Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

US Says Saudi Prince Approved Journalist Khashoggi Killing (bbc.com) 151

A US intelligence report has found that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the murder of exiled journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. BBC: The declassified report released by the Biden administration says the prince approved a plan to either capture or kill the US-based Saudi exile. It is the first time America has publicly named the crown prince, who denies ordering the death. Khashoggi was murdered while visiting the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. He had been known for his criticism of the Saudi authorities. "We assess that Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman approved an operation in Istanbul, Turkey to capture or kill Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi," the report by the office of the US director of national intelligence says. From our earlier coverage of Khashoggi:
Silicon Valley's Saudi Arabia Problem (2018)
Uber CEO Calls Saudi Murder of Khashoggi 'a Mistake', Scrambles To Backtrack (2019)
Amazon Boss Jeff Bezos' Phone 'Hacked By Saudi Crown Prince' (2020)
UN Calls For Investigation Into Saudi Crown Prince's Alleged Involvement in Bezos Phone Hack (2020).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Says Saudi Prince Approved Journalist Khashoggi Killing

Comments Filter:
  • by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Friday February 26, 2021 @03:00PM (#61103332)

    Call me shocked!

    • by shanen ( 462549 )

      How many bone saws would a bone sawer saw if the sawer could saw saws?

      MBS wouldn't give you the funny mod either.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/id... [theatlantic.com] says a lot about the de facto state of the American Constitution. Maybe this story would have fit under Trump Amendment 5? If only there had been any attempt to hold MBS to account under any normal law system?

      So did you hear the one about the GQP worshiping the Golden Calf?

      And how about the Munchkin visiting MBS around January 6th seeking a few billion bucks of c

  • by Arthur, KBE ( 6444066 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @03:03PM (#61103342)
    Was this ever even in question?
    • It wasn't (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @03:09PM (#61103368)
      but having the US Government say he did has enormous political implications.
      • Then the US government will put their money were their mouth is.

        No they won't.
      • Re:It wasn't (Score:4, Interesting)

        by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Friday February 26, 2021 @03:28PM (#61103426) Homepage Journal

        > but having the US Government say he did has enormous political implications.

        So the US will stop providing military, financial, and intelligence support for the Saudi genocide in Yemen?

        Let's hope so, despite the infinitesimally-small odds.

        • Re:It wasn't (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Whateverthisis ( 7004192 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @03:50PM (#61103478)
          No. This is a pressure tactic.

          The US supports Saudi Arabia because the US' strategy is to support 2nd-tier regional powers to counterbalance the growth of the most powerful regional power and in so doing ensure that no country ever reaches a level that could interfere with the US' interests. If the Saudi's lost military and economic power which is bolstered by the US, they'd retreat in strength and Iran, the strongest Middle Eastern power, would fill the vacuum and grow stronger.

          Unfortunately Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) is a hothead and young and not quite as experienced; he wasn't the one being groomed (his cousin Muhammad bin Nayef was), but MbN was ousted and it caused some dissension within the Saudi royal ranks. Hence when MBS came to power, there was a huge purge to consolidate control.

          MBS goes his own path, overplays his hand, and over-estimates the strength of his position; hence the Yemen situation but also not being as confrontational to Iran as the US would like. So this isn't meant to target Saudi Arabia; the report could have said something like "the highest levels of the Saudi government" but instead it named MBS, that's for a reason. This naming of him as approving the murder of a prominent journalist in exile in the US reduces his options to do business with US companies; Saudi Arabia is already hurting economically from the oil price drop. So this puts the screws on him, and allows the US to push him to be a tool to put more pressure on Iran. it also gives Biden plenty of credence to cancel the $8B weapons deal that finished right before Trump took office, because he has the political power to do so. So it's all pressure tactics on a guy who only knows how to respond to direct slaps in the face.

          I doubt Yemen will come into play here, but they may try to push for that too.

          • by shanen ( 462549 )

            Thoughtful and insightful analysis, notwithstanding the empty Subject. Apparently you already have several favorable mods, but the comment still shows as unmoderated. Eh?

          • Re:It wasn't (Score:4, Insightful)

            by skam240 ( 789197 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @06:55PM (#61104180)

            The US supports Saudi Arabia because the US' strategy is to support 2nd-tier regional powers to counterbalance the growth of the most powerful regional power and in so doing ensure that no country ever reaches a level that could interfere with the US' interests.

            That certainly sounds compelling but Iran does not have the most powerful military in the region
            https://www.forbes.com/sites/d... [forbes.com] . Going by your logic we'd be much more concerned by Turkey or Egypt. Furthermore, while the Saudi's certainly have a smaller military than Iran the Saudi military is much better funded.

            The US backing the Saudi's goes back to well before the Iranians had a meaningful military with Roosevelt's historic visit to Saudi Arabia. After the Iranian revolution tore down the US installed government in Iran and installed a very anti-American / anti-Western government we took advantage of the Sunni / Shia divide in the Middle East and capitalized on our already strong ties with the Saudi's to help limit Iranian influence.

            In other words, if Iran was a friendly government it wouldn't matter at all how big their military is (just like it doesn't with Egypt or the Turks). It isn't though and that's why we try to limit their influence.

            • POwer comes in many forms. Turkey's military is more powerful, but their influence is limited to Turkey because despite their current administration they are a secular nation and they are Turkish by ethnicity. Iran on the other hand has far-reaching influence where they can cause problems due to them being mostly Shia, and they have tremendous influence in many Arab countries (despite being Persian, not Arab) with the Shia who persist in every Arab country. Most Arab countries are Sunni with a sizeable m
              • by skam240 ( 789197 )

                POwer comes in many forms. Turkey's military is more powerful, but their influence is limited to Turkey because despite their current administration they are a secular nation and they are Turkish by ethnicity.

