Turkish Forum

Category: America

  • Turkey pressures US over Saylorsburg Muslim cleric

    Turkey pressures US over Saylorsburg Muslim cleric

    By Jenna Ebersole

    Pocono Record Writer

    fethullah gülenAn international brouhaha brewing between the United States and Turkey focuses on an infamous occupant of a compound in Saylorsburg.

    At the center of the controversy is a Turkish cleric named Fethullah Gülen.

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Tuesday that his country would officially request that the United States extradite Gülen, whom detractors have accused of trying to undercut Erdogan’s government, according to media reports.

    Gülen, 73 and said to be in poor health, left Turkey in the 1990s after being accused of urging an overthrow of the government, The New York Times reported.

    Gülen denied the charges, and after Erdogan came to power, the charges were dropped, The Times reported.

    Gülen has lived at the Golden Generation Worship and Retreat Center in Saylorsburg for more than a decade, but remains mostly unknown to Americans.

    For Turks, however, he is a prominent figure who many believe promotes education and a moderate, peaceful form of Islam.

    Gülen and the large movement he inspired remain at the center of discussion about Turkish politics, though his followers say he is non-political.

    Corruption scandal

    In the last few months in Turkey, an extensive corruption scandal has engulfed Erdogan. The Associated Press has reported that revelations of bribery and illicit money transfers to Iran threatened Erdogan and his government.

    Ties between Gülen’s movement and Erdogan have been broken, with conspiracy theories pointing to Gülen as the force behind the corruption investigation, the AP has reported.

    Though the evidence for Gülen’s involvement in the investigation is weak, his movement’s influence in the country seems clear.

    Protesters arrived at the Gülen Saylorsburg center last summer from across the U.S.

    Protest leader Armagan Yilmaz said Wednesday by email that he does not support Erdogan’s government or Gülen, but believes Gülen should be extradited for his activities.

    Still, Yilmaz said Erdogan’s proposal does not have legal support, which he knows, and he is putting the U.S. in a bad position and hurting global public opinion.

    The Times reported Wednesday that the State Department has a policy of not commenting on pending requests, and quoted legal experts as saying the Turkish government’s request for Gülen’s extradition faces long odds.

    The Alliance for Shared Values Organization, which speaks for the Gülen movement, said in a statement that it is “deeply disturbed” by Erdogan’s recent politically motivated attempts to limit democratic dissent.

    “The prime minister’s talk about demanding the extradition of Mr. Gülen, when there are no charges or legal case against him, is a clear indication of political persecution and harassment,” the statement said. “Such manipulative tactics are common practices in autocratic regimes, not in a democratic country that respects the rule of law.”

    via Turkey pressures US over Saylorsburg Muslim cleric | PoconoRecord.com.

  • Let Mr. Erdogan Fight His Own Battles

    Let Mr. Erdogan Fight His Own Battles

    NYTBy THE EDITORIAL BOARD

    Not long ago, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and Fethullah Gulen, a Turkish preacher in Pennsylvania, were the best of allies. Mr. Erdogan heads an Islamist government, and Mr. Gulen promotes a moderate, pro-Western brand of Sunni Islam that appeals to many well-educated and professional Turks. The two men had a common purpose in confronting and weakening the country’s once-dominant secular military and political leadership.

    But the collaboration has since devolved into a bitter power struggle, and now Mr. Erdogan is trying to drag the United States into the argument by threatening to demand Mr. Gulen’s extradition to Turkey. The American government is obliged to examine the request if Mr. Erdogan follows through and formally files one. But right now the threat seems to be nothing more than a crass and cynical attempt to exploit the law, and Turkey’s alliance with the United States, for political payback.

    The power struggle, which erupted last year, has been fueled by a corruption scandal that has ensnared Mr. Erdogan, many of his cronies and his son. Recordings of telephone conversations that surfaced in recent months appear to show widespread corruption in the government. Mr. Erdogan, a once-promising leader who has grown increasingly authoritarian, has charged that Mr. Gulen’s network of followers is behind the scandal.

    In an interview on Charlie Rose’s PBS talk show this week, Mr. Erdogan said that the telephone wiretaps were clearly illegal and that he expected the United States to respond positively to the request. That is not a given.

