7 ms·

This is going to end poorly... False flag or not, the coup has given Erdogan an excuse to flush out and exterminate all who oppose him. Anyone want to take bets

by Relys 10y ago

This is going to end poorly... False flag or not, the coup has given Erdogan an excuse to flush out and exterminate all who oppose him. Anyone want to take bets how long until NATO will revoke Turkey's membership?

twblalock 10y ago
Unfortunately, the people of Turkey were going to be screwed no matter how the coup went. If it had succeeded, they would have got a military dictatorship. Now they get a different kind of dictatorship instead. Erdogan was slowly evolving into a dictator before the coup, and now he's accelerating that process. I wonder if the best outcome for democracy in Turkey would have been a attempted coup which resulted in Erdogan's death before it failed. I don't know of any Turkish politicians who would have been able to build a dictatorship as successfully as Erdogan.
- waterphone 10y ago
  The Turkish military has a long history of executing a coup and then returning control to a new civilian government. While military coups often lead to military dictatorships, that has not been the case in Turkey, and it is in fact one of the established roles of the Turkish military to do so. > Turkish Armed Forces see themselves as the guardians of the secular and unitary nature of the Republic along with Atatürk's reforms and have intervened by taking over the government three times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Turkey#Influence_of_the_military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Turkey#Influen...
  - baudehlo 10y ago
    But after this, will that ever be allowed to happen again? This coup, false flag or not, has spelled the end of that control.
    - waterphone 10y ago
      Probably not. My only point was that in Turkey, a coup does not necessarily mean a military dictatorship. Which people apparently disagree with despite the facts and downvote me angrily for saying. This fucking site, man.
      - baudehlo 10y ago
        This site is better than most - I gave you an upvote to show that :)
      - abrookewood 10y ago
        Maybe it was just the way you said it. Keep posting facts and maintain a reasonable disposition and I think you'll find that the debates on HN are informative and positive. It certainly beats most of the other sites I can think of.
- rtkwe 10y ago
  > If it had succeeded, they would have got a military dictatorship. That's not a given. Turkey's military has staged quite a few coups over the years and that's really part of their purpose in the Turkish government order. After a few years power usually transitions back to normal democratic elections.
  - nashashmi 10y ago
    The point is a coup is opposite to that of Democratically elected process. "Part of their purpose" means the democracy is a farce, and there was never a choice of the people.
    - darkmarmot 10y ago
      Historically, the population has voted for dictatorial islamists -- and has been saved only by secular military intervention. It's the standard problem of having a democracy that votes to end democracy. In America, we get Trump, which is debatably similar...
    - bllguo 10y ago
      The assumption that democracy is an undeniable good, that democratic government suits all nations, needs to be revisited.
      - tonyedgecombe 10y ago
        It's not democracy that is the problem in Turkey.
    - edthrowaway 10y ago
      Many horrible things have been done by democratically-elected governments. In my own country, slavery was actively promoted while we were still one of the world's few "democracies". And as we've seen in more modern times in Iraq and the Balkans, democracy and war-torn ethnically-divided territories do not always work well together. When I was younger, I thought of democracy as the end-all and be-all of political philosophies, since that the progressive march toward of the perfection of democracy is what was emphasized in school. As an adult, I've come to believe that a nation's true value is in to the extent it promotes the liberty and welfare of all its inhabitants, including minorities. By this metric, my country, the United States, often viewed as one of the world's "great democracies", is doing relatively poorly.
- jgeerts 10y ago
  I just can't wrap my head around the fact that it can happen like this, wide in the open with everyone watching. Before the coup I was already amazed that I heard news about he taking over a critic newspaper and the next day publishing pro Erdogan propaganda, it's just beyond belief what is happening. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/turkish-government-takes-over-best-selling-newspaper https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/turkish-g...
  - finid 10y ago
    Well, the world also watched as Hitler unfolded. Who knows how this is gonna end? Pass the popcorn...
