Paper short abstract:

Through an analysis of two high-profile coup trials in Turkey that goes from the courtroom to the public protests conducted by military families on the streets of Istanbul and Ankara, this paper traces the role and spatial manifestations of emotions in the making of legal and political subjects.

Paper long abstract:

Previously situated outside and above the law in Turkey, military officers have become one of the primary actors of the country's legal scene in the past decade in their role as defendants across treason and coup trials. Marking a momentous shift in Turkish politics against the military's impervious position, these trials have sparked much debate in the public realm and led to a rupture of emotions, both for their defendants and victims of state violence in Turkey. This paper examines the entanglement of emotions, politics, and protest both inside and on the margins of Turkey's legal spaces by focusing on two of these proceedings: the controversial Sledgehammer case, an alleged coup plot dating back to the early 2000s, and the trial of the 1980 coup, the bloodiest military intervention in the country's history. Specifically, I demonstrate how a demand for justice and anger against continuing injustice ironically marked the reactions of both military defendants on trial and the victims of military coups and examine the spatial manifestations of these emotions. By drawing on particular moments from the two trials, I discuss how interruption, compartmentalization, and continuity of time marked different legal actors' relationship with the courtroom space and trickled into the political protests conducted by military families on the streets of Istanbul and Ankara. Finally, I also reflect on the question of what happens when those who belong to an institution long associated with violence and rights violations become the ones to seek justice.