What happened was the US State Dept determined he had immunity due to his current role as Saudi Arabia PM. Thus, my understanding is that this would be standard diplomatic immunity, no? And if MBS ever stopped being PM he would lose that immunity, as MBS only became PM after the killing took place (not sure if this part is correct).
Diplomatic immunity is very nuanced and has multiple levels, but in general being a head of state alone does not qualify you. You need to hold a role within a diplomatic mission to the country in which you committed the crime.
Historically the US justice system has blocked civil suits against foreign states and heads of state out of respect for their sovereignty. The major exemption to this under the FSIA is if the foreign state has a commercial nexus to the United States. The Saudi sovereign wealth fund's multiple investments in the US absolutely pierce the protections they would have had.
Why do people write far more about Khashoggi, rather than the millions in Yemen?
That should be more than enough reason to not deal with Saudi government. We have sanctioned Russia and its government so much, but not a single one on Saudis. We have called Putin a dictator who falsifies elections and kills people. And yet MBS is not even elected. We don't say "unelected dictator" who "oppresses his own people" or "bombs his enemies".
The situation in Saudi-Yemen is similar in many respects to Russia-Ukraine. In response to a foreign government (USA in Ukraine, Iran in Yemen) encouraging a revolution that overthrew friendlier rulers in the country, they carried on a war with them for years, with no end in sight.
The difference is Saudi Arabia has blockaded Yemen for years, leading to the world's largest preventable humanitarian crisis. Russia did nothing of the sort with Ukraine, they didn't blockade it, in fact they let NATO weapons keep pouring over the border from Poland.
This year, the UN warned of an "outright catastrophe" in Yemen, as millions are facing hunger. Ukraine has lots arable land while Yemen did not.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113852
But far from sanctioning them, or even spending 1% of the outrage that it does on Russia, the USA instead sends them the very weapons they use to bomb civilians!
This year, investigators showed that the USA supported the majority of airstrikes on Yemenite civilians!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/20...
To quote:
While Russia’s bombings of a maternity hospital and other civilian targets in Ukraine have drawn widespread public indignation as war crimes, thousands of similar strikes have taken place against Yemeni civilians. The indiscriminate bombings have become a hallmark of the Yemen war, drawing international scrutiny of the countries participating in the air campaign, and those arming them, including the United States. U.S. support for the Saudi war effort, which has been criticized by human rights groups and some in Congress, began during the Obama administration and has continued in fits and starts for seven years.
And lest people think I'm just shitting on America right now, look at the deals Finland/Sweden are making with Turkey for NATO membership. The vaunted, enlightened, socially democratic, supposedly-closest-thing-to-the-Star-Trek-Federation Nordics are screwing the Kurds for their own interests.
No institution outside of charities/NGOs has ever functioned from a standpoint of moral purity. Sure many have claimed to when a convenient narrative was available, but no nation that implemented a "morality first" platform would survive for long. They simply wouldn't be able to strike deals with most other nations on moral grounds, and would turn themselves into a nicer, gentler North Korea. I guess Bhutan comes the closest, but aside from their use as a buffer zone/chess piece between the Indians and Chinese, no one outside of some human-interest bloggers cares about Bhutan (if I have to hear about their happiness index one more time...). Europe's various moral stances are the result of American strategic overwatch and a globalized economic system where they didn't have to secure their own resources. Take those away and the morality will dry up awful fast (where do you think the old European empires came from?)
As for the Saudis and Yemen specifically, I think most Americans in the abstract would agree we should be sanctioning the Saudis... right up until they learn that means gas shortages and insane prices at the pump. For most Americans the cost of gas directly impacts their families' livelihoods, and people will always pick their own family's welfare over the welfare of strangers half a world away. Sure there's a minority that's willing to sacrifice regardless, and sure it would be nice if the whole world was that way. But it isn't, not even close. So we have to deal with what we have, and Yemen, among other places, is screwed.
Although I agree with hoping we move on from depending on SA resources. (And I say this as a devout Muslim)
Essentially the same thing here where the sitting President cannot be directly charged with a crime (or sued personally).
1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-34471182
2. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/yemenis-drone-st...
Once there was a prince.
Journals made him wince.
So he cut them into bits.
And was happy ever since.
https://twitter.com/alwaleed_talal/status/158597522656711065...
I’m fairly certain if GWB didn’t invade Iraq/Afghanistan he would have been impeached due to the fervour in the USA at that time. Looking back many agree that invading the Middle East was a mistake, but at the time there was only one Congress person (Barbara Lee) who voted against giving powers to invade, and that person was deeply ostracized for their choice.
Invading the Middle East was an atrocity, but who is responsible? The American public? The president? Congress?
Imagine if that didn't exist? Biden visits Qatar and gets arrested for dis-respecting their leaders? I can see that all working out.
The truth is, I doubt there would be much decent evidence that would hold up in Court. It's like Russians being murdered outside of Russia, "of course" Putin would have had to order it but "of course" wouldn't cut it in Court.
