Security Sector Governance: Turkey and Europe - DCAF

siyasal anlamda ötekilefltirilen bu kiflilerin
önemli bir k›sm›, sürekli “flüpheli” ve
“potansiyel terörist” muamelesi görmüfltür.
Baflkan Bush’un 11 Eylül’den hemen sonra
yay›mlad›¤› bir kararnamede, askeri
mahkemelerin sadece vatandafl olmayanlar›
yarg›layaca¤›n›n belirtilmesi de bu bak›mdan
ilginçtir. 8 Ayn› flekilde, Baflkan’a tan›nan
“düflman savaflç›” (enemy combatant) ilan etme
yetkisi de, sadece vatandafl olmayanlar
üzerinde uygulanabilmektedir. “Düflman
savaflç›” ilan edilen kifli, kifli özgürlü¤ü ve adil
yarg›lanma haklar›ndan mahrum
b›rak›lmaktad›r. Bu kiflilerin nerede
olduklar› bilinmemekte, yak›nlar›yla
görüfltürülmemekte ve süresiz olarak
gözalt›nda tutulabilmektedir. 9
11 Eylül olaylar›n›n insan haklar›
bak›m›ndan üç önemli sonucu olmufltur.
Birincisi, fliddeti esas alan “güvenlik devleti”
anlay›fl› küreselleflmenin etkisiyle k›sa sürede
yay›lm›flt›r. Avrupa’da, Orta Asya’da ve
dünyan›n birçok yerinde demokratik ülkeler,
demokrasiye geçmeye çal›flan ülkeler ve
demokratik olmayan ülkeler güvenlik
gerekçesiyle ve “terörle mücadele” söylemi
alt›nda hak ve özgürlükleri t›rpanlayacak
uygulamalar içine girmifllerdir. Bir anlamda
11 Eylül, muhalefeti bast›rmak ve
özgürlükleri k›s›tlamak isteyen yönetimlere
tarihi bir f›rsat sunmufltur. Bu siyasi
f›rsatç›l›ktan en büyük yaray› da tabii ki
insan haklar› düflüncesi alm›flt›r. Siyasi
f›rsatç›l›¤›n hakim oldu¤u dönemlerde
ilkeler yerini pragmatizmin cazibesine
b›rak›verir. ABD; Peru, Kolombiya,
Nijerya, M›s›r gibi ülkelerde sivillerin
askeri mahkemeler taraf›ndan
yarg›lanmas›na y›llarca karfl› ç›kt›¤› halde,
9/11 olaylar›ndan hemen sonra sivilleri askeri
8 Askeri mahkemelerin yetki alan› daha sonra vatandafl olanlar› da kapsayacak
flekilde geniflletilmifltir. Bkz. Cole, David, 2002/2003 ‘Their Liberties, Our Security:
Democracy and Double Standards’, Boston Review, cilt 27, say› 6, Aral›k/Ocak,
.
9 Avrupa, Orta Asya ve Amerika’da 11 Eylül sonras› dönemde insan haklar›n›
s›n›rlamaya yönelik mevzuat ve uygulamalar için bkz. The International Helsinki
Federation for Human Rights, 2003, ‘Anti-terrorism Measures, Security and Human
Rights’, Nisan, . Haubrich, Dirk, 2003, ‘September 11, Anti-Terror
Laws and Civil Liberties: Britain, France and Germany Compared’, Government and
Opposition, cilt 38, say› 1, K›fl, s. 3-28.
worth nothing President Bush’s decree,
released immediately after 9/11, which stated
that military courts would only try noncitizens.
8 Similarly, the authority given to the
President to declare someone as an “enemy
combatant” is an authority that only applies
to non-citizens. A person declared “enemy
combatant” is deprived of personal liberty
and the right to a fair trial. It is not known
where these people are held. They cannot
contact their friends and relatives, and they
can be kept under custody for an indefinite
period of time. 9
As far as human rights are concerned, the
events of 9/11 had three important outcomes.
Firstly, the “state security” approach based on
violence spread quickly due to the effects of
globalization. In Europe, Central Asia, and
other parts of the world, democratic
countries, countries in transition to
democracy, and non-democratic countries
took up practices that would mow down
rights and liberties for reasons of security and
with the rhetoric of “fighting terrorism.” In a
sense, 9/11 provided administrations that
wanted to suppress opposition and limit
liberties with a historical opportunity. And of
course, what this political opportunism hurt
most was the idea of human rights.
Whenever political opportunism rules,
principles are replaced by the attraction of
pragmatism. Although the US government
opposed the trials of civilians by military
courts in countries like Peru, Colombia,
Nigeria and Egypt, it became a country that
did the very same after 9/11. 10
8 The military courts’ sphere of jurisdiction was later expanded to include citizens
as well. See Cole, David, 2002/2003 ‘Their Liberties, Our Security: Democracy and
Double Standards’, Boston Review, vol. 27, no. 6, December/January,
.
9 For regulations and practices limiting human rights in Europe, Central Asia and
America in the post 9/11 era see, The International Helsinki Federation for Human
Rights, 2003, ‘Anti-terrorism Measures, Security and Human Rights’, April,
. Haubrich, Dirk, 2003, ‘September 11, Anti-Terror Laws and Civil
Liberties: Britain, France and Germany Compared’, Government and Opposition,
vol. 38, no 1, Winter, pp. 3-28.
10 Waters, Maxine, 2003, ‘Our Loss of Civil Liberties in a Post-September 11 World’,
Danny Goldberd, Victor Goldberg ve Robert Greenwald (eds.), in It’s a Free
Country: Personal Freedom in America After September 11, Thunder’s Month
Press, New York, pp. 103.
31