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  I'd rather live under a liberal, pro-Western, secular military junta, than an illiberal democracy ruled by Islamists who are destroying liberties, hollowing out civil society, and turning the country into a Sunni version of Iran under the Ayatollahs. Fareed Zakaria has a great book, The Future of Freedom, where he discusses, among other things, the perils of illiberal democracy. The bit that really stuck in my head is his argument that the impartial judge is a more important institution than the ballot box. Man has lived under undemocratic regimes for almost all of recorded history. It is the human condition. It is more important to defend civilization and order against barbarism and chaos, than it is to ensure that the majority rules. Liberal values and constitutional government preceded true democracy by hundreds of years in the West. Why do we expect otherwise anywhere else?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > I'd rather live under a liberal, pro-Western, secular military junta, than an illiberal democracy ruled by Islamists who are destroying liberties, hollowing out civil society, and turning the country into a Sunni version of Iran under the Ayatollahs. (1) The Sunni version of Iran under the Ayatollahs is called "Saudi Arabia". (2) Assuming the attribution of the coup to the Gülen movement is accurate, it would likely not have been a "liberal, pro-Western, secular military junta" but instead an "quasi-liberal, pro-Western, relatively-tolerant-but-still-Islamist military junta".
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - marcoperaza 10y ago
      I think Iran is a better comparison. They keep up the pretense and ceremony of democratic legitimacy, have a sizable and somewhat-tolerated liberal civil society, and rose to power by calling the faithful to the streets. Saudi Arabia is a tough situation. The House of Saud is the only thing standing between the radical imams and total power. The future of the Middle East looks very dark right now. Egypt is the only large power where the forces of order and civilization are winning.
  - 10y ago
- edthrowaway 10y ago
  > If it had succeeded, they would have got a military dictatorship That's usually not how these things go in Turkey. In 1997, there was a non-violent military coup because of a situation very similar to what we've seen with Erdogan. A few months later, I spent the summer in Istanbul, drinking beer, discussing any and all politics with Turks, and chasing Turkish girls in a decidedly open and free environment. Most Turks I spoke to (admittedly tended to be secular) were quite glad that the coup had taken place and that the Islamist Party (Refah, or "Welfare" Party) was subsequently banned. Incidentally, at the time the Refah party was banned, Erdogan was an active, up-and-coming party member. In any case, few of the military coups that have occurred in modern Turkish history have been violent (1980 was significant exception) and none have resulted in a long-term dictatorship (1980 resulted in a 3-year military dictatorship). Ironically, since 1980, it has been democracy, not military intervention, that has now permitted a dictatorship to gain a foothold in Turkey.
farresito 10y ago
Will the NATO revoke their membership? Turkey is pretty important, to be fair. Revoking their license would definitely cause a lot of trouble, although I can see them doing it if there is no other option.
viraptor 10y ago
I do. I think the answer is "never", or "not as a result of this government". When there are internal issues present, military is fragmented and may not act when needed, etc. - that's the time when NATO should be most useful and most needed. Otherwise you get a country which cannot really defend itself and announce to the world - yeah, we don't really care about them anyway. Speculation - would Ukraine get attacked last year if it was a full NATO member?
- wavefunction 10y ago
  >>Speculation - would Ukraine get attacked last year if it was a full NATO member? It would have already been attacked before that. That's actually why Ukraine was attacked in fact. Putin doesn't want NATO expanding up to Russia's doorstep. I understand the Russian concern about NATO expansion even if I don't agree with their direct aggression.
  - pound 10y ago
    while you are correct about Putin not wanting NATO on russia's border it's not why Ukraine was attacked. Not external causes (NATO) but internal issues/ideas/reasons, whatever sick they are
secfirstmd 10y ago
Unfortunately NATO probably needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO. -refugees, refugees, refugees -2nd biggest military in NATO -Incirlik Airbase -Access and control to Syria -Radar and other intel gathering equipment looking over Russia's belly and Middle East -blocking Russian access to the Med -human intelligence
- bpodgursky 10y ago
  Turkey doesn't want to be on the wrong side of NATO if it's in a territory dispute with Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, or even over Armenia although it isn't NATO. Refugee handling is an EU problem, not really NATO. While there's substantial overlap, the US isn't going to negotiate with that in mind. And there's nothing stopping the EU from continuing to cut a refugee-handling-for-money deal if Turkey exits NATO. Airbases can still be leased, although it would depend on how badly relations deteriorated. I think Turkeys biggest fear would be that NATO members stop quietly ignoring Turkey's bombing of PKK bases inside Iraqi Kurdistan and Syria. If Turkey wasn't in NATO, there's nothing stopping the US or others from giving various Kurdish groups weaponry which could threaten Turkey's air superiority (AA missiles, not jets). This would make Turkey's war against the PKK internally a lot more difficult. So, I do think Turkey will recognize that it will suffer greatly outside NATO, and will take at least basic steps to preserve membership. But we'll see.