    Some experts say there is no legal basis for an extradition request because there are no charges or legal cases against Mr. Gulen, who has permanent-resident status and has lived in rural Pennsylvania since 1997. He left Turkey in the 1990s after being accused of urging the overthrow of the secularist government; he denied the charges, which were dropped when Mr. Erdogan came to power. Mr. Gulen has broad influence in Turkey through followers who hold jobs in the judiciary, the police and the media. But he has denied encouraging them to pursue graft investigations against Mr. Erdogan and his allies.

    For the United States to approve an extradition request, the person must be accused of a crime recognized in both jurisdictions, and there must be a reasonable belief that the person committed the crime. It seems unlikely those conditions exist. Washington has not considered Mr. Gulen a threat, or he would not have been able to remain in the country.

    So far, the Obama administration has declined to comment publicly on the issue, which has the potential to cause serious and unnecessary new tensions with Turkey. It would be an abuse of extradition law to use it for political reasons. Mr. Erdogan should fight his political battles on his own.

    The New York Times,

  • MEN IN MASQUERADE

    MEN IN MASQUERADE

    Photo taken in the northern Syria town of Raqqa. (Courtesy: Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently)

     

    In case you are one of the millions of Turks still celebrating the fact that Fenerbahçe, to no one’s great surprise, won the league football championship, well, you need to get a grip on reality, painful as that might be. The so-called “news”-papers still regurgitate this gloriously boring “news.” Tapes of the melodramatic fan and player antics after Sunday’s no-score game still runs on the sports channels. And thus all seems right with the world. Except it’s not. The world is horrible.

    One really must wonder about the mentality of the Turkish people. Their government is causing a slaughter, if not a genocide, of the Syrian people. And I mean, specifically, that the Syrian Alevites are being directly targeted by Sunni Jihad proxies financed by Turkey. It’s a political “thing” dealing with pipedreams of a neo-Ottoman Sunni empire. By definition, that targeting constitutes a genocide. But the terror spread throughout Syria by Turkey and America affects all the Syrian people, Islamic, Christian, Jewish, atheist, all of them. These bankrolled gangsters are cutthroat killers. Killers kill. But cutthroat killers mutilate. All this should make one wonder. So I do.

    Mostly I wonder why the allegedly good-hearted, the self-proclaimed “hospitable” Turks show such little interest and concern about the bloody massacre just next-door caused by their bloody-handed government. It’s no secret. It’s been no secret for years. After all, Seymour Hersh’s article was more affirmation than news. But in Turkey, the approved story on Syria is mostly simple-minded propaganda. Suddenly two years ago, Bashar al–Assad became a bad guy. And Erdoğan was hired by America to do what he does best. But now the truth is out. And things have moved from horrible to catastrophic.

    So what consumes their interest, these Turkish people? Why do they now fixate ad nauseam, on television and in the press, on the Ottoman slaughter, if not genocide (the words all mean “mass murder”) of the Armenians in 1915?  1915! Then, a war was on. The Russians were enemies. Turkey’s eastern Armenians collaborated. War is murder. Blah-blah-blah. 100 years ago! 100 years ago! Yet today, the Turkish government openly exports death and destruction and Jihadist terrorism to their neighbor, Syria. And nothing happens. Football. Family. Life is busy. What’s for dinner?

    Turkish people! What kind of a social conscience do you have? To silently sit while events of Nazi proportions are being done to the Syrian people by your government? It seems inconceivable that you can fill the streets for Fenerbahçe football but not even mumble a care about what your tax money is doing to the Syrian people. You know the story of the people who watched the freight trains come and go through the tiny town of Oświęcim (Auschwitz). They also said they didn’t “know.” But the camps were only a kilometer away. “We didn’t know.” Will that also be your alibi? Denial.

    Turkish people, get real! Wake up from your football-slumber! You allowed the prime minister to appear on the Charlie Rose Show and lie, misrepresent, and double-talk to the world. He does to the world what he does at home. It is ridiculous.

    He said that during legal protests every other country beats and gasses and kills its citizens. So what’s the problem? And neither you nor Charlie said anything.

    He said, how can a country be corrupt when it has had such dramatic economic growth? And neither you nor Charlie mentioned that he (the prime minister) sold ALL the assets of the nation to finance the destruction of the cities and nature itself. And that everyone in favor politically has a piece of the action. That this growth “miracle” is based on plunder and crony-capitalism. And that’s the economic truth.

    He said, how can he be a dictator when 45.5% of the people vote for him. And neither you nor Charlie asked about the majority of the people—54.5%—that voted against him. And why!

