It is one thing to read about human-rights violations going
on in another country; it is quite another to see such a country’s president’s
men attacking people of another country in their own country. Besides the added
perspective that such an act gives to people in that country, the mentality
itself is made transparent in terms of its sheer presumptuousness. In other
words, the presumptuousness that may be viewed as latent in a human-rights
violation inflicted by government officials and their respective employees on
their own soil is made particularly transparent, or obvious, when the violation
is against foreigners on their own soil.
In May, 2017, 24 men, including armed employees of President
Recep Erdogan’s security detail, attacked protesters, many of whom were
American citizens, in Washington. Sitting in a car, Erdogan “conferred with
Muhsin Kose, his head of security, who leaned into the car’s rear door.”[1]
After speaking with Erdogan, Kose “talked into his earpiece, and three security
personnel who were guarding the president’s car hurried toward the protest. The
brawl began moments later, and one of these men . . . appeared on video
punching and kicking people.”[2]
That is, a few seconds after Kose spoke into his earpiece, the men charged the
protesters, kicking and hitting them. Kose talked with his president as the
Turkish security men attacked the Americans. “One man knocked two women to the
ground, and another man repeatedly punched Lucy Usoyan, a protester, as she lay
on the ground. The third man kicked
]Sayid Yasa] after he was thrown to the ground moments earlier.”[3]
It is the lack of any violent trigger that is particularly noteworthy.
I submit that the intent to punch and kick people who had
not themselves been violent points to a desire
to inflict pain for its own sake. The sadistic mentality loses the cover of
“government security” legitimacy when no inciting violence can provide a
trigger. Instead, the trigger is in the psychology shared by the 24 men who
initiated the violence. One implication is that government officials and their
employees who respectively order and commit human-rights violations against
their own people suffer from mental illness rather than being merely
politically partisan.
The presumptuousness in instigating violent acts without a
violent trigger is particularly evident in the sheer gall in attacking the
American citizens in their own country rather
than in Turkey. It is amazing how difficult presumptuousness can be to detect
when it is so engrained in a person’s status quo. The secular humanist, for
instance, who takes pride of convenience in having the title, Rev., and being
the “minister” of a church or even a religious society can be said to act presumptuously
in tacitly turning down (i.e., not welcoming) potential religious or spiritual
members. Once such a church or religious society strangely eschews anything not
in keeping with secularity, the implicit presumptuousness can be difficult to
discern.
The presumptuousness of the Turks in Washington, D.C. goes
beyond a lack of respect for American criminal law and the U.S. Constitution,
which protects political protest. The underlying attitude would fall under the
radar in Turkey, where government is not expected to protect and advance the
cause of human rights. In the United States, however, the offending attitude was
obvious. It can be likened to a house-guest who not only does not clean up his mess,
but also hits the host’s friends after getting a call from his boss from work to
do so. The mentality goes beyond rudeness and even disrespect to even being
pathological. The host would be totally justified in not only kicking out the
offensive guest, but also calling the police to report the violence.
So it is telling, on the American side, that the D.C. police
did not stop the aggressive foreigners—even if they had diplomatic immunity
they could have been stopped and even detained, yet only two people were
arrested—one from New York City. In fact, video shows a D.C. police agent clubbing
a protester!
Meanwhile, the U.S. State
Department merely voiced concern over “the violent incidents involving
protesters and Turkish security personnel.”[4]
It is significant, I contend, that the American president did not show Erdogan
and his employees the proverbial door. Such betrayal of the American citizens,
even implicitly in just voicing concern, must certainly have felt to the
protesters like insult added to injury. In fact, the abject failure of the
local police and the U.S. Government to go after the Turkish criminals on
behalf of the American protesters implies tacit approval or even likeness to
the pathology and political authoritarianism—suggesting that risks to
human-rights exist in the U.S. rather than just in other countries. The sin of
omission, in other words, can shed light on a sordid mentality or attitude.
[1] Malachy
Browne, Christ Cirillo, Troy Griggs, Josh Keller, and Natalie Reneau, “Did
the Turkish President’s Security Detail Attack Protesters in Washington? What
the Video Shows,” The New York Times,
May 26, 2017.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4]
Max Jaeger, “State
Dept. Condemns Turkish Security’s Bloody Attack on Protesters,” New York Post, May 17, 2017.
