Mediaboss Marketing

On the matter of the 2016 election, why is there an investigation into Russian meddling but no investigation of Justice Department meddling? The latter effort was more extensive. And it sure looks like it would be a lot easier to prove.

This week, courtesy of Judicial Watch, we learned that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI did, in fact, use the grand jury in the Clinton e-mails probe. Or, to be more accurate, they fleetingly used grand-jury subpoenas, which were issued to BlackBerry service providers at the tail end of the investigation a futile attempt to recover e-mails sent to and from thenSecretary of State Hillary Clinton right before she transitioned from BlackBerry to her homebrew server.

Thats a story unto itself, which well get to in due course.

The news of grand-jury involvement contradicts prior reporting, at least at first blush. As we shall see, to say a grand jury was involved does not mean there was a real grand-jury investigation. It does, however, reinforce what we have said all along: The main subjects of the investigation could easily have been compelled to provide evidence and testimony which is what investigators do when they are trying to make a case rather than not make a case. There was no valid reason for prosecutors to treat criminal suspects to an immunity spree. They could, for example, have served grand-jury subpoenas on Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, demanding that they surrender the private computers they used to review Clintons e-mails, including classified e-mails it was unlawful to transfer to such non-secure computers. The Justice Department did not have to make promises not to use the evidence against the suspects in exchange for getting the evidence.

Mrs. Clintons friends at the Justice Department chose not to subpoena Mrs. Clintons friends from the State Department and the campaign. The decision not to employ regular criminal procedures i.e., the decision not to treat the case like other criminal cases was quite deliberate.

No need to convene a grand jury

When it comes to the grand-jury aspect of this affair, confusion has been caused by the inside-baseball manner in which legal beagles discuss it. I try to avoid that sort of thing, since the point is to clarify things for the non-lawyer. I must confess error, though, in at least once using the shorthand expression convene a grand jury.

This unfortunate phrase has been used repeatedly, including in hearings on Capitol Hill. It conveys the misimpression that some formal step had to be taken in order to summon a grand jury so that criminal charges could be considered against Clinton & Co. In actuality, busy federal districts always have grand juries convened because no case may be indicted without their approval. Some grand juries sit just about every work day for a month, handling run-of-the-mill cases. Others meet only occasionally over an extended time (several months, often more than a year) to gather and consider evidence in long-term investigations. Thus, there is no need to convene a new grand jury for a particular investigation; a grand jury is always there, at the ready.

So how does evidence get presented to the grand jury?

A prosecutor issues a subpoena, which a federal agent (e.g., from the FBI) then serves on the witness, directing the witness to produce physical evidence for the grand jury (the subpoena duces tecum) and/or to testify before the grand jury on a given date (the subpoena ad testificandum). In the old days, prosecutors kept a stack of subpoena forms in or near their desks and hand-wrote or typed them up as needed. Nowadays, its a fill-in-the-blanks computer form.

For present purposes, the salient point is that prosecutors are not required to meet with a grand jury, or ask its permission, before issuing subpoenas. And when a subpoena calls for the production of physical evidence, the witness is usually instructed to turn the item over to the FBI (or other investigative agency); there is usually no need to show up at the courthouse and hand the item to the grand jurors. Nevertheless, because the subpoenas power to compel comes from the grand jury, it is expected that the prosecutor will eventually present the resulting evidence to the grand jury, and report to the grand jury regarding subpoenas issued on its authority.

Thus, there was no need to convene a grand jury in order to use a grand jurys evidence-collection powers. Again, the Justice Department and the FBI could have issued and served subpoenas on Mrs. Clinton and her accomplices at any time. To refrain from doing so was a conscious choice.

So why avoid the grand jury?

The answer can be gleaned from a mammoth New York Times report on the Clinton e-mails probe, published last week. There is much more to this report than we will get to today. For now, suffice it to say that the Obama Justice Department, taking its cues from the Clinton campaign, tried to mislead the public into believing Mrs. Clinton was not the subject of a criminal investigation. The issuance of subpoenas would have put the lie to that diversion.

Dont call it an investigation

In July of 2015, after being notified by the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies (the intel IG) that classified information had been transmitted and stored on Clintons private server, the FBI quickly realized that crimes may have been committed. As routinely happens in that situation, the Bureau opened a criminal investigation (which, for reasons not apparent, it code-named Midyear).