    He said that he didn’t know Fethullah Gülen was such a threat until 17 December 2013 when he made a “coup.” And neither you nor Charlie Rose said, “Nonsense!”

    Nonsense, it is. As everyone knows, Gülen disclosed his own treacherous plan 15 years ago. That’s why he escaped from his country into the warm embrace of the CIA and the Green-Card Land called Pennsylvania. Surely everyone knows that Gülen, a master of disguise, was recorded advising his treasonous followers that: 

    “You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers…. You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey.” 

    And fifteen years ago Erdoğan was one of his adherents. Without Gülen and the CIA, Erdoğan would never have left the Kasımpaşa neighborhood of Istanbul. And even an ordinary journalist, let alone Charlie Rose, should have known this. Does Charlie know the real reason why Gülen, no angel himself, is now Erdoğan’s sworn enemy? If Charlie only knew a few journalistic facts he would have quickly figured it all out. We all have, and we’re not respected journalists at all.  We’re not even respected. So here’s the truth (and now I’m whispering): On 17 December 2013, a Gülenian wind blew the roof off the massive corruption enterprise called the government of Turkey.

    Actually Charlie Rose only masquerades as a journalist, as elementary-school educated Gülen masquerades as an Islamic scholar, as Erdoğan masquerades as a statesman, as Abdullah Gül masquerades as a head of state and as the CIA masquerades as a patriotic, law abiding part of the American government. In Turkey, everyone is someone else and everyone plays dress-up. Welcome to the Mardi Gras a la Turka. It’s a political-social condition called Deceit.

    Speaking of which, now the terrorists gangsters, financed, fed and armed by Turkey, are performing a new trick, crucifixion. They apparently grew tired of eating the pulsating hearts of their victims and mutilating their corpses. This is what happens when nitwits make foreign policy. False-flag Turkey supplies thugs with sarin gas. America supplies them with TOW missiles. The inmates run the asylum. Everything is out of control. Crucifixions! The mind cannot grasp the horror. Turkey no longer has borders. Turkey no longer has a viable military chain-of-command. Nor has it a viable judiciary. All of this has been brought about by the man who would now be president. Do the Turkish people know his credentials for the job? Is this the ultimate masquerade?

    Turkish people, Get real! Wake up! The day will come when this Turkish government will be in the dock at The Hague for war crimes. Turkish people! By your silence, by your media’s collaboration in this criminal enterprise, by everyone passively accepting the commission of these war crimes, so too will your consciences be on trial. You and the country may never recover from these awful deeds done in your name.

    Oh, what have you allowed your ballot boxes to do to your Syrian friends and neighbors and even families! How needy you must be to sell out for bribes of coal and rice, and some of you for so much more.

    Oh, what have you allowed your passive, inept political opposition parties to do…and not do!

    All the plunder, all the gold, all the dollars, all the shoeboxes, the airports, the money-counting machines, the tunnels, the bridges, the million-dollar wristwatches, the power plants, the shopping centers, the football frenzies and their obscenely expensive stadiums, all of this stuff that masquerades as democracy and capitalism and social value will not buy one second of relief from the coming guilt and shame. Murder, destruction, sickness, starvation, complete barbarism has been unleashed from Turkey. Turkey has raped and murdered Syria. And this is happening now, not a century ago. Crucifixion, a final act of savagery, killed a man named Christ and created Christianity. From evil came good. But in Turkey’s case…one wonders.

    308391_mainimg

     

    Would you not agree?

    James (Cem) Ryan
    Istanbul
    1 May 2014

    RELATED ARTICLES:

    TURKEY’S POOR PLAYER


    FINAL CURTAIN

    SEYMOUR M. HERSH

  • UNITED WE WEEP, DIVIDED WE SLEEP

    UNITED WE WEEP, DIVIDED WE SLEEP

    DUMBBELLS (English slang for stupid fools)

    DÜMBELEKLER (Turkish slang for stupid fools)

    I sing what was lost and dread what was won,
    I walk in a battle fought over again,
    My king a lost king, and lost soldiers my men;
    Feet to the Rising and Setting may run,
    They always beat on the same small stone.

    Willam Butler Yeats (1865-1939)

     

    I read the news today, oh boy. Here’s what Reuters said:
    “Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan has applied to Turkey’s constitutional court on Friday to challenge the alleged violation of his and his family’s rights by social media, a senior official in his office told Reuters.”