  - segmondy 10y ago
    Why are you talking about Turkey? This is now about Erdogan, Does Erdogan need NATO more than NATO needs Turkey? That's the question. Dictators tend not to care or stay rational in the "normal" sense of things. If this coup was planned by Erdogan, then he really has good game and will play a long con on being a member of NATO while doing what he wants.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > there's nothing stopping the US or others from giving various Kurdish groups weaponry which could threaten Turkey's air superiority (AA missiles, not jets). Well, except Iraq. That is, there is considerable tension between Iraqi Kurdistan and the central government (the fact that Kurdistan has its own army and the Iraqi army is banned from Kurdistan is one of the irritants on the Iraqi side -- the US arming the Kurds in a way that would make them able to effectively resist Turkey would not be a good thing for the internal stability of Iraq. Or for Iraqi-Kurdistan relations if it happened after Kurdistan broke away completely, like it has shown some interest in doing recently.) (Actually, reinforcing Iraqi Kurdistan -- and even moreso an ex-Iraqi Kurdistan -- this way would also escalate tensions with Iran, Syria -- and because of the last -- probably also Russia.)
toyg 10y ago
NATO needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO. The country sits literally between Russia and the Middle-East, conveniently also managing Black Sea Fleet access to any other scenario. I wouldn't bet on Turkey ever leaving or being kicked out.
gumby 10y ago
> Anyone want to take bets how long until NATO will revoke Turkey's membership? I'll take your bet. It's a trick question because Greece was not expelled from NATO when it was under a military dictatorship, and so I am sure Turkey would not be either.
- selimthegrim 10y ago
  Neither was Turkey in 1980.
finid 10y ago
He's another Hitler in the making, but no, NATO will not revoke Turkey's membership. The US needs Turkey for the war in Syria. And the US is not about to move all those nukes elsewhere.
- onetwotree 10y ago
  I think the present situation in Turkey is a great argument in favor of putting the nukes somewhere else. I believe they're all gravity bombs, which makes them mostly symbolic, just like the nukes we store in other NATO countries.
  - tim333 10y ago
    And there are 50 bombs weighing 320 kg each so less than a B52 loads worth. They can take them here to the UK as far as I'm concerned. It's not like anyones likely to want to actually use any in the foreseeable future.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Anyone want to take bets how long until NATO will revoke Turkey's membership? Well, Erdogan's regime is threatening to end its friendship with the US if Gülen isn't turned over, so any termination of the relationship may not come from the NATO side.
- onetwotree 10y ago
  That's when we'll know he's really gone off the rails. I think I read that Kerry had said something like "sure, we'll extradite him...if you have evidence that he committed any crimes." Since any evidence they do have is likely to be pretty weak, this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move. A reasonable Turkish leader wouldn't call that bluff, but Ergodan seems to be slipping deeper and deeper into paranoia and autocratic madness.
  - Zak 10y ago
    this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move I skimmed the treaty. It does appear that evidence that the person sought has committed a crime is a requirement for an extradition request, in which case Kerry is merely saying "we're not going to exceed our legal authority just because you asked us to". It is also a requirement, at least in most circumstances that the evidence be for a crime that is punishable by detention for more than one year (i.e. a felony) in both countries.
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    > Since any evidence they do have is likely to be pretty weak, this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move. I don't follow how you got from A to B there; I don't read Kerry's position as asserting American authority or sovereignty at all, to be honest. It's a standard for extradition which is a sovereignty affair as well as a legal due process consideration in our system of government, but not in the manner of asserting American authority to 'boss' Turkey around. We refuse the occasional extradition to the UK, for example, despite having a special relationship with them and not tending to diplomatically 'boss' them around, so I'm not following your thinking here. (It's not a great example because of the 2003 treaty we have with them, but the point stands about refusals.) I'm also not following how you arrived at the American position being a bluff.

