6 ms·
Mohammed bin Salman: Saudi leader given US immunity over Khashoggi killing
- user3939382 4y agoMaybe they should teach children in school from a young age how completely corrupt all of our institutions (government, private industry, science, religion, etc) are, rather than everyone having to slowly realize it as you get older.
- peteradio 4y agoAlways wondered why we didn't do nursery rhymes anymore. Once there was a prince. Journals made him wince. So he cut them into bits. And was happy ever since.
- djschnei 4y agoWe want to be green so we're trying to stop drilling for oil. But we also need oil because our society runs on it. This guy has oil. This guy can therefore do whatever he likes. This is obviously way better than drilling at home.
- chinchilla2020 4y agoAmerica runs a close import/export balance now for oil. Please stop repeating twitter talking points until they become truth. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/ https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/
- elecush 4y agowhy
- hamandcheese 4y agoOil prices abroad affect oil prices at home.
- redog 4y agoI wonder how much cheaper Oil would be if we attacked SA after 911 instead of Iraq.
- passion__desire 4y agoAmerica wants to save its national oil for the really rainy days. Especially when others' oil can be bought by printed money.
- ksidudwbw 4y agoThat printes money an be exchangwd for real goods though...
- cmh89 4y agoThe United States is the largest producer of oil in the world. We just don't nationalize it. We give it away to foreign owned oil corporations who then gouge us at the pump.
- lazide 4y agoThe US is (and has been for a long time), an exporter of refined petroleum products such as Gasoline. 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-products/imports-and-exports.php 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.
- LegitShady 4y ago>and is also a key ally in a historically unstable region which impacts those prices. they were until democrats spent their last two presidencies trying to fund and justify the nuclear research of SA's biggest regional rival who is already funding catspaw wars against SA - Iran. Then when you ask them to lower the price of oil they wonder why you've spent multiple years working against them while coming now to beg for their kindness.
- comte7092 4y agoSaudi is not a reliable or good ally and there’s no reason why the US should favor them over Iran.
- LegitShady 4y agoIran is not an ally, they're a sworn enemy that the democrats have imagined they can bribe into becoming a friend because they don't understand Iran's motivation is not money but religious ideology. It's the worst kind of political delerium - funding you enemies and your ally's enemies and then wondering why your allies aren't "reliable" - hint its you not being reliable while you're funding their enemies and trying to excuse their nuclear weapon program. Its the US that was a fickle ally.
- dmix 4y agoThe most controversial thing in recent times (here in Canada too) isn't even drilling, it's moving oil efficiently over pipelines vs via dirty trucks and busy rail lines. 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.
- TremendousJudge 4y agoPipelines are notoriously dirty, since the owners can't seem to stop them from leaking, spilling, blowing up, or otherwise malfunctioning. Wikipedia has a handy list of lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_.... If somebody wanted to put an oil pipeline near my property I'd definitely wouldn't feel safe with it there.
- glogla 4y agoIt is not that they can't - they just keep more money if they don't. Which shouldn't be surprising in an industry that is literally destroying the world to make money.
- TremendousJudge 4y agoI agree, that's why I said they can't seem to do it.
- mc32 4y agoThis is what activists fail to understand for ideological reason. Oil will flow, one way or another: be it truck, rail or pipeline. The only thing that would stop the flow is cessation in demand. Which means their efforts would be better used agitating for wind, solar and other renewables.
- elecush 4y agoActivists understand that. What's unreasonable is not adjusting pipeline routes when they destroy livability of areas
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ww-picard-do 4y ago> This guy has oil. This guy can therefore do whatever he likes. The article explains that as head of state internal law grants him immunity.
- dfxm12 4y agoThis guy has oil. This guy can therefore do whatever he likes. 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.
- adamc 4y agoHave we no drones to eliminate troublesome Saudis? 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.
- comte7092 4y agoLiterally just repeating oil industry talking points. 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.
- sovnade 4y agoSo he can't be held liable because he is the Prime Minister of SA. Essentially the same thing here where the sitting President cannot be directly charged with a crime (or sued personally).
- idontpost 4y ago
- chrsig 4y agoOr past presidents, it would seem.
- throwaway212135 4y ago
- guhidalg 4y agoHow about taking classified materials with him to his gold club?