I do not have a problem with that. If you want to be part of the civilized world, you have to act civilized. And if Qatar wants to arrest Biden for disrespect, then either Qatar’s leaders will find out what the US spends its military funds on, or US taxpayers will find out how much of a waste all those aircraft carriers were.
It should have no place in civilized society.
The US can’t do anything to antagonise KSA because the direct result will be KSA accepting currencies other than the dollar for petrol, which will lower the global demand for dollars, leading to devaluation of the USD leading to economic calamity.
I’m sure MBS, Biden, Trump, Obama, Putin, Xi, and every world leader knows this.
The green economy is going to upend the world order for reasons other than simply reducing dependency on fossil fuels, imo.
No, it doesn’t. America’s economy and thus voters like cheap oil. America’s massive consumer and industrial base underwrites its currency’s power.
Also, what industrial base?
Also, How does Srilanka holding dollars benefit from a strong US consumer market?
The British Pound is a powerful currency backed by an industrial base and a consumer led economy everyone wants to sell into. EUR is the same way. But neither of them are superpowers because no other country needs the GBP or EUR like they need the USD.
Countries all around the world keep USD in their current account balance even if they barely import stuff from the US because every country needs oil and oil can only be bought with dollars.
Say your high school bully demanded 10 SchruteBucks every day to leave you alone at lunch. And the only supplier of SchruteBucks in the whole world was this paper salesman called Dwight Schrute.
Quite evidently, your entire life would revolve around making sure Dwight was still willing to give you SchruteBucks just so that your bully would stay off your back for one more day.
That bully is KSA. Dwight is the US. The kid sucking up to Dwight is all the other countries in the world.
When Putin rants about a unipolar world, this is what he is talking about.
It’s an unjust world where we can’t afford to antagonise the US without also running the risk of not being able to buy petrol to run our economy.
They are just saying they aren't making a unique exception for this one case that wouldn't normally exist otherwise.
Apparently your only way out is to be the head of your state, if you have done something evil.
Or a diplomat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
Am I missing something?
I do believe big and serious awards should be done posthumously. I don't believe in for example, naming Airports or large buildings after someone who is/was still a live at dedication time.
However, I will acquiesce to asterisks --not removals.
And yes, I know there are good and valid reason for leaders to be given some level of immunity to allow them to not be, well, targeted and locked up by current regime on trumped charges, but this is not the situation we have in place here ( and those tend to be limited by the time they serve in office - MBS is likely to enjoy this immunity for life ).
I don't know if it is the real threat of impending nuclear war ( and everything that was done so far to prevent it ) that makes me so depressed about the world, but it is harder and harder for me not to feel.. disappointed with the way things are.
edit: FWIW, Biden finally recognized the reality of who is running that particular kingdom. In a way, it is an embarrassing political defeat, which I assume was purchased with something. I suppose we will find out that what that something was in coming months.
" The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed allegations of "larger conspiracy" levelled by Zakia Jafri, widow of Congress leader Ehsan Jafri who was killed in the 2002 Gujarat riots, against former Chief Minister Narendra Modi and over 60 senior state officials.
Inaction or failure of "some officials of one section of the State administration" cannot be the basis to infer a pre-planned criminal conspiracy by the State government, the court held.
The failure of certain officials cannot be inferred as a "State-sponsored crime (violence) against the minority community", the Supreme Court said.
"
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/2002-gujarat-riots-su... (This is a left-leaning newspaper)
The thing with MBS is there was no independent investigation done by any agency in Saudi.
Here are some more points that I've read about (not sure if true), if can you clarify them:
1. The involvement of cabinet ministers of Modi's government.
2. The non-involvement of the State Police which were under Modi's control.
3. Modi's refusal to deploy the Armed Forces (which fall under the command of the Central Government).
4. Rioters having access to State Government census records and the State Government-controlled supplies like LPG cylinders.
5. Since murdered BJP Leader Haren Pandya's confession of Modi being complicit.
And a laundry list of other things that Supreme Court of India probably looked at and dismissed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots#Allegations...
Modi was dismissed. They didn't look into it. He avoided All investigations when it happened and still avoids questioning to this day. No one was punished. No blood money made its way. Nothing.
Many more people died at modi's hands than MBS. There is no comparison.
No, it was state sponsored violence, instigated by Narendra Modi alone. Judgements by a compromised court hold no water.
Here are the details of the pogrom of Zakias condo complex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbarg_Society_massacre
Even worse the testimony of police officers who have now been imprisoned
https://www.hindusforhumanrights.org/en/blog/for-immediate-r...
Even worse there is direct video confession by the rapists and murderers (who were convicted later) of Modi starting the riots and supporting them with state apparatus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babu_Bajrangi
The video where Modis leadership is made explicit at 6:30
To double down, this year Modis central government set several rapists and murderers who had been given life sentences free on Indian Independence Day and issued election tickets to the relatives of the convicted rapists and murderers.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/17/asia/india-bilkis-bano-rape-g...