    Isn’t it grand, this so-called rule of law. The prime minister is correct in his action. Long ago his family’s rights were well-established as were his. When the fox owns the chicken coop every day the menu-du-jour is chicken. We and the world know the quality of those who rule this sad country.

    But who’s to argue? Not the sheep…if they whimper, they’re next. And besides, they’re well-bribed with food and coal and things magical from the bountiful Ankara sky. They have indeed learned to deeply love their Big Brother. They repay with their pathetic ballots. So, who? Perhaps young people who, like all young people everywhere, thought they had a future? Sorry. Enough of them have died and been maimed. Maimed by the prime minister who now frets about his and his family’s rights. Hah! So surely it will be the political opposition who once thought they had a patriotic responsibility, even a cause? No cause. No thought. No brains. No nothing. The military? The ones with the soundest, strongest emotional and ethical legacy? Nope. Folded up like a cheap suit. Hardly a whimper. Generals now bow their heads to thieving politicians. Cowardly submissive stuff like that makes one wonder if they ever received an education (and at taxpayer expense). Atatürk? Huh? Please, we must not speak aloud of such things. So who’s left to argue? Media? Ha! Sold-out. Universities? Ha! Ha! Expounding on pet obscurities, historical quirks, dead poets and deader laws and what once was and now will never be. There is no time left for history and literature and law and medicine and philosophy and too many more words. Speaking of which, what about writers? Well, who reads? The world is too much with all of us, and we are all too late.

    So who will care? Care enough to act, to really act? To stand up and say that this is enough. That the people will no longer be governed by a corrupt political process. Nor by numbskull, repetitive political opposition parties nor by America’s CIA gangsters? Is that too much to ask?

    It seems so. Time grows short. Another crooked election is coming, this one presidential. One way or another the same small people will throw the same big stones at us. Ah Turkey, the saddest country with the saddest people with the saddest stories. Always beating on, always being beaten. Ah, dear Turkey, Atatürk’s children deserved so much more. So did Atatürk.

    James (Cem) Ryan
    Istanbul
    19 April 2014

     

    “A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him.”

    Ezra Pound (1885-1972)

    jefferson

     

     

  • Turkey is again with Erdogan

    Turkey is again with Erdogan

    ali askerThe Turkish government banned YouTube last week, after Ankara made the same with Twitter. According to the western media  there are more than 10 million Turkish users on Twitter in Turkey. Independent experts said that the crackdown is related with nationwide municipal elections, which was held this Sunday. The lecturer of Turkish Karabuk University, Doctor of Law Ali Asker answered questions for newcafe.ge.

    –          Why Government banned Twitter and Youtube? What are the main and real reasons?

    –          There are official and unofficial explanations about the banning the access to social networks. Government declares that, they banned the access to Twitter because Twitter had not obeyed Court’s decision. According to the official procedures the implementation of the decision should have taken place within a month. But what about Youtube? Government says it is related to the state security issues. The reason was shown that the content of the discussion about Syria conflict in Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs was leaked to the press, the Turkish Telecommunications Communication Presidency decided to ban the access to Youtube. The ban is still continuing.

    –          How the society reacted to the banning? What is the reaction of the political parties and media?

    –          The opposition declared there is no legal basis for the decisions. They even think it is government’s provocation. People in social networks the government in engaging in corruption. At the same time there is not unanimous opinion among the representatives of ruling party related with the issue. Turkish President openly protested against the case. Media criticizes the government and consider the decision as the pressure on freedom of thought. The number of people who protesting against the Government’s decision gradually increases. But it seems that the Prime Minister Erdogan doesn’t have any plan to recede yet. On the contrary he appealed to the court to begin the criminal case about some media representatives “who offend the authorized person of state” with their “abusive twits”.

    –          What do you think, is the Prime Minister Erdogan able to keep his power? What can you say about current political climate in Turkey?

    –          I think that Erdogan party (AKP) can pass the election as first party again. But it is very important to balance power in major cities.  In Istanbul, opposition candidate Sarigul (from CHP – opposition party) is a strong candidate. However the social base of Istanbul reduces the assumptions that CHP will take victory. The conservative part of the society in Istanbul is as strong as always. But in Ankara we can see different results in this election. In Ankara Mansur Yavash (from CHP) is a strong opponent, at the same time he has nationalist views, therefore his vote potential could be serious in Ankara.

