There was a really funny development in the FETO cases opened after the coup attempt on July 15, 2016. Elon Musk, one of the richest people in the world, who added space tourism to our lives with his work and changed the general course of the automotive industry, was accused of being a FETO member within the scope of the investigations. So how did Musk, who probably didn’t even know what FETO was, came together with this organization?
The source of the interesting event is a FETO detainee named Metin Can Yılmaz. One of the arguments in the accusation of Yılmaz, who is accused of espionage as well as being a member of the organization, is the privacy-focused messaging application Signal. You will have those who remember; Elon Musk mentioned the application in question in the days when WhatsApp’s controversial terms of use update were discussed. In fact, Musk, who made a post on the subject, made a post that he said “Use Signal”. Here, the detained suspect from FETO argued that an investigation should also be opened against Elon Musk through this practice.
“I’m making an official complaint against Elon Musk”
The defendant named Metin Can Yılmaz, who was tried by the Ankara 16th High Criminal Court, said, “I will disclose those who use Signal. Like Elon Musk. The man who uses Signal is either a provincial imam or a district imam, according to the news of Sabah Newspaper. I am filing an official criminal complaint against Elon Musk. “The man is both using and encouraging. If an indictment is prepared against me based on the news of Sabah Newspaper and an opinion is prepared about Enver Altaylı, Elon Musk should be investigated. This man is guilty. Because he uses Signal, because he encourages the use of Signal, this man is an organization.” He recommends an in-house communication program to everyone.” He made a criminal complaint against Elon Musk in front of the court committee. Thereupon, the court had to take action and forward the denunciation of the accused to the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office.
The Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, which had to consider the denunciation of the accused, made a decision about Elon Musk. Announcing that there is no room for an investigation for Musk within the scope of this decision, the prosecution office cited the reason for the decision as paragraph 6 of Article 158 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This paragraph contains the following statements:
It is decided that there is no need for an investigation if it is clearly understood without the need for any investigation that the act subject to the notice and complaint does not constitute a crime or if the denunciation and complaint is of an abstract and general nature. In this case, the person complained of cannot be given the title of suspect. The decision not to carry out an investigation is notified to the informant or the complainant, if any, and an objection can be made against this decision in accordance with the procedure in Article 173. If the objection is accepted, the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor initiates the investigation proceedings. Transactions and decisions made pursuant to this paragraph are recorded in a system specific to them. These records can only be viewed by the public prosecutor, judge or court.
While Turkey was dealing with this issue, Elon Musk continued to work on space travel, global internet connectivity and electric vehicles. . .
5203
