SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the is-that-a-bone-saw-in-your-pocket? dept.
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
C.I.A. Concludes That Saudi Crown Prince Ordered Khashoggi Killed
The Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, ordered the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to American officials.
The C.I.A. made the assessment based on the crown prince's control of Saudi Arabia, which is such that the killing would not have taken place without his approval, and has buttressed its conclusion with two sets of crucial communications: intercepts of the crown prince's calls in the days before the killing, and calls by the kill team to a senior aide to the crown prince.
[...] The increasingly definitive assessment from the spy agency creates a problem for President Trump, who has tied his administration to Prince Mohammed and proclaimed him the future of Saudi Arabia, a longtime American ally. But the new assessment by the C.I.A. is sure to harden the resolve of lawmakers on Capitol Hill to continue to investigate the killing of Mr. Khashoggi and punish Saudi Arabia.
Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, has been particularly close to Prince Mohammed. Mr. Kushner has long advocated that a strong relationship with the Saudis is in the United States' interest, and he has pushed to maintain support for the crown prince despite the death of Mr. Khashoggi, who Saudi officials now say was killed with a lethal dose of tranquilizers and dismembered. Previously, Saudi officials said that Mr. Khashoggi had been strangled.
[...] Neither administration officials nor intelligence officers believe the controversy over Mr. Khashoggi will drive Prince Mohammed from power, which is one reason White House officials believe cutting ties with the prince would not be in the interest of the United States.
takyon: The Saudis have denied the reports.
See also: Saudi media ignore US reports on Khashoggi
Top White House Official Involved in Saudi Sanctions Resigns
Previously: Turkey Says that a Missing Critic of the Saudi Government was Killed in Saudi Consulate in Istanbul
Saudi Arabia Reportedly Prepared to Admit Involvement in Journalist's Death
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:03AM (23 children)
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Do you believe in sovereignty? Do nations, or do nations not, have the right to determine their own path? In this case, a sovereign nation has decided to do something about one of it's own citizens or subjects who grew too annoying. On their own soil, they acted to eliminate that annoyance. What do we do about it? Nothing at all.
You're not happy with that conclusion?
Very well - let us take a peek down the rabbit hole. "The people" decide that it is not acceptable for a sovereign ruler to dispose of a problematic citizen. "The people" take action to punish that sovereign ruler. So - we boycott products from that nation? Or, we invade? Take that sovereign ruler, imprison him? Or execute him? Ohhhhh-kayyyy, problem solved, right? Except - precedent.
We have just opened Pandora's box, folks. AngleA Merkle may very well be next. Or, Queen Elizabeth. Trump. Putin. Any and all state leaders are now at risk of summary execution. There's a word for that - let me think here - oh yeah, "assassination".
Isn't there a case in history where some random asshole killed some other random asshole, thereby sparking a "World War"? And, didn't that world war conclude inconclusively, resulting in yet another world war, only a short generation later?
But, fuck that rabbit hole. Let's instead consider reality. The Sauds are part of the ruling class. The ruling class rules. If they want to dispose of you, or me, or any other random citizen, they do so. They don't have to justify jack shit to anyone. Oh - telephone, BRB. OK, gotta go folks. They've got the draft rolling, and I'm being called up to help with that drone program. What? No, I won't be operating any stupid drones. I just have to deliver them. Someone has to move them from the factory to the airfields, right? About the only way for me to get out of that is to lose my security clearance . . .
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:24AM (3 children)
What the fuck are you talking about? Khashoggi may have been a Saudi citizen, but he was a US resident and green card holder, he worked for a US paper, and he was murdered in Turkey.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:58AM (2 children)
"and he was murdered inside of a Saudi consulate."
FTFY. Khashoggi was murdered on Saudi soil. WTF does it matter who he worked for? What does it matter where he lived? He was still subject to his Saudi lords.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Sunday November 18 2018, @10:00AM
Time for you to learn something dating from your childhood: an diplomat mission (embassy included) only has immunity from the receiving state, but is not a sovereign territory of the country establishing the mission [pathtoforeignservice.com].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 19 2018, @01:53AM
Making fun of the Clown Prince is unhealthy.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @03:13AM (1 child)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @07:20AM
Well, I think that you are technically correct, but in practice, it's pretty gray. Found this article which goes into it a little deeper - https://pathtoforeignservice.com/is-an-embassy-on-foreign-soil-the-sovereign-territory-of-the-host-country-or-the-embassys-country/ [pathtoforeignservice.com] Just as is the case with Assange, no one goes barging into an embassy, unless they intend to start a war. Note the story about our embassy in China. People, presumably all civilians, threw trash and human waste at the embassy, but no one entered the embassy. Chinese police were present to ensure that plenty of insult was offered the US, but no real harm.