    30 March elections are local elections, but the process and the results are extremely important. It is important to pay attention to one issue: In the history of Turkish Republic, traditionally the right and left, secularization and Islamism were against each other in overt or covert way.  Same as today. But in recent years we witness some tension decrease. Especially in the conservative election potential. Left side is not as acute secularist as before. Taking into consideration the recent events in Turkey, we cannot  claim that the election (in Turkey) is a confrontation between Islamic and secular values. Because, there is a division in conservative side. In the other hand there are serious bribery charges against senior officials from the ruling party who respects primary the Islamic value. According to Islam bribery is one of the serious faults. I mean there is a traditional competition in this election as secularism – Islamism, but it is not as strong as before.

    – How Culen Jamaat (one of the main religious movement in Turkey, the leader of this movement Fatullah Gulen lives in US – J.M.) influences Turkey’s policy?

    – Gulen Jamaat is the strongest community in Turkey. They have human potential in different positions. They have certain power in media sector and trade. The Government used heavy phrases against Gulen and it caused different reaction both domestically and abroad. In this process there is one subtle point which we should pay attention. There is distance among the Gulen Jamaat and other Islamic communities, even they are competitors. Therefore Gulen’s people have not any serious opportunity to influence the results of these elections. I thing the process which will start after elections will create great interest, so let see.

    – What do you think the Turkish Government will do concerning banning social networks?

    – Social networks in Turkey will be opened. Ankara Administrative Court already has the decision about the opening the Twitter. I think the Government will change its decision after the social pressure is over.

    http://www.newscafe.ge/

  • Daily Press Briefing – March 24, 2014

    Daily Press Briefing – March 24, 2014

    Daily Press Briefing – March 24, 2014

    03/24/2014 06:57 PM EDT

    Marie Harf

    Deputy Spokesperson
    Daily Press Briefing

    Washington, DC

    March 24, 2014

    QUESTION: Do you have a comment on the downing of a Syrian jet apparently —

    MS. HARF: Yes.

    QUESTION: — in the Syrian airspace yesterday by the Turkish?

    MS. HARF: Well, obviously, we’ve been following the issue closely. We have been in close contact with our Turkish counterparts – I would remind you, NATO allies – regarding the incident. We are committed to Turkey’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We note that the Turkish Government has been fully transparent about the rules of engagement it is operating under since the Syrian Government shot down a Turkish aircraft in 2012. The Turkish Government in this case said its forces only fired after the Syrian military aircraft violated Turkish airspace and after repeated warnings from Turkish authorities. Obviously, the Government of Turkey is looking into the incident more, but we are talking to them and will remain in contact with them.

    QUESTION: So to the best of your information, do you have any independent information that it was actually shot down over Syrian airspace or Turkish airspace?

    MS. HARF: Where it was actually shot down, I don’t have specific information about that, but as I said, the Turkish Government said it only fired on the aircraft after it violated Turkish aircraft – or, excuse me, airspace, and was repeatedly warned by the Turkish Government not to do so.

    QUESTION: Are you concerned that any escalation might involve all other NATO allies, considering that you have some sort of a pact with Turkey?

    MS. HARF: Well, I think it’s a little soon to sort of take this more broadly. I would note that I don’t think Turkey has asked for anything yet in terms of NATO. Obviously, we’re talking to them about how to move forward here, but again, I think it’s too soon to sort of draw broader characterizations about what might happen next.

    QUESTION: And finally, Brahimi said that he doesn’t see Geneva II reconvening anytime soon. Do you have any comment on that?

    MS. HARF: Well, we have obviously been working with the special representative quite closely. We want – all want Geneva – the Geneva process, I would say, to reconvene when we can make progress. And up until this point, we’ve seen the Syrian regime not come to the table as a party that wants to make progress here. So I know he’s working on it to see if and when we can reconvene this and how, to see if we can move this diplomatic process forward.

    QUESTION: So you said that Turkey has been fully transparent about the rules of engagement? What does that mean, exactly?

    MS. HARF: That it has operated under since the Syrian Government shot down a Turkish aircraft in 2012.

    QUESTION: Right, but —

    MS. HARF: So I think what it means, without knowing all the specifics here, is that, for example, it repeatedly warned —

    QUESTION: Yeah.