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/politics-behind...
Your linking to a report on the supreme court judgement in a "left leaning" newspaper as some kind of evidence is absurd. It's a report about the judgment not an editorial.
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/an-exoneration/ar...
It doesn't get more naked and bald faced than this
Power is what others respect. everything else is just BS
Just to clarify on you not being a Modi supporter: Do you feel that Modi is doing not enough or too much to combat terrorists/internal threats in India?
My suspicion is that you are to the right of Modi but intentionally trying to obscure that by saying that you aren't a Modi supporter, which would typically imply to the left of Modi. A brief perusal of your comments seems to suggest that is the case.
There are dozens of philosophers that advanced this idea: Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes,...
Many of the most famous statesmen in history were followers of this principle: Richelieu, Frederik the Great, Von Clausewitz, Otto Von Bismark, Metternich, Henry Kissinger,... Unsurprisingly, many of them were Germans. And none of them was a nice person.
I buy your argument, but your example is not good.
Yes, also by my native country, Brazil. Shame on us for that.
In the end dirty affairs/realpolitik are what things are, not what they should be, right?
Up until WWII, "Realpolitik" is what gave us so many wars, so little commerce, so little international cooperation, so much European imperialism, ...
So I do agree we need to find ethics in international relations. One important reason my country (Brazil) gave up on slavery was British pressure. Global Warming won't be solved without ethics commitment.
This is obviously way better than drilling at home.
Please stop repeating twitter talking points until they become truth.
There's lots of guys who had oil who, when they did things the US didn't like, found themselves without anyone to sell oil to, without a country to run or maybe worse.
I agree KSA has a special relationship with the US (and much of the west), but it's not just about oil.
There's much more opportunity for political activism when pipes go over lots of small pieces of land vs drilling one big piece of land.
The US produces a ton of oil, we also have no export restrictions on oil products, so no matter how much we produce domestically, we are still dependent on the swings of the global market.
We get close to no oil from Saudi, yet as the head of the most powerful cartel in the world, they have immense power and influence. No amount of “drill baby drill” is going to change that.
Reality is that we have lots of tools to address bad actors. There are always consequences, true enough. But it isn't like we haven't used them.
In this case, we probably won't, but the Saudis are increasingly more trouble than they are worth.
The article explains that as head of state internal law grants him immunity.
In 2021, it also happened to be a net exporter or petroleum overall, but usually it bounces around.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
Saudi Arabia is key in keeping global energy prices lower by increasing global supply, and is also a key ally in a historically unstable region which impacts those prices.
But as a citizen of the US, this makes me very, very angry.
...
> "It has nothing to do with the merits of the case."
Pretty strange that this is how the international law works in 2022. We have ways to go, I suppose.
FWIW. This also looks like a pretty convenient loophole for the Biden administration to 'normalize' the relationships with the KSA and MBS, in particular. They'll keep calling him names like murderer and say that our hands are tied because of the international law.
The US benefits when oil prices increase. If you want to speculate on the geopolitical reasons for this action, it could be to help the allies of the US by driving oil prices down through OPEC production plans. If you want to speculate on the domestic reasons for this, it could be to try to keep gas prices lower at the expense of overall US GDP.
In the end, a brutal dictator gets diplomatic immunity and prestige and the rest of the world averts its eyes to keep its economies well-functioning.
1. https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-production-by-country/
2. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
I’m not sure about that. Generally the US economy benefits from lower oil prices and I think that outweighs any losses incurred by the oil industry. That’s especially relevant now with inflation being such a huge concern.
Before the 2010s, yes. But not now, not in this era of Shale. It has changed everything.
"Oil prices do have an impact on the U.S. economy, but it goes two ways because of the diversity of industries. High oil prices can drive job creation and investment as it becomes economically viable for oil companies to exploit higher-cost shale oil deposits. However, high oil prices also hit businesses and consumers with higher transportation and manufacturing costs. Lower oil prices hurt the unconventional oil activity, but benefits manufacturing and other sectors where fuel costs are a primary concern." [1]
1. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/how-o...
In case this is serious, the Saudis have a lot of stuff in America our courts could seize.
If the party in power wants to win the midterms they need the Saudis to supply enough oil. It's wild how openly corrupt the whole thing is.
We are deliberately turning a mole hill into a mountain.
How many victims have been created by the war on terror or search for non existant WMD?
In any case, it's unclear if the US even has jurisdiction. The crime happened on Saudi territory in Turkey, and MBS has said he didn't authorize it. Why is this in US courts? Because he was a US citizen?
His fiancee is showboating.
This comedy is fascinating
I just notice some contradictions in the way they operate, that's it
Up to you to make the comparison and conclusion, i will not tell you what to think
Joke aside, i don't think it's "whataboutism", it's more like identifying inconsistencies and contradictions in the way they operate, nothing more, a mere citizen who try to understand
