Turkish President Erdogan Vows to Disobey Constitutional Court's Decision on Press Freedom

by Nomad

The Turkish president sends an unmistakable signal about his feelings on the Constitutional Court's ruling about freedom of the press.

In what would appear to be the clearest sign yet of leadership problems in NATO-member Turkey. the nation's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has publicly declared his opposition to a ruling by the Constitutional Court.

The high court's decision- which functions as a Turkish Supreme Court- was related to two well-known journalists who were arrested in November. They were charged with publicizing top secret information about arms shipments to rebels in Northern Syria. 

The journalists, independent newspaper Cumhuriyet's editor-in-chief Can Dündar and Ankara bureau chief Erdem Gül were accused of revealing state secrets "for espionage purposes” and for seeking to “violently” overthrow the Turkish government. They were also charged with aiding an “armed terrorist organization.” 

A UK Guardian report noted that both Erdoğan and the head of the National Intelligence Organisation (MIT), Hakan Fidan were named as plaintiffs in the 473-page indictment. Turkish government prosecutors had demanded life terms, "penal servitude for life" for the two men. 

Suffice to say, these were very serious charges indeed.

The Heavy Price of Reporting News in Turkey

The timing of the Cumhuriyet news reports could hardly have been more unwelcome, coming just 10 days before the June 7 elections. 

The stakes of the elections were high. Held in all 85 electoral districts of Turkey, the elections were to decide the party composition of the 550 members to the Grand National Assembly. The ruling party, the AK, had had a majority in parliament for years, effectively allowing the president to rule by decree. 

The news proved to be a major embarrassment for the administration who at the time were denying all existence of arms shipments.

Chilling the Messenger: Turkish Officials Fine News Channel for Reporting Child Murder Case

by Nomad

Turkish media watchdog agency fines TV news channels for broadcasting "disturbing" news in child murder case. What does this mean for press freedom in Turkey?

In Turkey the ministry in charge of overseeing broadcasting, RTÜK, recently issued fines on two TV channels totalling 500,000 Turkish Liras - or around 175,815 Euros or $241,000. At issue, according to the watchdog agency, was the manner in which news of child abuse/ murder case was covered. 

According to an article in the English-language Hurriyet

Kanal D was fined 342,000 liras while Show TV was fined 157,000 by the Supreme Board of Radio and Television (RTÜK) for their coverage of the murder of a 9-year-old boy in Kars last month.

In that incident, a 9-year-old boy was found dead in the northeastern province of Kars last month. Police arrested a suspect in the case, a man acquainted to the family.

The story explains the rationale behind the imposition of fines for the coverage.

Ali Öztunç, a RTÜK member from the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), said news stories about child abuse created public pressure on the possible criminals but may also encourage criminals to commit similar acts. He said the news channels must be very careful and act appropriately while delivering such stories on TV.

Obama's Dubious Legacy: Intimidation of Whistle-Blowers using the Espionage Act?

by Nomad

It's a sad fact of political reality. Candidates' views change once they enter into office and many of their noble aspirations seem to be left at the door once they take charge. It is related, no doubt, to practicalities of modern politics. Until one is actually in the hot seat, it is easy to be idealistic and pedantic. 

The Promise of Open-Sourced Government

Unfortunately, looking over Obama's record, it is hard not to be more than a little disappointed, with the president's own turnaround, especially in regards to his approach to whistle-blowers. One might have expected people like Cheney and all his cronies to go after "enemies of the state" with a sinister vindictiveness. (He was after all the closest Darth Vader ever got to being president.)
But Obama? This was the candidate that promised a change.

Back in November 2007, at a speech on the Google campus, Obama said what geeky Google-ites wanted to hear, that he would use technology to make government more accessible to the public. He would, he told the crowds as president he would insure that government information became more freely available.

And as a senator, Obama also pushed for and co-sponsored legislation in late 2007 that strenghten the Freedom of Information Act, initiated under Carter, and practically destroyed under Bush.

As outline in his campaign speeches, Obama planned to embrace cutting edge tech so that Americans could have access to administration records.

Among Obama’s proposals are the creation of internet databases for lobbying reports, ethics records and campaign finance filings as well as a “contracts and influence” database to track federal contractors’ spending and lobby efforts.

 What we got was Citizens United.

There will also be a readily available online database of corporate tax breaks, the posting of non-emergency legislation on the White House web site for public view and comment and cabinet-level town hall meetings on broadband.

I suppose, it is fair to ask, is open-sourced government even possible? It's never been tried but that's not to say, some aspects can't be applied.
In any case, such revolutionary solutions were certainly vote-catching after long and painful years in which, under the Bush/Cheney regime, politically-damaging information could easily be classified and never see the light of day.
As Charles Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, said at that time:

“The openness community will expect a complete repudiation of the Ashcroft doctrine.” 

The Ashcroft Doctrine allowed the Bush administration to withhold information requested through FOIA whenever legally possible. (Ironic, isn't it? that the link to Department of Justice web site explaining the Ashcroft doctrine leads nowhere? We can't see what it was so we can't compare it to what has replaced it.)

It didn't take long for Obama to go into secrecy mode soon after becoming president. It might have been dismissed as the usual campaign promises or of a politician biting off quite a bit more than he could chew regarding what he could actually do if elected.
However, things were worse than that. Change might have happened but it was not quite the change the voters had been promised.