    MS. HARF: — the Syrian aircraft not to violate its airspace. It only then took action. That’s what I think rules of engagement refers to here.

    QUESTION: Right. Right. But the rules of engagement, are they public? You don’t have —

    MS. HARF: I can check.

    QUESTION: Is that what that means in terms of —

    MS. HARF: Or do we mean transparent with the United States? I don’t know.

    QUESTION: Well, transparent – I mean, maybe you’d like to see —

    MS. HARF: I’ll check.

    QUESTION: — the Turkish Government tweet the rules of engagement or perhaps put them on Facebook or YouTube or something like that.

    MS. HARF: I would note here that there have been more tweets from Turkey since the government blocked it than there were before.

    QUESTION: So can we just —

    MS. HARF: Which is an interesting, I think, signal to people that try to clamp down on freedom of expression that it doesn’t work and isn’t the right thing to do.

    QUESTION: Are you helping in this?

    QUESTION: So —

    MS. HARF: Hold on. We’ll – let me finish Matt.

    QUESTION: So do you have any additional comment on the Twitter ban? When Erdogan announced that he was going to do this, he said now every – he didn’t care about international reaction and now the world would see the power of the Turkish Republic.

    MS. HARF: Well, I think what the world saw was the number of people inside Turkey tweeting about what they thought about it being blocked there.

    QUESTION: Well, could I ask you what you think —

    MS. HARF: Yes.

    QUESTION: — about the power of the Turkish Republic since they have failed so dramatically to enforce this ban?

    MS. HARF: We have conveyed our serious concerns over this action directly to Turkish authorities, both from here and on the ground. Obviously, we support freedom of expression in Turkey and everywhere else. We oppose any action to encroach on the right to free speech, and continue to urge directly the Turkish Government to unblock its citizens’ access to Twitter and ensure free access to all social media platforms —

    QUESTION: Right, but —

    MS. HARF: — so they can see what you and everyone else tweets.

    QUESTION: Right, but what does it say to you, if anything, about the power of the Turkish Republic?

    MS. HARF: In what respect?

    QUESTION: The fact that they’ve tried to ban it and it hasn’t worked. I mean, is this the kind of thing that you want to see a NATO ally doing or boasting about —

    MS. HARF: No.

    QUESTION: — beforehand, and then —

    MS. HARF: No.

    QUESTION: — failing miserably at it?

    MS. HARF: Well, the second part – clearly, we think it’s good that people inside Turkey are still able to express themselves, but that doesn’t mean that it should be blocked. I wasn’t trying to give that statistic —

    QUESTION: Okay.

    MS. HARF: — in terms of saying that it’s an acceptable action.

    QUESTION: So you’re —

    MS. HARF: No, clearly this is not an action we think the Turkish Government should take. We’ve told them that directly. We will continue to tell them that directly. There’s no place in a democracy for this kind of clamping down on people’s right to free speech. There’s just not.

    QUESTION: Okay. And so you would encourage people in Turkey to defy – to continue to defy the prime minister’s ban. Is that —

    MS. HARF: I’m not going to go that far, but I – what I will say is it’s important for people all over the world to hear what the Turkish people have to say.

    QUESTION: Do you see any connection between the Twitter issue and the downing of the plane, the Syrian plane, perhaps that Mr. Erdogan is trying to export his —

    MS. HARF: Not at all.

    QUESTION: — local issues? You don’t see that?

    MS. HARF: Not at all. No, not at all.

    QUESTION: Are you helping the Turks in breaking the blockade?

    MS. HARF: Is the United States Government?

    QUESTION: Yeah.

    MS. HARF: No, not to my knowledge. We’ve been in contact with Twitter and with the Government of Turkey about this, but to my knowledge, no, we are not. But we’ve said very clearly to the Turkish Government that this is not acceptable and that we do not think they should be able to block their citizens’ access to these kind of social media platforms.

    QUESTION: Mm-hmm. And —

    QUESTION: Just to clarify, Marie, you – I asked this question last week, that whether United States Government is involved with this case in the —

    MS. HARF: With Twitter?

    QUESTION: In this dispute between the Twitter and the Turkish Government in terms of the legal process, and you said no. Still the case? Still —

    MS. HARF: Well, I don’t think I said no; I think Jen said no. But we saw over the weekend, I think, some more actions being taken, right? So I’m not sure exactly how you asked the question last week, but what I can say is that we have been in contact with Twitter and separately with the Government of Turkey to talk about the fact that people should not have their access blocked to Twitter.