Initially, the Justice Department publicly confirmed that a criminal referral had been received from the intel IG. But Justice abruptly reversed itself. According to the new party line, what was received was not a criminal referral, but instead a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information almost making it sound as if Clinton were a victim rather than the perp.

Of course, the compromise of classified information is a crime, which was why the intel IG made a criminal referral to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (which investigates crimes). That is why the FBI consequently opened a criminal investigation.

Yet, Mrs. Clinton was publicly claiming that the probe was not a criminal investigation, but rather a security review. This was a lie, but it was studiously adopted by the Obama Justice Department, then led by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who just happened to have been launched into national prominence in the 1990s when President Bill Clinton appointed her U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York and who was plainly hoping to keep her job in a Hillary Clinton administration. Consequently, Lynch and other top Justice Department officials instructed FBI director James Comey to avoid referring to the probe as an investigation. In upcoming congressional testimony, he was to call it a matter. Amused, one official even teased the director: I guess youre the Federal Bureau of Matters now.

Hilarious, right?

Well, heres a teeny problem. In a criminal case, investigators invariably have to resort to grand-jury subpoenas in order to collect evidence. When the recipient reads such a subpoena, he or she learns that the grand jury is conducting a criminal investigation into a potential violation of law. Typically, the subpoena even cites the penal statute of the main offense being probed. The point is to put the recipient on notice regarding what information may be relevant, and to alert the recipient to any potential criminal exposure that might call for asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Grand-jury investigations are supposed to be secret, but once subpoenas start flying, the nature of the investigation inevitably becomes public. The subjects of the Clinton investigation were operatives of the Clinton presidential campaign, which was desperate to obscure the fact that its candidate was under a criminal investigation. What better way to do this than for the subjects to offer to cooperate voluntarily without need of subpoenas. And how very accommodating of the Justice Department to play ball...and to have those immunity grants ready just in case any of the cooperators possessed incriminating evidence!

The Petraeus hurdle

So why did the Justice Department issue subpoenas at all?

This is a convoluted part of the story, stemming from the Justice Departments effective rewriting of the applicable statute to avoid charging Clinton. As the Times tells it, the Justice Department and the FBI knew that to charge Clinton with a crime, it would not be enough to prove she had been sloppy or careless; instead, they needed evidence showing that she knowingly received classified information or set up her server for that purpose.

As I have contended before, this claim is specious on multiple levels. Subsection (f) of the pertinent statute (the Espionage Act, codified at Section 793 of Title 18, U.S. Code) makes it a felony to mishandle classified information through gross negligence i.e., proving Clinton was sloppy or careless (or extremely careless, to use Comeys own description) could have been sufficient. But beyond that, Clinton willfully set up a private network for the systematic handling of her State Departmentrelated communications, in violation of federal record-keeping requirements of which she was well aware, and under circumstances in which she (a former senator who served for years on the intelligence committee) was a sophisticated longtime consumer of classified information. She was keenly aware that her responsibilities as secretary of state would heavily involve classified information whether it was marked classified or born classified because of the subject matter.

It is irrelevant whether Clintons purpose was to transmit or store classified information on the private, non-secure server; prosecutors are not required to prove motive. The question is whether she knew classified information would end up on the server, and her set-up made that inevitable.

That is, Clinton could have been prosecuted either for willfully mishandling classified information or for doing so through gross negligence.

The applicable statute elucidates those inconvenient facts, so what a surprise that there was no place for it in the Timess 8,000-word report. (Maybe if it were a Russian statute?) In lieu of the law, we are treated to another story. Investigators were guided not by the statute but by the precedent allegedly set by the prosecution of David Petraeus for mishandling classified information.

We are to believe there was much stronger evidence of knowledge and intent in Petraeuss offense; yet, over Comeys objection, Petraeus was permitted to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Therefore, the story goes, Clinton could not be charged absent Petraeus-grade proof. This line of reasoning is fatuous and its another instance of the Justice Department adopting Clinton campaign cant. Petreaus shared his classified diaries with a single person, a paramour who actually had a security clearance (albeit not one high enough to view what she was shown). Clintons offense was more extensive in duration and seriousness.