by Relys 10y ago

twblalock 10y ago

Unfortunately, the people of Turkey were going to be screwed no matter how the coup went. If it had succeeded, they would have got a military dictatorship. Now they get a different kind of dictatorship instead. Erdogan was slowly evolving into a dictator before the coup, and now he's accelerating that process. I wonder if the best outcome for democracy in Turkey would have been a attempted coup which resulted in Erdogan's death before it failed. I don't know of any Turkish politicians who would have been able to build a dictatorship as successfully as Erdogan.

waterphone 10y ago
The Turkish military has a long history of executing a coup and then returning control to a new civilian government. While military coups often lead to military dictatorships, that has not been the case in Turkey, and it is in fact one of the established roles of the Turkish military to do so. > Turkish Armed Forces see themselves as the guardians of the secular and unitary nature of the Republic along with Atatürk's reforms and have intervened by taking over the government three times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Turkey#Influence_of_the_military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Turkey#Influen...
- baudehlo 10y ago
  But after this, will that ever be allowed to happen again? This coup, false flag or not, has spelled the end of that control.
  - waterphone 10y ago
    Probably not. My only point was that in Turkey, a coup does not necessarily mean a military dictatorship. Which people apparently disagree with despite the facts and downvote me angrily for saying. This fucking site, man.
    - baudehlo 10y ago
      This site is better than most - I gave you an upvote to show that :)
    - abrookewood 10y ago
      Maybe it was just the way you said it. Keep posting facts and maintain a reasonable disposition and I think you'll find that the debates on HN are informative and positive. It certainly beats most of the other sites I can think of.
rtkwe 10y ago
> If it had succeeded, they would have got a military dictatorship. That's not a given. Turkey's military has staged quite a few coups over the years and that's really part of their purpose in the Turkish government order. After a few years power usually transitions back to normal democratic elections.
- nashashmi 10y ago
  The point is a coup is opposite to that of Democratically elected process. "Part of their purpose" means the democracy is a farce, and there was never a choice of the people.
  - darkmarmot 10y ago
    Historically, the population has voted for dictatorial islamists -- and has been saved only by secular military intervention. It's the standard problem of having a democracy that votes to end democracy. In America, we get Trump, which is debatably similar...
  - bllguo 10y ago
    The assumption that democracy is an undeniable good, that democratic government suits all nations, needs to be revisited.
    - tonyedgecombe 10y ago
      It's not democracy that is the problem in Turkey.
  - edthrowaway 10y ago
    Many horrible things have been done by democratically-elected governments. In my own country, slavery was actively promoted while we were still one of the world's few "democracies". And as we've seen in more modern times in Iraq and the Balkans, democracy and war-torn ethnically-divided territories do not always work well together. When I was younger, I thought of democracy as the end-all and be-all of political philosophies, since that the progressive march toward of the perfection of democracy is what was emphasized in school. As an adult, I've come to believe that a nation's true value is in to the extent it promotes the liberty and welfare of all its inhabitants, including minorities. By this metric, my country, the United States, often viewed as one of the world's "great democracies", is doing relatively poorly.
jgeerts 10y ago
I just can't wrap my head around the fact that it can happen like this, wide in the open with everyone watching. Before the coup I was already amazed that I heard news about he taking over a critic newspaper and the next day publishing pro Erdogan propaganda, it's just beyond belief what is happening. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/turkish-government-takes-over-best-selling-newspaper https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-04/turkish-g...
- finid 10y ago
  Well, the world also watched as Hitler unfolded. Who knows how this is gonna end? Pass the popcorn...
marcoperaza 10y ago
I'd rather live under a liberal, pro-Western, secular military junta, than an illiberal democracy ruled by Islamists who are destroying liberties, hollowing out civil society, and turning the country into a Sunni version of Iran under the Ayatollahs. Fareed Zakaria has a great book, The Future of Freedom, where he discusses, among other things, the perils of illiberal democracy. The bit that really stuck in my head is his argument that the impartial judge is a more important institution than the ballot box. Man has lived under undemocratic regimes for almost all of recorded history. It is the human condition. It is more important to defend civilization and order against barbarism and chaos, than it is to ensure that the majority rules. Liberal values and constitutional government preceded true democracy by hundreds of years in the West. Why do we expect otherwise anywhere else?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I'd rather live under a liberal, pro-Western, secular military junta, than an illiberal democracy ruled by Islamists who are destroying liberties, hollowing out civil society, and turning the country into a Sunni version of Iran under the Ayatollahs. (1) The Sunni version of Iran under the Ayatollahs is called "Saudi Arabia". (2) Assuming the attribution of the coup to the Gülen movement is accurate, it would likely not have been a "liberal, pro-Western, secular military junta" but instead an "quasi-liberal, pro-Western, relatively-tolerant-but-still-Islamist military junta".
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    I think Iran is a better comparison. They keep up the pretense and ceremony of democratic legitimacy, have a sizable and somewhat-tolerated liberal civil society, and rose to power by calling the faithful to the streets. Saudi Arabia is a tough situation. The House of Saud is the only thing standing between the radical imams and total power. The future of the Middle East looks very dark right now. Egypt is the only large power where the forces of order and civilization are winning.
- 10y ago
edthrowaway 10y ago
> If it had succeeded, they would have got a military dictatorship That's usually not how these things go in Turkey. In 1997, there was a non-violent military coup because of a situation very similar to what we've seen with Erdogan. A few months later, I spent the summer in Istanbul, drinking beer, discussing any and all politics with Turks, and chasing Turkish girls in a decidedly open and free environment. Most Turks I spoke to (admittedly tended to be secular) were quite glad that the coup had taken place and that the Islamist Party (Refah, or "Welfare" Party) was subsequently banned. Incidentally, at the time the Refah party was banned, Erdogan was an active, up-and-coming party member. In any case, few of the military coups that have occurred in modern Turkish history have been violent (1980 was significant exception) and none have resulted in a long-term dictatorship (1980 resulted in a 3-year military dictatorship). Ironically, since 1980, it has been democracy, not military intervention, that has now permitted a dictatorship to gain a foothold in Turkey.