    QUESTION: So it is a legal dispute right now, and that maybe – I mean, Turkish Government is pursuing this ban, and they took several additional measures during the weekend to stop the people to use Twitter, like DNS ban, et cetera.

    MS. HARF: Which we think is an encroachment on their citizens’ freedom of expression, and we don’t think that it should be continued.

    QUESTION: You are in contact with the Twitter in terms of legal dispute or —

    MS. HARF: I’m not say in terms of any – I don’t know the legal – the specific legal aspect you’re referring to. We are in touch with Twitter, yes, broadly speaking. I don’t know exactly what that contact is like, but I don’t know if the legal – if that’s an internal Turkish matter, I’m not exactly sure, but we’ve been in contact with both Twitter and the Turkish Government.

    QUESTION: I mean, because Twitter is represented by the lawyers right now in Turkey, and there will be maybe case against —

    MS. HARF: I don’t have more details on any legal action that may or may not be happening in Turkey. I just don’t have those details. What we’ve said is separate and apart from that. People should be able to express themselves freely, whether it’s on Facebook or Twitter or whatever – Flickr, Tumblr, whatever people want to use – and that governments should not encroach on their – they shouldn’t block access for their citizens to do so. I don’t have a lot more information.

    QUESTION: Yeah, but —

    QUESTION: What about Instagram?

    MS. HARF: And Instagram too.

    QUESTION: Yeah, the problem —

    QUESTION: Not Instagram.

    QUESTION: Not – (laughter). Don’t play favorites now, Marie.

    MS. HARF: I am not. I am not on Instagram, but —

    QUESTION: The problem, the Turkish Government is trying to get some information about some users, specific users who are tweeting against the government and —

    MS. HARF: What I’m saying is that we oppose the Turkish —

    QUESTION: And the Twitter – and my question – okay. My question is —

    MS. HARF: Yes.

    QUESTION: — Twitter assured to Turkish Twitter accounts users that they will not disclose any private information.

    MS. HARF: That would be a question for Twitter, not for me.

    QUESTION: Yeah. But are you supporting this stand of Twitter against Turkish Government?

    MS. HARF: That’s not something that I should take a stand on. I don’t think that’s something that the company, Twitter, can decide on its own.

    QUESTION: Because —

    MS. HARF: What we have said is that governments should not block access for their citizens.

    QUESTION: Yes. But at the same time it’s a privacy question – not only freedom of expression, but the people are also trying to protect their privacy —

    MS. HARF: Again, that a question that’s —

    QUESTION: — and the Turkish Government is trying to get the information of all of the users.

    MS. HARF: That’s a question, I think, is better addressed to Twitter, who controls that issue. What I am saying is people’s freedom of expression should not be blocked by their own government.

    QUESTION: So no comment about the privacy?

    MS. HARF: I don’t have more for you than this – for you on this case than that.

    QUESTION: Okay.

    MS. HARF: I’m happy to check with our folks and see if there’s more.

    QUESTION: Right.

    MS. HARF: I just don’t think I’ll have more.

    QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Please.

    And another question about the jet incident.

    MS. HARF: Yeah.

    QUESTION: Are you concerned that this confrontation between Turkey and Syria can turn into a more broader confrontation just before the elections, because —

    MS. HARF: Well, I think that’s the question Said just asked, and what I said was it’s a little too early to make sweeping characterizations about what may come from this. Obviously, we know there was a situation here where the Turks repeatedly warned the Syrians before taking action. I don’t think I want to probably draw broader conclusions about what will happen going forward.

    QUESTION: No, I’m – my question wasn’t related NATO that Said asked in terms of the NATO involvement. Beyond the NATO involvement, are you encouraging the parties to deescalate the tension?

    MS. HARF: I mean, we’re certainly in contact with the Turkish Government here on this issue. I’m not – I mean, in terms of the parties, you’re talking about the Assad regime?

    QUESTION: No, the parties – NATO ally, Turkey. Because there will be an election this week —

    MS. HARF: Right.

    QUESTION: — and the main —

    MS. HARF: I’m not seeing the connection here.

    QUESTION: The main opposition party urged to not do any military intervention, military – I mean, unilateral military action against Syria just before the election, to use a populist tool just before the election. So this is the concern of the main opposition party and other parties in Turkey.

