I guess it's nice that easily observable things are now actually being confirmed by the government again. This was strongly suspected at the time but never by any official sources, and it's nice to actually have it come out. This is probably generally a result of a shift in policy against viewing Saudi Arabia as a stabilizing government in the region which seems like a correct evaluation.
This is a mere eyewash to keep your votes in your pocket. If you really think Biden admin is going to have a concrete change in the middle East policy (regarding arms sale, etc.) I have a bridge to sell to you.
Isn't that a good sign? I prefer people investing in new tech than killing people just to stay in the old tech.
The more they are able to diversify their profits away from oil towards renewables (or other assets), the faster we all can transition to cleaner tech.
I remember when SA and UAE wanted to build fabs in the middle east in their never ending effort to diversify away from oil. They soon realized they don’t have the workforce without importing skilled labor. SA has one of the [hardest-to-motivate workforces] in the world.
>Treasury will unveil sanctions today on General Ahmed al-Asiri, former deputy head of the Saudi intelligence services, and the Saudi Rapid Intervention Force for their involvement in the Khashoggi assassination. Crown Prince MBS will NOT be sanctioned, per officials.
>A new State Department policy named the Khashoggi Ban will also be unveiled today, which will allow State to restrict and revoke visas to any individual believed to be involved in targeting/harassing/surveilling dissidents and journalists extraterritorially.
>Then White House chose not to penalize the crown prince directly despite intel report concluding he approved the operation that led to Khashoggi's murder. One senior administration official said that to do so would put the U.S. in an extremely “hostile” position wrt KSA.
>"The aim is recalibration, not a rupture, because of the important interests that we do share" with Saudi Arabia, the senior admin official said. U.S. officials and departments will continue to deal with MBS at the appropriate levels.
>More from SAO on why MBS was not sanctioned: "The United States as a matter of practice has not generally applied sanctions on the highest leadership of countries with whom the US has diplomatic relations. Nor even generally speaking on the leaders of countries with which 1/
>the US has no relations. And having looked at this extremely closely over the last 5 weeks, there was unanimous conclusion that there were other more effective means to dealing with these issues going forward."
This is similar to how Modi was banned from entering the US for overseeing the Gujrat massacres but was suddendly a champion of human rights when he became PM. Might is always right sadly.
I find it deeply disturbing that this was known by the US intelligence community the entire time yet they were suppressed from sharing publicly because of certain people being compromised. Ugh.
Remember the 9/11 redacted pages about the Saudis leaving? Oil and $$$.
The US and the world must decarbonize to remove the power from these feudal, vicious "drug dealers." The US wouldn't need to protect SA if most of NATO countries' energy could be had elsewhere. It would be essential to remove nukes and military arms from SA and Iran to ensure peace in the region.
This makes sense to me. The idea that "the truth sets you free" is not just false, but in some cases even "privileged". If the political situation in the ME gets worse, it isn't necessarily Americans, or at least the current generation, who will be most harmed.
I'd argue it is up to US intelligence and the current Administration to make these decisions, or at least that's how the system is designed - and I would agree that any systems needs to be selective in what information is public - radical political honesty works about as well as radical social honesty, just with even more terrible consequences.
That's not to say 'there aren't problems with this, the most pressing being how to trust the authorities involved, especially when they are essentially given the means to bury their crimes, and control the very information by which their actions may be (democratically) measured - but I guess these are the paradox of the modern, democratic mega-nation.
This was known to the world. When a foreign critic is invited to an embassy, dismembered, and his body disposed of, you can be sure that all the key people in leadership knew about it, and those in a position to stop it must have approved it. The only possible reason why someone in the Saudi government would not know about it would be if they were an outsider that was generally excluded from the flow of sensitive information. Say the minister of agriculture or something.
Much of this story was published in Proof of Conspiracy in 2019, curated from major media reporting. The media just didn't cover the release at the time.
I don't know. It's not like the US government kept this as a closely-held secret or tried to convince anyone it wasn't true; they just didn't want to officially acknowledge it for diplomatic reasons. International politics works that way sometimes, and I'm not sure it's fair to characterize that as being "compromised".