- chrsig 4y agoYou got me. Totally talking about Benghazi. Yup. head pat
- micromacrofoot 4y agomight be a little bit of a tell that you're jumping to defend someone that wasn't even named
- electrondood 4y ago6 pages of crimes by the last guy... here ya go, bub: https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trumps-staggering-record-of-uncharged-crimes/ https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/cre... Pressuring GA to manufacture exactly the # of votes he needed to win, inciting a violent insurrection with the express purpose of remaining in power despite knowing he lost the election, stealing 27 boxes of classified material, Trump Organization tax fraud... take your pick.
- habibur 4y agoThe same happened to Modi, the PM of India, if my memory serves me right. He was banned from entering USA for his deeds, until he turned out to be the head of India. Apparently your only way out is to be the head of your state, if you have done something evil.
- rajeshp1986 4y agoLet me clarify some points at the risk of sounding like a Modi supporter. Modi had gone though investigations and was acquitted by the Supreme court of India. It was definitely failure of government mechanism and officials but not state sponsored voilence. " 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-supreme-court-rejects-zakia-jafris-charges-against-narendra-modi-60-officials/article65560012.ece 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.
- barelysapient 4y agoAre there any 'independent' agencies in Saudi? Is such a thing possible in an absolute monarchy?
- zardo 4y agoI don't think it is an absolute monarchy, my understanding is the Saudi state is a web of fiefdoms of individual members of the royal family. The right hand doesn't always know what the left hand is doing, e.g. the 9/11 attacks.
- meaydinli 4y ago
- oriettaxx 4y ago
- m000 4y agoSo there is legal immunity for a de facto leader. How about stop selling weapons to murderous de facto leaders? Is there a law to prevent that?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Synaesthesia 4y agoBasically it's up to the people to hold their government accountable and pressurise them to make decent decisions.
- chrsig 4y agoShameful. There shouldn't be such a thing as immunity over murder.
- criddell 4y agoJust yesterday I saw a clip on CNN of Merrick Garland saying nobody is above the law. At the time he was being asked about the Jan 6 investigation. I guess he should have said "only current heads of state are above the law".
- naasking 4y agoHardly new. Every US president of the last 20 years has ordered the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians through drone programs and wars. It is worth getting angry over, but the rot starts at the top.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoThis is not immunity with respect to a criminal case; it's a civil suit.
- chrsig 4y agoI don't think that makes it less shameful.
- Jiro 4y agoIf we object to a foreign country killing their own citizens, we can invade the foreign country and overthrow the ruler to make them stop killing (or threaten to invade unless they stop the killing). If we don't want to do that, we could try to put sanctions on them. If we can't do that either, there's not much we can do.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> If we can't do that either, there's not much we can do In case this is serious, the Saudis have a lot of stuff in America our courts could seize.
- HDThoreaun 4y agoAnd then they seize american assets in Saudi Arabia. Not a fun path.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- afavour 4y agoIn this case it's quite the opposite, though: the Saudis have power over our government. They control the taps that release oil, the release of oil controls gas prices, gas prices have a documented effect on election results. 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.
- saimiam 4y agoWell, America’s superpower status rests on being the reserve currency for petroleum imports so, in reality, KSA has America in a vise. 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.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoI am not sure why you are being downvoted. While I disagree with your assessment, you raise valid points.
- water8 4y ago
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> America’s superpower status rests on being the reserve currency for petroleum imports 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.
- mikymoothrowa 4y agoWhy does international oil trade primarily happen in dollars then even when USA is neither of those countries nor is it the biggest trade partner for either of those countries? Also, what industrial base? Also, How does Srilanka holding dollars benefit from a strong US consumer market?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> Why does international oil trade primarily happen in dollars then even when USA is neither of those countries nor is it the biggest trade partner for either of those countries? Most international trade happens in dollars. This is due in part to competence: the Fed had electronic payments in 1915 [1]. In part to geopolitics: America was the only advanced economy not bombed into oblivion after WWII, an advantage it used to create the Bretton Woods system [2]. And in part to practicality: there aren't many freely-convertible currencies issued by big, stable countries. > what industrial base? The U.S. is a massive manufacturer and manufactured-goods exporter [3]. (Number 2 is Europe, another reserve currency issuer. Number 1 is China, which doesn't have an open capital account.) > How does Srilanka holding dollars benefit from a strong US consumer market? America is Sri Lanka's top export partner [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedwire#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedwire#History [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St... [4] https://oec.world/en/profile/country/lka/ https://oec.world/en/profile/country/lka/
- pastor_bob 4y agoStrange, we never gave such immunity to Muhammad Omar when he was running Afghanistan!