Assuming the accuracy of the Timess account, Comey is quite right that Petraeus should have been indicted on much more serious charges (as I have contended). But the Justice Departments dereliction in Petraeuss case was hardly a justification for giving Clinton a pass on a more egregious offense that, unlike Petraeuss, (a) almost certainly caused the compromise of government secrets to foreign intelligence services and (b) resulted in the destruction of tens of thousands of government records a separate felony. Clintons misconduct should have been prosecuted under the governing law, not excused based on the sweetheart plea deal Petraeus got.

All that said, were told the FBI thought it might be able to get over the purported Petraeus hurdle if it could find e-mails to and from Clintons old BlackBerry. Because she was using this device right before she switched to the homebrew server, the theory was that those lost e-mails might contain some smoking-gun declaration of her criminal intent in setting up the server system. Its as if, in a drug case, its not enough for agents to have the bag of heroin they found in the suspected traffickers house; to prove intent, you apparently also need an e-mail in which the trafficker says, Gee, I hope theres enough heroin in that bag I was planning to sell.

Subpoenas for the BlackBerry service providers

In any event, there was a problem. Unlike the vast majority of information relevant to the investigation, including physical and documentary evidence, any records pertinent to the BlackBerry Clinton had been using back in 2009 were not apt to be in the possession of Clinton insiders. If they still existed at all, the records would have to be pried from the service providers Cingular Wireless and AT&T Wireless.

In contrast to Clinton aides, telecommunications companies require a subpoena before they cooperate with law enforcement. Many of their customers are concerned about privacy and bristle at any indication that companies are sharing information with the government. Therefore, the companies need to be able to say they disclose records only when compelled by law. If the FBI wanted the BlackBerry records, subpoenas would be necessary.

The FBI did want the records. In connection with a lawsuit Judicial Watch has brought against the State Department, FBI special agent E. W. Priestap, who supervised the Clinton e-mails investigation, submitted an affidavit that states in passing, The FBI also obtained Grand Jury subpoenas related to the Blackberry e-mail accounts. It is the only allusion to a grand jury. According to Priestap, the subpoenas yielded no responsive materials, as the requested data was outside the retention time utilized by [the service] providers. This was to be expected: The FBIs investigation did not commence until six years after Secretary Clinton stopped using the BlackBerry in mid-March 2009.

The affidavit does not indicate when the subpoena was issued. I suspect it was early in the investigation, presumably shortly after the FBI learned of the BlackBerrys existence. It is possible, though, that the effort was not made until the investigation was reopened, two weeks before the 2016 election. Thats when a renewed and frantic effort was made to run down the BlackBerry e-mails after some of them were stumbled upon in a separate investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, who turned out to have shared a computer with his wife Clintons close confidante, Huma Abedin. In any event, just as the subpoenas produced no evidence, the review of e-mails from the Weiner/Abedin device is said to have turned up nothing new regarding Clintons allegedly inscrutable state of mind.

I believe the Obama Justice Department had no intention of indicting Clinton; it wanted to help the presidential campaign by orchestrating her exoneration only after a thorough FBI probe. Having labored to conceal the fact that Clinton was under criminal investigation, Justice cannot have been happy about having to issue grand-jury subpoenas confirming it. But they knew three things: (a) it would have been indefensible for the FBI not to at least try to get the records; (b) there would only need to be a few subpoenas (maybe just a couple); and (c) the recipients would be telecommunications service providers, which are routinely directed to provide assistance in sensitive and even classified investigations, and which have a very strong record of not leaking. There was no real danger that the subpoenas issued would enhance the public understanding that Clinton was being investigated in connection with serious crimes.

Two final things to consider.

First, the fact that grand-jury subpoenas were issued does not necessarily mean the grand jury was actually used. Did the Justice Department ever summon witnesses to testify about the Clinton criminal investigation before the grand jury? Did the Justice Department even alert a grand jury that it had subpoenaed records on the grand jurys authority? Im betting there was no real presentation to the grand jury; only grudging use of grand-jury process when there was no alternative and no chance Clinton would be damaged by news coverage about it.

Second, consider what else was going on. At the very same time it was bending over backwards not to make a case on Hillary Clinton, the Justice Department was pushing very aggressively on much thinner evidence to try to prove that the presidential campaign of Donald Trump was in cahoots with the Putin regime. For Clinton, the Obama Justice Department ran away from the grand jury, notwithstanding that its use in investigations of obvious crimes is standard. For Trump, the Obama Justice Department ran to the FISA court, notwithstanding that its use in an investigation of the opposing political partys presidential candidate, based on sketchy information, is extraordinary.