    MS. HARF: I think I probably don’t have much comment on internal Turkish politics or how they may or may not respond —

    QUESTION: It stirs an international crisis.

    QUESTION: Well, are you encouraging the Turks to kind of remain calm and not escalate the situation?

    QUESTION: Yes.

    MS. HARF: I’m not sure how they – I mean I’m not sure there’s even talk of escalation here. I’m happy to check with our folks and see. To my understanding, it was a limited situation. I haven’t heard that there is escalation here.

    QUESTION: Is —

    MS. HARF: I’m happy to check with our team. We’re still talking to the Turks to get the facts about what happened here, but I, quite frankly, haven’t heard talk that people are worried about that.

    QUESTION: So – because my question is related to another religious site within Syria belonging to Turkey. This is a Turkish territory, 35 kilometers from Turkish broader within Syria, and it’s under threat some groups, ISIS and other radical al-Qaida-affiliated groups. And some cabinet members, Turkish cabinet members, even urged not to do anything to provoke Turkey for any unilateral military action, for example. This is another concern for Turkey to be part of the unilateral military action within Syria. So only – not only the jet, but this is another risk for Turkey to involve with Syria in terms of this kind of military action.

    MS. HARF: Well, I don’t have any, in terms of that specific question, any details for you on that. Again, I think I’ll let the Turkish Government speak for what their response will or won’t be here. As I said, we’ve talked to them, we’ve gotten the facts of what’s happened here, and if there’s more to share tomorrow, I’m happy to.

    QUESTION: Marie, a question that is on Syria.

    MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

    QUESTION: There are report that 600,000 Syrians have applied for asylum in Europe and the United States. Could you tell us the portion of that that is being sought with the United States?

    MS. HARF: I don’t know the answer, Said. Let me check with our folks and see. I don’t have the numbers.

    QUESTION: Just one more question on the Syrian jet.

    MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

    QUESTION: You said we’ve established the facts and multiple warning were issued, I guess.

    MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. By the Turkish Government.

    QUESTION: How – yeah. How did you establish that? Did they share any information with the State Department?

    MS. HARF: The Turkish Government?

    QUESTION: Yeah.

    MS. HARF: With the United States Government they did. I don’t know if it was us or with the Defense Department, but —

    QUESTION: Yeah. But they shared, like, intelligence information about the incident?

    MS. HARF: I don’t know if it’s intelligence they told us. They warned the Syrians multiple times. I don’t know the details of exactly what that —

    QUESTION: Yeah. But how did you verify what they actually conveyed to you?

    MS. HARF: I can check with our folks and see.

    QUESTION: Were you in touch with them in real time during the incident?

    MS. HARF: I don’t know. I’m happy to check. It might be – and it might be the Department of Defense, but I’m happy to check with them.

    QUESTION: So did you —

    MS. HARF: I just don’t know.

    QUESTION: Did you say that these pieces of information were verified, or you’re not sure?

    MS. HARF: We have no reason to believe that it’s not accurate, correct. Yes.

    QUESTION: Okay. But —

    MS. HARF: And I’m happy to see if there are more details about how we verified it, correct.

    QUESTION: I wanted to ask one more.

    QUESTION: No, no. One more on Syria.

    MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

    QUESTION: News reports said that the U.S. Administration has finished its review on its policy towards Syria and decided not to intervene militarily and not to provide the opposition with sophisticated arms and not to allow Saudi Arabia to provide this kind of arms.

    MS. HARF: I’m not sure those reports are true. I haven’t seen them, but I haven’t heard those reports. In terms of the first, we’ve always said all options except for boots on the ground are on the table. Happy to check with our team, but it’s my understanding, as we’ve talked about in here, that this is an ongoing discussion of what policies we should undertake in Syria. I’m happy to check and see if there’s been some decisions made, but to my knowledge there haven’t been.

    QUESTION: Is there any review?

    MS. HARF: As I said – we went over this, I think, ad nauseam one day, but there’s constantly a review of our policy in Syria. We are constantly looking at options, what we could do, what more we could do, how we could influence the situation. That’s ongoing, yes. But to my knowledge, there hasn’t been some sort of major decision on what we will or won’t do.

    QUESTION: Can you check on this, please?

    MS. HARF: I’m happy to.

    QUESTION: Thank you.