Why is this in particular deeply disturbing? Your tax dollars are responsible for thousands of murders and hundreds of thousands of negligent homicides every year. Why is it that one guy getting killed for doing something that was illegal for him to do in his country is the thing that is getting to you?
I have a friend who relocated from Saudi Arabia to America. He said MbS most likely watched the dismemberment via video link as entertainment. Nothing in the Kingdom like that happens without MbS' approval. It's unlikely that anyone went rogue because it's a very hierarchal society with strict rules.
Were there any revelations on how the Turkish intelligence managed to uncover the murder?
There were claims that they listened through his Apple Watch but this claim lacks any substance, they must have bugged the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul where the murder took place.
May I ask an honest question? I cannot understand why Jamal Khashoggi is mainly referred as a "journalist". Reading his Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi), apparently he is a Saudi dissident, a critic of the Saudi government. Yes he did write lots articles for newspaper, mostly criticize the Saudi government. But does this make him a journalist?
According to the Wikipedia page, I don't think he was an independent journalist. He had connections with the Saudi government and other organizations.
Quote: "After his second resignation, Khashoggi maintained ties with Saudi Arabian elites, including those in its intelligence apparatus. In 2015, he launched the satellite news channel Al-Arab, based in Bahrain outside Saudi Arabia, which does not allow independent news channels to operate within its borders. The news channel was backed by Saudi Arabian billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and partnered with U.S. financial news channel Bloomberg Television, it was also rumored to have received financial support from the King of Bahrain, Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa.[69] "
Quote: "In December 2018, The Washington Post revealed that Khashoggi's columns "at times" were "shaped" by an organization funded by Saudi Arabia's regional nemesis, Qatar, including by proposing his topics, giving him drafts, goading him, and giving him research."
I am not saying it is wrong to be a political dissident, but those should disqualifying you from being called as a "journalist", right?
Video about half-way down... Trump said, paraphrased, "I talked with MBS and he told me very strongly that he didn't do it, so he's good. Move along, nothing to see here people."
I don't agree with Biden on everything, but sure is nice to have a POTUS who isn't trying to sweep the killing of journalists under the rug. Like... I sleep a bit better at night now.
Trump was pursuing a real-politik strategy - US energy / oil independence. Without it, US just can’t afford to put SA in the corner. Biden instead is pursuing nice PR, cancelling pipelines and alienating SA (as it seems so far... we’ll see if there’s a grand strategy behind it).
"US President Joe Biden is expected to take a firmer line than his predecessor Donald Trump on human rights and the rule of law in Saudi Arabia, a key American ally in the Middle East."
What does this even mean? I highly doubt the arms deal will get canceled. That was arranged under Obama and Biden.
Well it means actually acknowledging what happened vs the Trump admin staying quiet on it. As for the arms deal, the most recent arms deal was brokered by the Trump admin [0].
[+] [-] munk-a|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kome|5 years ago|reply
I guess the Turkish state reports were official enough.
[+] [-] dr-detroit|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] samstave|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zapdrive|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m_a_g|5 years ago|reply
https://vicki.substack.com/p/silicon-valley-runs-on-saudi
[+] [-] sschueller|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] juskrey|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshjhargreaves|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roflchoppa3|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xiphias2|5 years ago|reply
The more they are able to diversify their profits away from oil towards renewables (or other assets), the faster we all can transition to cleaner tech.
[+] [-] hahahahe|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] r721|5 years ago|reply
>A new State Department policy named the Khashoggi Ban will also be unveiled today, which will allow State to restrict and revoke visas to any individual believed to be involved in targeting/harassing/surveilling dissidents and journalists extraterritorially.
>Then White House chose not to penalize the crown prince directly despite intel report concluding he approved the operation that led to Khashoggi's murder. One senior administration official said that to do so would put the U.S. in an extremely “hostile” position wrt KSA.
>"The aim is recalibration, not a rupture, because of the important interests that we do share" with Saudi Arabia, the senior admin official said. U.S. officials and departments will continue to deal with MBS at the appropriate levels.
