, the humiliation before the world and so on — not proof of the general lack of MiT capabilities? Does state intelligence really lie in the hands of these cadres?
20. And the final question: Why exactly did Hakan Fidan resign? Did any discomfort he had with this operation play a role?
*This article was first published in the Cumhuriyet daily on Tuesday.

SOURCE: Today’s Zaman