Turkish Gov't: Erdogan's Bodyguards Needed To Attack DC Protesters Because They Were Too Close When They Said Mean Things

Say That Again

from the welcome-to-the-insult-free-zone dept

A few years back, thin-skinned thug/President of Turkey Recep Erdogan paid the US a visit. He brought his security detail with him, which isn’t unusual. World leaders always travel with security. What was more surprising were the actions of his security team. When faced with protesters hurling dangerous words in the direction of Erdogan, his security personnel decided “when in Rome” wasn’t applicable. Acting as though they were on their home turf, Erdogan’s bodyguards began physically assaulting protesters and journalists covering the protests.

This put Washington DC police in the awkward and novel position of protecting protesters and journalists from beatings. It also put Erdogan and his security officers under the heading of “Defendants” in a federal lawsuit. Erdogan’s off-the-cuff defense of his bodyguards’ actions — that they were right to retaliate against insults targeting the president — appears to be the defense the Republic of Turkey is using in its attempt to get this lawsuit dismissed. (h/t Adam Steinbaugh)

The motion to dismiss [PDF] alleges a lot of things. It claims protesters were dangerous. It claims the DC Metro Police did not keep protesters as far away from Erdogan as Erdogan felt they should be. It claims anti-Turkey protesters injured pro-Turkey supporters. But mostly it claims the use of force was justified.

Local law enforcement did nothing to enforce U.S. federal law making it a crime for two or more persons to harass or attempt to harass a foreign dignitary within 100 feet. See 18 U.S.C. § 112. MPD either ignored or was unaware that under U.S. law, and international treaty obligations, dignitaries are different, and that the United States promises a higher level of security to “internationally protected persons” than ordinary persons, as part of the fabric of diplomacy and international comity.

What kind of “harassment?” Well, it looks like people were saying mean things about Erdogan within hearing distance.

When President Erdogan arrived at the Residence, the angry Anti-Turkey Group, of which several members had already acted violently, continued to tout symbols of PKK/YPG support while yelling aspersions about President Erdogan within an unsafe distance of the Turkish president and the Residence he was attempting to enter.

After some barely-related narrative about how tough and dangerous it is to be the Turkish president in the age of ISIS, the motion continues with its claims of harmful free speech.

Section 112(a) broadly prohibits assaults against foreign officials, official guests, and IPPs, and attacks upon the official premises, private accommodations, and means of transport of such persons. 18 U.S.C. § 112(a). The provision also criminalizes attempts to commit such offenses. Id. Notably, neither intent to injure an IPP nor proof of injury is required to be found guilty of a crime under Section 112(a). See United States v. Gan, 636 F.2d 28, 29-30 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1020 (1981).

Which includes “harassment,” a term the Turkish government’s motion decides to define with an outdated version of the law it’s citing:

Section 112(b) prohibits, among other things, (1) harassment or (2) attempts to harass a foreign official and (3) the congregation of two or more persons within 100 feet of a foreign official with the intent to harass. 18 U.S.C. § 112(b).28 The term “harass” has been interpreted to apply to “such activities as may seriously alarm or persecute foreign officials.” CISPES (Comm. in Solidarity with People of El Salvador) v. F.B.I., 770 F.2d 468, 476 (5th Cir. 1985). The legislative history of the statute (in its pre-amended form) includes the following example of individual misconduct criminalized by Section 112(b)(1) and (2):

Engaging in a course of conduct, including the use of abusive language, or repeatedly committing acts which alarm, intimidate or persecute him which serve no legitimate purpose

The law no longer references the “use of abusive language.”

There’s a lot to the motion, but the crux of it is that Erdogan’s security team was justified in using physical force on protesters, most of whom were using nothing more than words. The Republic of Turkey will very likely escape being held liable for the actions of Erdogan’s security team, but their actions at least gave more of the world a glimpse at what the country’s favorite response to critical speech is: vindictive violence.

Filed Under: assault, attacks, bodyguards, free speech, protests, recep tayyip erdogan, turkey