farresito 10y ago

Will the NATO revoke their membership? Turkey is pretty important, to be fair. Revoking their license would definitely cause a lot of trouble, although I can see them doing it if there is no other option.

viraptor 10y ago

I do. I think the answer is "never", or "not as a result of this government". When there are internal issues present, military is fragmented and may not act when needed, etc. - that's the time when NATO should be most useful and most needed. Otherwise you get a country which cannot really defend itself and announce to the world - yeah, we don't really care about them anyway. Speculation - would Ukraine get attacked last year if it was a full NATO member?

wavefunction 10y ago
>>Speculation - would Ukraine get attacked last year if it was a full NATO member? It would have already been attacked before that. That's actually why Ukraine was attacked in fact. Putin doesn't want NATO expanding up to Russia's doorstep. I understand the Russian concern about NATO expansion even if I don't agree with their direct aggression.
- pound 10y ago
  while you are correct about Putin not wanting NATO on russia's border it's not why Ukraine was attacked. Not external causes (NATO) but internal issues/ideas/reasons, whatever sick they are

secfirstmd 10y ago

Unfortunately NATO probably needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO. -refugees, refugees, refugees -2nd biggest military in NATO -Incirlik Airbase -Access and control to Syria -Radar and other intel gathering equipment looking over Russia's belly and Middle East -blocking Russian access to the Med -human intelligence