Russias apparent preference for one presidential candidate over the other is routinely described as a sinister scheme to interfere with the election. Fair enough. But how shall we describe the Department of Justices patent preference for one presidential candidate over the other?

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Original post:
Hillary Clinton E-mail Investigation: Grand-Jury Subpoenas ... - National Review

By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | Updated: May 1, 2017 11:47 am President Pranab Mukherjee (left), Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan (Centre) and Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi. Image: Rashtrapati Bhavan/Facebook

Turkey President Tayyip Erdogan will on Monday hold bilateral talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Erdogan, who arrived Sunday, is on a two-day visit to India, and this is his first visit to India as the Turkish President. Earlier in the day, Erdogan was awarded a ceremonial welcome by President Pranab Mukherjee at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. He also payed his tributes to Mahatma Gandhi at Rajghat, following which he addressed a FICCI business summit with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Here are the LIVE updates:

11.50 am: More on what Prime Minister Modi has said:

India and Turkey are among the top 20 largest economies in the world. Both economies have shown remarkable stability even in volatile global situations. We are optimistic about our economic prospects. There is immense goodwill for each other between the people of the two countries. Time has come to deepen economic relations.

There is huge potential to enhance bilateral engagement. This is possible through trade and FDI inflows, technology tieups and cooperation on various projects. We have seen some increase in participation of Turkish companies in some areas.

11.40 am: India and Turkey share a common outlook on the present economic order in the world, PM Modi has said, speaking at the India Turkey business summit.

11.30 am:Addressing the meeting, FICCI President Pankaj Patel said: The embrace of cultural and linguistic commonality has bounded our people for over a millennia. Turkeys geo-strategic location & Indias rising economic stock under leadership of Honble PM Modi, makes us ideal partners. Over 150 business delegates from Turkey are attending the business summit in New Delhi.

11.20 am: President Erdogan and Prime Minister Narendra Modi are currently attending the India-Turkey Trade Summit in New Delhi. In fact, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was not expected to attend the meeting, taking many by surprise.

11.00 am: At the FICCI meeting, President Erdogan will be accompanied by Prime Minister Narendra Modi who is also likely to address the gathering of business leaders from both the nations.

10.45 am: FICCI is all set to host the India-Turkey Business Summit. Erdogan is likely to address top businessman at the meeting. He is also accompanied by over 150 Turkish trade and business representatives looking to initiate businesses in India. Turkey is keen on investing in real estate and construction in India.

10.30 am:In its response, India has maintained that its position on Jammu and Kashmir is well known, and it stands by it. We have always emphasised that India-Turkey relations stand on their own footing and, we believe, the Turkish side reciprocates our sentiment, Ruchi Ghanashyam, Secretary (West) in the External Affairs Ministry, said, adding that Indias position on the state of J&K is very well known that it is an integral part of the country.

10.15 am: Days ahead of his visit to India, Erdogan spoke to news channel WION, where he expressed concern at the continuing stand-off between India and Pakistan on Kashmir. This is what he had to say: We should not allow more casualties to occur, and by strengthening multilateral dialogue, we can be involved, and through multilateral dialogue, I think we have to seek out ways to settle this question once and for all. Turkey also shares close ties with Pakistan and the statement could well come up for discussion during the meeting with PM Modi. He also said he supported both India and Pakistans bid to be part of the NSG, adding that India should give up its attitude of distancing itself from Pakistan which has a track record of nuclear proliferation.

10.00 am: At Rashtrapati Bhavan, Erdogan was accorded a ceremonial welcome. Erdogan was received by President Pranab Mukherjee and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.Here are the visuals of that ceremony. Erdogan will soonmeet with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at Hyderabad House.

9.50 am: Here aresome pictures of President Erdogan paying tribute to Mahatma Gandhi at the Rajghat memorial in the national capital. Erdogan will now head to Hyderabad House where he will hold bilateral talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Post the talks, the two leaders will issue a joint statement.

9.45 am:On trade and commerce, Turkey is hopeful that its relations with India will help boost its investments in the country. Turkeys Commercial Counsellor to India Vural ekinmez said Turkish companies wanting to enter the Indian market are already being provided support by Turkish officials in New Delhi, Daily Sabah reports. ekinmez further said that Erdogans visit could well be one of the most comprehensive meetings in India in recent years.