                That's not true at all, if you read my link you'd have seen they are quite involved in the region (and they don't even mention recent actions in Syria and Libya). Furthermore, they've always been seen as a Muslim country even when run by secularists as the vast majority of their population is Muslim.

                Iran also sits on the Strait of Hormuz, where about 40% of global oil production transits daily

                And Egypt (which I also mentioned but you conveniently decided to ignore) could shut down the Suez canal in a moment and both Turkey and Egypt's air forces can operate throughout the region. There's not much Iran can do that those two or many of the other countries in the region can't in terms of shutting down shipping.

                I should also mention that if some one (say some one like me) mentions the Shia / Sunni historic divide they probably know what it is and don't need you to explain it.

                • I should also mention that if some one (say some one like me) mentions the Shia / Sunni historic divide they probably know what it is and don't need you to explain it.

                  Should also mention that if someone who is not you (say, some one like me) and doesn't know about the Shia/Sunni historic divide having it explained is a huge help in understanding your comments about it.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          So the US will stop providing military, financial, and intelligence support for the Saudi genocide in Yemen?

          Mostly, we already have. The US has pulled way back from the debacle in Yemen. It isn't just that the war was stupid from the outset, but also that the Saudis have prosecuted it with astounding incompetence.

          Side note: Can we please stop using the word "genocide" to mean "actions by people I don't like"? The Holocaust was a genocide. The proxy war against the Houthis is not.

          • Re: It wasn't (Score:5, Insightful)

            by MrNaz ( 730548 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @06:42PM (#61104138) Homepage

            Can we please stop pretending that the Holocaust was the only genocide?

            Deliberately destroying infrastructure and then blocking food, building supplies, and medicine is a broadside deadly attack on an entire population. Pretty much falls into the definition of genocide. Feel free to come up with some technical detail that doesn't meet your lofty definitional bar, but there isn't a single aid worker that I know of who has been there (and I know a few) that has not observed a deliberate tactic of resource strangulation as a weapon of war.

        • That's doubtful. Saudi Arabia has a load of royal family members. The US throwing this particular one under the bus probably has more to do with the US trying to appease someone else in power (possibly eliminating a rival) than about taking some kind of moral stance. If we cared at all about that, we probably wouldn't have anywhere near the same kind of relationship with the Saudis that we do.
        • see here [bbc.com].

          If you want it to stay that way then you need to make sure Biden (or Harris if he's dead) wins in 2024. Trump will more than likely run then (again, assuming he's alive) and will roll things back (I'm fairly sure the Saudi/Yemen war isn't going away in 4 years no matter what Biden does).
      • but having the US Government say he did has enormous political implications.

        I agree. But I would also say that if the US doesn't do anything about it, it will send a dangerous message. The logical next step would be for the US to put sanctions on MBS (banned to travel to the US, assets freeze, etc.). And yes reconsider arms deals with Saudi Arabia.

        • We'll have to see how the Saudis respond. There really doesn't appear to be anyone else to take MBS's place, and whatever his flaws (ruthless impetuousness being his most marked trait), he has done an extraordinarily skillful job of eliminating anyone in his family that might represent a threat to him. I think the removal of MBS is unlikely, but making it clear to him that the US is the senior partner in the alliance, and the President ultimately holds a lot more cards than MBS, may go some distance to tami

          • What I meant is that if the US intelligence openly report that MBS contracted a murder, and the US doesn't do anything about it, the US will be perceived as tolerating murders, and weak.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      A certain former President seemed to be in denial about it.
    • by edis ( 266347 )

      Was this ever even in question?

      Sure, in extent of approving, not ordering.

  • by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @04:53PM (#61103758) Homepage

    When I talk to hard-line Republicans, they claim to want leadership that is strong on foreign affairs. But Trump was incredibly weak in dealings with other countries:

    There are 2 countries Trump was tough on:

    • Mexico (with the remain in Mexico policy)
    • Canada (lumber dispute [wikipedia.org])

    I actually agree with some of his actions above. But when I talk to hard-line Republicans, this seems to be the opposite of what they want. I bet that if I told them that Hillary Clinton did each of these things, they would tell me how awful it was. This is what happens when you elect a President who owes hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign banks [forbes.com]. He is owned by many of these countries, so he bows down to them instead of sticking to his "America First" policy.

  • Trump knew MBS was responsible. Everyone knew MBS was responsible.

    Not publicly criticizing MBS for the killing gave Trump something to hold over the Saudi leader. This enabled the Trump admin to get many a Muslim nation to sign diplomatic and trade deals with Israel. The Abraham Accords could not have happened unless Saudi Arabia went along with it.

  • by Whibla ( 210729 ) on Saturday February 27, 2021 @10:36AM (#61105652)

    There's an old saying: The pen is mightier than the sword.

    In terms of domestic 'harmony' it's never been more true. One only has to look at the various forms of media control across the world, especially the direct control in authoritarian countries or the targets and levels of bribery in corrupt countries. Governments have long 'manipulated' the media both in order to maintain or enhance themselves and their power, and to undermine other governments or change them to be more to their ideological liking.

    So, given this state of affairs, is the state sanctioned murder of a journalist really any different to the state sanctioned murder [wikipedia.org] of a military officer or politician?

    Both are done in order to 'preserve' a way of life, or the status quo. Both are extrajudicial killings of foreign nationals. Sure one can say that one was of a civilian while the other military but, even if we ignore the non-military 'collateral damage', when no state of war exists between the states involved murder is still murder.

    For the record, I do not support or condone either murder, but neither do I consider this post to be a (completely) false equivalence. If the US wants to be a moral authority, perhaps it should examine its own actions, and their 'justifications', under the same light...

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...