>More from SAO on why MBS was not sanctioned: "The United States as a matter of practice has not generally applied sanctions on the highest leadership of countries with whom the US has diplomatic relations. Nor even generally speaking on the leaders of countries with which 1/
>the US has no relations. And having looked at this extremely closely over the last 5 weeks, there was unanimous conclusion that there were other more effective means to dealing with these issues going forward."
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/13653707662047477...
UPD
https://www.state.gov/accountability-for-the-murder-of-jamal...
[+] [-] zodiakzz|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aqme28|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schwinn140|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doggodaddo78|5 years ago|reply
The US and the world must decarbonize to remove the power from these feudal, vicious "drug dealers." The US wouldn't need to protect SA if most of NATO countries' energy could be had elsewhere. It would be essential to remove nukes and military arms from SA and Iran to ensure peace in the region.
[+] [-] Chris2048|5 years ago|reply
I'd argue it is up to US intelligence and the current Administration to make these decisions, or at least that's how the system is designed - and I would agree that any systems needs to be selective in what information is public - radical political honesty works about as well as radical social honesty, just with even more terrible consequences.
That's not to say 'there aren't problems with this, the most pressing being how to trust the authorities involved, especially when they are essentially given the means to bury their crimes, and control the very information by which their actions may be (democratically) measured - but I guess these are the paradox of the modern, democratic mega-nation.
[+] [-] rsj_hn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] andrewacove|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hddu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SpicyLemonZest|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kolbe|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] doggodaddo78|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stiltzkin|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrtksn|5 years ago|reply
There were claims that they listened through his Apple Watch but this claim lacks any substance, they must have bugged the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul where the murder took place.
[+] [-] will_pseudonym|5 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_Septembe...
[+] [-] temp8964|5 years ago|reply
According to the Wikipedia page, I don't think he was an independent journalist. He had connections with the Saudi government and other organizations.
Quote: "After his second resignation, Khashoggi maintained ties with Saudi Arabian elites, including those in its intelligence apparatus. In 2015, he launched the satellite news channel Al-Arab, based in Bahrain outside Saudi Arabia, which does not allow independent news channels to operate within its borders. The news channel was backed by Saudi Arabian billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and partnered with U.S. financial news channel Bloomberg Television, it was also rumored to have received financial support from the King of Bahrain, Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa.[69] "
Quote: "In December 2018, The Washington Post revealed that Khashoggi's columns "at times" were "shaped" by an organization funded by Saudi Arabia's regional nemesis, Qatar, including by proposing his topics, giving him drafts, goading him, and giving him research."
I am not saying it is wrong to be a political dissident, but those should disqualifying you from being called as a "journalist", right?
[+] [-] liquidify|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dbg31415|5 years ago|reply
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/411502-trump-has-e...
Video about half-way down... Trump said, paraphrased, "I talked with MBS and he told me very strongly that he didn't do it, so he's good. Move along, nothing to see here people."
I don't agree with Biden on everything, but sure is nice to have a POTUS who isn't trying to sweep the killing of journalists under the rug. Like... I sleep a bit better at night now.
[+] [-] Debug_Overload|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] happyconcepts|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ulisesrmzroche|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aqme28|5 years ago|reply
This is almost more shameful than when we pretended that MBS wasn't involved.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/26/us/politics/biden-mbs-kha...
[+] [-] technol0gic|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miles|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prtkgpt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bud|5 years ago|reply
It's just that it was kept covered up by Trump.
[+] [-] tomp|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sschueller|5 years ago|reply
What does this even mean? I highly doubt the arms deal will get canceled. That was arranged under Obama and Biden.
[+] [-] mc32|5 years ago|reply
Regimes do bad things. They just don’t usually do it in the open like this case or North Korea (foreign airport).
Unless it’s a small banana republic that bends at the will of international pressure, not much will happen.
Right after they do something material about this I’m certain they will do something about the things China does.
Maybe they’ll do something about Venezuela too, right?
[+] [-] joshstrange|5 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-admin...
[+] [-] dqpb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Qw3r7|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droopyEyelids|5 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1364626495315062788