This visit will provide significant benefits for both Turkish business people who already have investments in India and those looking to potentially invest here,ekinmez told Daily Sabah.

9.35 am:Besides the bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Modi, a meeting with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj is also scheduled. The Erdogan-Swaraj meeting will take place following the bilateral talks between the two world leaders.

9.25 am:Given the threat Erdogan faces, specially from the Islamic State, security is at its peak.The Intelligence Bureau (IB) has directed security agencies to ensure that he is provided the highest security cover in the wake of threats from the ISIS. Moreover, security personnel deployed to ensure Erdogans safety have put in a request to carry weapons on them at all times. Erdogans aircraft, as well, has been provided round-the-clock security.

9.20 am:President Erdogan has arrived at Rashtrapati Bhavan where he inspects a ceremonial guard of honour. Accompanying him were President Pranab Mukherjee and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. From here, he will head to Rajgath and pay his tributes to Mahatma Gandhi.

9.15 am: Besides the bilateral talks between the two nations, delegates from Turkey will also attend a India-Turkey Business Forum. About 150 delegates, representing Turkey businesses and trade, are accompanying Erdogan, along with his cabinet ministers and senior officials. They will participate in the India-Turkey Business Forum. In fact, Indias top business chambers FICCI and Assocham issued full page advertisments welcoming Erdogan to India, in a hope to build and take forward trade relations between the two nations.

9.10 am: Among the issues set to dominate the bilateral talks between the two nations are economic ties, cooperation in the fight against terrorism and Turkeys support to India in its bid to become a member in the coveted Nuclear Suppliers Group. The issue of terrorism has been key in Indias discussions with nations of the G20. It had also come up during the G20 meeting in Antalya in 2015.

9.00 am: This is not TayyipErdogans first visit. He had earlier visited the country in 2008 and held talks with then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Erdogan, then, however was not President but Prime Minister of Turkey. After eleven years as Prime Minister, he was elected President in 2014.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, however, has met President Erdogan. The meeting took place during the 2015 G-20 Antalya summit, in Turkey. You can watch a brief video of that meeting below. At the G20 meeting, terror was the key focus and Prime Minister Modi called for all nations to unite against terrorism and states that have been allowing the territory to be used as safe havens for terror organisations. You can read about that meeting here.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd

Follow this link:
Erdogan in India LIVE updates: Turkey President to hold bilateral talks with PM Modi today - The Indian Express

Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (left) issending a stern warning to US President Donald Trump (right) over US support for Kurdish fighters whom Ankara tags as terrorists. INQUIRER FILES

ISTANBUL, Turkey By launching air strikes against Syrian Kurdish fighters and threatening more action, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is seeking to send a tough message to Donald Trump in the hope of bringing about a major U-turn in US Syria policy.

Turkey last week bombed targets of the Kurdish Peoples Protection Units (YPG) in Syria, earning the wrath of its Nato ally Washington and on Sunday Erdogan warned more action could be imminent.

We can come unexpectedly in the night, said Erdogan. We are not going to tip off the terror groups and the Turkish Armed Forces could come at any moment.

The YPG has been seen by the United States as the best ally on the ground in the fight against Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) jihadists in Syria and Trump has inherited a policy from Barack Obama of actively supporting the group.

But Ankara says the YPG is a terror outfit and the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), who have waged an insurgency since 1984 inside Turkey that has left tens of thousands dead.

Analysts say the dispute will be the number one issue when Erdogan meets Trump for the first time as president on May 16 in the United States. Failing to resolve the problem could seriously harm US efforts to destroy ISIS in Syria.

The strikes are manifestly a sign of impatience by Turkey and part of a long line of appeals telling the US to stop supporting the YPG, said Jean Marcou, professor at Sciences Po Grenoble and associate researcher at the French Institute of Anatolian Studies.

Since Trumps election, Turkey had indicated it wanted a change in US policy on the YPG support. But in reality Erdogan has obtained nothing for now, he said.

The cooperation between Washington and the YPG, which saw the United States send a limited number of forces to work with the group, led to bitter tensions between Ankara and Washington in the dying months of the Obama administration.

The US backed the formation of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), dominated by the YPG but also including Arab fighters, yet Ankara contends it is merely a front from the Kurdish group.

In an unusual move after days of border clashes between the Turkish army and YPG that followed the air strikes, the US sent military vehicles to the Syrian side of the frontier to carry out patrols in an apparent bid to prevent further fighting.