bpodgursky 10y ago
Turkey doesn't want to be on the wrong side of NATO if it's in a territory dispute with Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, or even over Armenia although it isn't NATO. Refugee handling is an EU problem, not really NATO. While there's substantial overlap, the US isn't going to negotiate with that in mind. And there's nothing stopping the EU from continuing to cut a refugee-handling-for-money deal if Turkey exits NATO. Airbases can still be leased, although it would depend on how badly relations deteriorated. I think Turkeys biggest fear would be that NATO members stop quietly ignoring Turkey's bombing of PKK bases inside Iraqi Kurdistan and Syria. If Turkey wasn't in NATO, there's nothing stopping the US or others from giving various Kurdish groups weaponry which could threaten Turkey's air superiority (AA missiles, not jets). This would make Turkey's war against the PKK internally a lot more difficult. So, I do think Turkey will recognize that it will suffer greatly outside NATO, and will take at least basic steps to preserve membership. But we'll see.
- segmondy 10y ago
  Why are you talking about Turkey? This is now about Erdogan, Does Erdogan need NATO more than NATO needs Turkey? That's the question. Dictators tend not to care or stay rational in the "normal" sense of things. If this coup was planned by Erdogan, then he really has good game and will play a long con on being a member of NATO while doing what he wants.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > there's nothing stopping the US or others from giving various Kurdish groups weaponry which could threaten Turkey's air superiority (AA missiles, not jets). Well, except Iraq. That is, there is considerable tension between Iraqi Kurdistan and the central government (the fact that Kurdistan has its own army and the Iraqi army is banned from Kurdistan is one of the irritants on the Iraqi side -- the US arming the Kurds in a way that would make them able to effectively resist Turkey would not be a good thing for the internal stability of Iraq. Or for Iraqi-Kurdistan relations if it happened after Kurdistan broke away completely, like it has shown some interest in doing recently.) (Actually, reinforcing Iraqi Kurdistan -- and even moreso an ex-Iraqi Kurdistan -- this way would also escalate tensions with Iran, Syria -- and because of the last -- probably also Russia.)

toyg 10y ago

NATO needs Turkey more than Turkey needs NATO. The country sits literally between Russia and the Middle-East, conveniently also managing Black Sea Fleet access to any other scenario. I wouldn't bet on Turkey ever leaving or being kicked out.

gumby 10y ago

> Anyone want to take bets how long until NATO will revoke Turkey's membership? I'll take your bet. It's a trick question because Greece was not expelled from NATO when it was under a military dictatorship, and so I am sure Turkey would not be either.

selimthegrim 10y ago
Neither was Turkey in 1980.

finid 10y ago

He's another Hitler in the making, but no, NATO will not revoke Turkey's membership. The US needs Turkey for the war in Syria. And the US is not about to move all those nukes elsewhere.

onetwotree 10y ago
I think the present situation in Turkey is a great argument in favor of putting the nukes somewhere else. I believe they're all gravity bombs, which makes them mostly symbolic, just like the nukes we store in other NATO countries.
- tim333 10y ago
  And there are 50 bombs weighing 320 kg each so less than a B52 loads worth. They can take them here to the UK as far as I'm concerned. It's not like anyones likely to want to actually use any in the foreseeable future.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Anyone want to take bets how long until NATO will revoke Turkey's membership? Well, Erdogan's regime is threatening to end its friendship with the US if Gülen isn't turned over, so any termination of the relationship may not come from the NATO side.

onetwotree 10y ago
That's when we'll know he's really gone off the rails. I think I read that Kerry had said something like "sure, we'll extradite him...if you have evidence that he committed any crimes." Since any evidence they do have is likely to be pretty weak, this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move. A reasonable Turkish leader wouldn't call that bluff, but Ergodan seems to be slipping deeper and deeper into paranoia and autocratic madness.
- Zak 10y ago
  this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move I skimmed the treaty. It does appear that evidence that the person sought has committed a crime is a requirement for an extradition request, in which case Kerry is merely saying "we're not going to exceed our legal authority just because you asked us to". It is also a requirement, at least in most circumstances that the evidence be for a crime that is punishable by detention for more than one year (i.e. a felony) in both countries.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  > Since any evidence they do have is likely to be pretty weak, this seems like a classic "remember that USA is the boss of you" move. I don't follow how you got from A to B there; I don't read Kerry's position as asserting American authority or sovereignty at all, to be honest. It's a standard for extradition which is a sovereignty affair as well as a legal due process consideration in our system of government, but not in the manner of asserting American authority to 'boss' Turkey around. We refuse the occasional extradition to the UK, for example, despite having a special relationship with them and not tending to diplomatically 'boss' them around, so I'm not following your thinking here. (It's not a great example because of the 2003 treaty we have with them, but the point stands about refusals.) I'm also not following how you arrived at the American position being a bluff.