As a former military member, I was taught that certain places are, for all intents and purposes, sovereign territory of the US. Military bases, embassies, consulates, ships bearing the US flag, and the two square feet of soil upon which I stood, no matter where that soil might be. For our purposes, it wasn't necessary to be technically correct.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:01AM (5 children)
This is truly a comedy goldmine.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 18 2018, @06:44AM (4 children)
It's tragicomic at best. Runaway's nuts, and he's evil nuts, not harmless nuts. I can't bring myself to laugh at this.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @07:21AM (3 children)
That is part of the humor.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:17PM (2 children)
So you *like* being such a piteous wretched wreck of a human being that even someone with a sense of humor as dark as mine can't laugh at you? You're slipping further and further into insanity by the day.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @05:05PM (1 child)
It's amusing to know that your panties get all knotted up over nothing. You take life to seriously, you know.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday November 18 2018, @07:53PM
Ah, so you *are* nothing then. I've been saying that for a while, haven't I?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @07:35AM (4 children)
Do you believe in sovereignty?
Yes, of the individual, not the corrupt vassal state of its corporate financiers. If you were a true libertarian, you would believe the same thing.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @09:02AM (1 child)
Whatever gave you the impression that I'm a "true libertarian"? I have mentioned a few times that I have some libertarian leanings. I think of myself as more conservative than anything. And, yet, that political spectrum test tells me that I'm actually a little left of center. So, where does that leave us? I suspect that I'm not a "true libertarian".
As for sovereignty of the individual - why don't we go back in time. Let us go back to near pre-history, or maybe even pre-history. You are a sovereign being, and you don't have to answer to anyone for anything - except maybe your wife. You live in a village with a dozen, or a hundred other sovereign males, all masters of your own destiny. Some other monkey-like guys from over the mountain want to come into your village and tell you how things should be done. So, Sovereign Monkeyman - are you personally going to fend off all of those Round-the-mountain Monkeys, or do you band together with your fellow Local Monkeys? That is - do you establish the sovereignty of your village, or do you rely on your own individual sovereignty?
Careful now - your choice here may well decide your survival, and the survival of your mate, your children, and your fellow Local Monkeys.
Of course, if you die, you'll be replaced by some other monkeys that probably won't be as funny looking as you are. Your buck teeth, your ears sticking way out to here, silly looking crossed eyes, and those ridiculous chicken legs.
And,before you whine and cry about the choices - survival makes right. It's just that simple.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @07:28PM
People will defend you if you have earned their love and respect. There is no sovereignty without that. Then it's just war and pillaging. Only the predators will prevail which is simply how the universe functions, might makes right. It's the only way to survive. Contentment is death. Still, to be human is to respect absolute individual sovereignty (which still includes self defense), anything else is nothing more than animal savagery. And being sub-human, we can kill (the only good psychopath is a dead psychopath) and eat them as we see fit. Tastes like pork. Yummy!
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday November 18 2018, @09:18AM (1 child)
... I give him a cookie.
Anyone who wants to can be Sovereign provided they can defend themselves from those who feel they shouldn't be.
Go read up about Bloody Week in Paris: the Commune de Paris is widely credited with being history's first Communist nation - the Incas were Communist long before, likely there were other even older Communist societies. However the Communards failed to provide for their own self-defense.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:29PM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @12:55PM (2 children)
Saudi Arabia was also likely responsible for the 9/11 attacks, which is an act of war. Sanctions are the least that could be done.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:54PM (1 child)
Saudis may have been the fall guys(hijackers) but the Mossad likely demolished the towers and building 7. both are US allies so let's not delude ourselves as to who gave them the fucking keys to the buildings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 21 2018, @02:25AM
You're both wrong. Bert and Ernie did it. It was drunk driving.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 18 2018, @01:52PM (2 children)
What of rule of law, Runaway? Let's recall [soylentnews.org] what you wrote earlier:
In the vein of those questions, you support governments murdering their opponents when it is convenient? The difference is that these questions you bring are laws, written down and rigid rules that everyone is aware of. The "rules" that Kashoggi crossed are arbitrary and subject to whim.
This is a key difference between authoritarianism and everything else. To authoritarianism, the authority can do significant things that would normally be outside the law because it is the authority. Little to no further justification needs to be made. For everyone else, the authorities need to follow clear rules.
My view here is that Saudi Arabia doesn't have nor will ever have the right to murder its political opponents merely because they are opponents. But we're not even to that point. The Crown Prince is not Saudi Arabia. He can and in this case should be replaced in his role - assuming Saudi Arabia wants to continue with a monarchy, and then tried for his crimes in a fair court of law.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 18 2018, @02:49PM
The Crown Prince, or, the Heir Apparent, has acted in a manner pleasing to the current monarch, apparently. And, that's life under a monarchy. The rules are fickle, arbitrary, and capricious. The day that the Saudi Arabian people decide to change that, they will do so. Of course, that will probably mean that the House of Saud no longer rules, being replaced by some other fickle, arbitrary, and capricious asshole.
Also - it doesn't matter whether you or I recognize the right of the monarch to rule. It only matters whether the Saudis recognize that right. Obviously, enough Saudis recognize the king's rights and authorities that they keep him enthroned.
The prince may be a different story. Only time will tell.
One more thing. I've also referred to the US government committing similar acts. We don't usually send a hit team, these days. Instead, we just play some video games while we bide our time. When the time is right, we launch hellfire from the skies. I really don't see much difference between a hit team, or a drone strike.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20 2018, @06:37PM
But I suppose murdering one journalist is a tragedy whereas bombed yemeni weddings and funerals are just statistics.