ABSURDITY: DISPROPORTIONATE USE OF FORCE

There are many countries that intermittently and consistently violate the fundamental human rights of citizens. The United States of America is not exempt from this breach of humanity: American history is replete with such denials and this country continues to wrestle with the manner it will relate to certain categories of people. When our nation criticizes another country for unjust treatment of its populace, it surely must take the brunt of criticisms about its own shortcomings with respect to human rights. But such reciprocity does not affect the validity of the criticisms we make of other countries for its repression. In other words, guilty silence is not an option when a country is clearly trouncing upon the dignity and worth of its citizens.

Were each country to keep silent when another country is unduly repelling its citizenry, we would individually and collectively be endorsing the inhumane treatment of persons. Equally absurd is when a nation seeks to condone its oppression by arguing that it is being singled out by the international community or by another country or by individuals while human rights are being violated all over the planet. The result of such a claim is to stifle any criticism whatsoever, regardless of its validity or veracity. This type of claim is a logical fallacy of the first degree, and it does not excuse the guilty party because of false conversions, equivocations, and hypotheses contrary to the facts.

A major tenet of international relations, from the United Nations Declarations of Human Rights to the classic just war theory, is proportionality. A person or group that has limited means of demonstrating its position should not be overwhelmed by an opposing person or group that has comparatively unlimited means. Simply put, it is not a fair fight. When a citizen throws a rock at a police officer and is met with bullet fire, a serious violation of this principle of reciprocity has occurred. No discussion of security or protection is sufficient to justify such a disproportionate use of force. It might be challenging to find options to deal with pesky opponents, but wiping them out with a use of force that obliterates them is immoral, offensive, and prosecutorial—regardless of the social arena.

What happened in Tiananmen Square where the demonstrator stood in from of a tank is a case in point. The tanker could have bulldozed or blasted the protestor while the world watched, but did not. Doing so would have been inhumane. The demonstrator in Arizona who was gunned down because of hitting a guardsman with a stone clearly breached proportionality. And the killing of defenseless Palestinians by Israeli soldiers is likewise unconscionable. No puerile logical fallacy erases the perniciousness of the atrocity. Period!