Erdogan said the sight of American flags in the convoy alongside YPG insignia had seriously saddened Turkey.

The Turkish president, fresh from winning the controversial April 16 referendum on enhancing his powers, has indicated that the rewards for Washington in breaking up with the YPG could be high by spurring Turkish involvement in a joint operation to take the ISIS fiefdom of Raqa.

Together the United States can turn Raqa into a graveyard for Daesh (ISIS), Erdogan said on Saturday.

But Ankara has made clear it will have nothing to do with any operation involving the YPG and analysts say Turkey could even be a threat to a Raqa operation if it is not included.

Washington was reluctant to launch the Raqa operation before Turkeys April 16 referendum to avoid potential complications with Ankara, said Aykan Erdemir, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

He said the Turkish air strikes which were combined with strikes against the PKK in Iraq brought another unanticipated challenge to coalition efforts against the jihadists.

Tensions among coalition members have been one of the key factors for the Islamic States continued survival, he said.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) said in its latest report on the Syria crisis that the US had a singular dilemma on the future of its relationship with the YPG

It said the YPG is indispensable to defeat ISIS but there is also no avoiding the fact that the US is backing a force led by PKK-trained cadres in Syria while the PKK itself continues an insurgency against a Nato ally.

It said that Turkey had pressed ahead with the air strikes despite US objections and this should serve as a warning for what could lie in store.

But it said while the YPG was counting on American and also Russian support as a bulwark against Turkey, the importance of the country will mean Trump will have an ear for Erdogans concerns.

Ultimately Washington will likely view relations with Turkey - a Nato member and critical ally - as more important to its broader strategic interests, it said. CBB/rga

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

Original post:
Erdogan sends Trump stern message on Syrian Kurds - Inquirer.net

3 hours ago.

The decision of New Delhis Jamia Millia Islamia to confer an honorary doctorate on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is extremely disturbing. The fact that he is not an academic is not the basis for the protests against the decision: there have been numerous occasions when personalities who are not professional academics have been recognised by universities for their work. Around the world, actors, business persons, journalists, writers and politicians have been honoured by universities for their achievements.

This is done on the premise that they have chosen excellence as their pursuit and have made the world more humane through their work. These are the two values universities seek to inculcate in a society: excellence and humanity.

The university seeks to teach young people to do things with perfection. Success cannot be a matter of chance: things have to be done methodically. Training in method is important for scholarship. Even more important is the love or passion for the work that has been chosen as vocation. We gain our individuality at universities but also learn that knowledge cannot be created in isolation.

Universities value these principles and go out of the confines of their campuses to invite people who embody them. They seek to make them exemplars for their young scholars. This is the reason for the Dalai Lama or cricketer Rahul Dravid being honoured by universities. These people have made the world a better place, more beautiful, inviting and exciting. They give young people reason to believe in the possibilities of life. The business of scholarship or knowledge is also a quest for this possibility.

No doubt, Erdogan is also a successful man. He is the head of a state. He has just secured for himself a mandate from the people of Turkey that gives him sweeping powers and makes it possible for him to be their dictator.

However, under Erdogan, scholarship and the creation of knowledge has become a risky business. Under his leadership, Turkey has become one of the most dangerous places in the world for students, teachers and researchers. After thwarting a coup attempt in July, Erdogan ordered a crackdown on schools and universities (along with institutions in several other sectors, including the military, media, civil service, police and judiciary) on suspicions of having links with Fethullah Gulen, an exiled Islamic cleric living in the US whom Erdogan believes was behind the coup.

More than 1,300 teachers in universities across Turkey have been identified and penalised in different ways. Criminal cases have been filed against them and many have been jailed. Hundreds of teachers have been dismissed and expelled. Scholars from other countries who have lived and taught in the universities of Turkey for more than quarter of a century have been asked to leave the country.

In Turkey, education and higher education in particular has traditionally been under strict state control. There are areas that scholars cannot even touch. But under Erdogan, things have taken a dangerous turn. After the coup attempt, a shadow of suspicion has engulfed Turkish society. Educational institutions are being targeted because Gullens network runs its own chain of institutions. Erdogan fears that conspirators are hiding in these institutions and other universities as well. As a consequence, he has closed down thousands of them and put others under strict vigil.

But if one looks at the record of academic freedom in Turkey before the attempted coup, it becomes clear that suspected conspiracy against the elected government is only a new cover to impose such restrictions. In a piece titled Why Turkeys government is threatening academic freedom, the Washington Post reported in January last year:

Emboldened by his partys electoral victory in November, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has set out on a crusade against academics. After 1,128 academicssigned a petitionto the Turkish government imploring an end to the violence in southeastern Turkey, prosecutorslauncheda criminal investigation against all signatories. University administrations have begun investigating these academics, who have in some cases beendetained orsuspended.

The peace petition asked the Turkish government to stop persecuting the Kurdish population. All the signatories were declared to be enemies of the Turkish state.

The article explained that this persecution of the academics had to be seen in the wider context of Erdogans attempt to bring higher education under his control. The article states that the Council of Higher Education, under which all the universities come, enforced a regulation which gave it powers to take over private universities (called foundation universities in Turkey), suspend their activities, and even shut down an entire university indefinitely on the grounds of violations against the indivisible integrity of the Turkish state. Such violations can be triggered by failure to provide YK [the Council] with documentation for its inspections.

Calls have been made to raze universities to the ground and shower in the blood of dissenters. Erdogan has also been contemptuous of intellectuals . The signatories of the petition asking for peace have been called fifth columns of foreign powers and so-called intellectuals.

It is time for the academic community world wide to stand in solidarity with their Turkish fellows. How can they do that? At the very least, they could show their disapproval for the man responsible for this atrocity. Globalisation of a different kind is the necessity of our times, one that creates an international community of justice and peace.

Honouring state leaders is often not the decision of the universities, they do it on behalf of their governments. But diplomacy is not the business of universities. They do create friendship among nations and different peoples but not by being agents of their states.

We should also ask: why Jamia and not Delhi University? Is it because an Islamist dictator can be honoured only by an Islamic institution? Have we forgotten how a smear campaign was launched against Jamia and Aligarh Muslim University, calling them dens of terrorists, by those who hold power today?

Why are the teachers and students of Jamia silent? Why is the larger academic community of India unwilling to even take note of this decision?

See the original post here:
By conferring a doctorate on Erdogan, Jamia is celebrating a regime that attacks academic freedom - Scroll.in

A laptop computer displays Wikipedia's front page showing a darkened logo on January 18, 2012 in London, England.

Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

The Turkish government, known to censor social media sites in the country, blocked access to Wikipedia, a media watchdog organization reported Saturday. The government blocked the user-written online encyclopedia under the auspices of a law allowing the government to take down sites it considers obscene or a threat to national security. The state-run Anadolu news agency reported that Wikipedia was running a smear campaign against the Turkish government. Wikipedia refused to take down content that suggested government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan was in cahoots with terrorist organizations, according to Al Jazeera, prompting the site to be blocked temoporarily.

The move was condemned by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales:

The Erdogan regime is in the midst of a systemic crackdown on dissent in the country and the removal of Wikipedia, one of the most visited websites on the internet, again raises concerns about access to information and freedom of speech. Erdogan has in the past blocked a host of social media sitesincluding Facebook and Twitteras well as YouTube and WhatsApp. The AK Party has accelerated its efforts to centralize power and control around Erdogan, its leader. The government has jailed dozens of journalists and shut down news organizations it considers unfriendly to the regime, citing security concerns and often leveling charges of aiding and abetting terrorism.

Along with the media crackdown, Erdogan has stepped up the Turkish governments offensive on minority Kurdish groups in the country, which it considers terrorist organizations, as well as the followers of U.S.-based Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen. Tens of thousands of civil servantsfrom professors to judges and police officershave been removed from the state bureaucracy over fears of a deep state. The ramshackle July 2016 coup attempt was pinned on Gulen and his followers, the Gulenists, and has been used to justify the sweeping crackdown at all levels of Turkish society.

On Saturday, the government purged 4,000 more officials from the state bureaucracy and, [i]n another restriction announced this weekend, the government decreed that television channels could no longer broadcast dating programs, a staple on Turkish daytime television and a major source of advertising revenue, according to the New York Times. The shows had been criticized by people from across the countrys liberal-conservative divide, with over 120,000 people signing a petition against the format.

See the rest here:
Turkey Blocks Access to Wikipedia as Its Assault on Dissent and Free Speech Continues - Slate Magazine (blog)