- trompetenaccoun 4y agoMisleading headline by the BBC, as is tradition. He wasn't given anything, it's simply the status quo - whether we like it our not. It's also not a US thing but an international convention: https://www.justsecurity.org/68801/head-of-state-immunity-is-too-important-for-the-international-court-of-justice https://www.justsecurity.org/68801/head-of-state-immunity-is...
- dmix 4y agoYeah as bad as this sounds it's basically just reiterating the existing law. They are just saying they aren't making a unique exception for this one case that wouldn't normally exist otherwise.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
- JumpCrisscross 4y agoIn case this is serious, we didn’t sue Hussain or Gadaffi out of office.
- aiProgMach 4y agoI think your reply is the joke, the Poster comment is making good point, Saddam Hussein & Gadaffi were removed by US war machine. It's just a war that suits the US.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> Saddam Hussein & Gadaffi were removed by US war machine Right. Which is a red herring in a discussion about legal sovereign immunity.
- swarnie 4y agoI guess the immunity for 9/11 is just implied because i dont remember a news article about that
- lbriner 4y agoHe was not given immunity, he has de-facto immunity due to his position. 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.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago>Imagine if that didn't exist? Biden visits Qatar and gets arrested for dis-respecting their leaders? I can see that all working out. 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.
- dvt 4y agoThis is a bad take, as it would make diplomacy a very precarious proposition (whereas its entire purpose is to be weak & non-committal). Diplomatic immunity is nothing new and in fact MBS doesn't even assert conduct-based immunity (he's using the even broader "head of state immunity").
- lotsofpulp 4y agoEven if one side is using it to commit egregious criminal acts in the others’ country? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46676200 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46676200 I do not see how the people of the USA benefit from this arrangement.
- dvt 4y ago> I do not see how the people of the USA benefit from this arrangement. Because you're shortsighted in your hatred for MBS. MBS can be deposed and hung in a public square (along with the entire royal family) for all I care, but that doesn't mean immunity isn't an important diplomatic tool.
- beebmam 4y agoTo be clear, the US is the largest oil producer in the world, and is a net exporter of oil.[1][2] (Shale is a large part of that growth in the last decade) 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/ https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-production-by-country/ 2. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
- yywwbbn 4y ago> US benefits when oil prices increase 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.
- beebmam 4y ago>Generally the US economy benefits from lower oil prices 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-oil-prices-impact-us-economy.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/how-o...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ethotool 4y agoThis is disturbing. Outside of this, I actually deleted the Twitter App from my phone a few weeks ago when I found out they still own a huge part of Twitter. https://twitter.com/alwaleed_talal/status/1585975226567110656 https://twitter.com/alwaleed_talal/status/158597522656711065...
- vfclists 4y ago
- eropple 4y agoYou can't downvote replies to your own posts. Have a nice day.
- tanseydavid 4y agoWhere does the tone of this 'response' come from? It isn't easy to communicate sneering condescension in flat ascii text but you did manage to do that here.
- Kukumber 4y agoAnd the US complains about Russia in Ukraine This comedy is fascinating
- tgv 4y agoWhataboutism failing spectacularly.
- Kukumber 4y agoIs "Whataboutism" a word that you learnt at your online CIA training course? 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
- xerxesaa 4y agoWhile I think I get the point you're trying to make, one is a murder of a single individual in their embassy. The other is an all out war across a border. Not sure how they are really comparable.
- Kukumber 4y agoWho said it was comparable? 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
- lizardactivist 4y agoIt's just how it works unfortunately. Imagine if the whole world should justifiably call for arresting three decades of US presidents and generals over all the murders and deaths in the middle east, how would that work? Would you agree to it?
- FpUser 4y agoWell the world did not mind going after Milosevich for example.
- lizardactivist 4y agoAnd it was good that we did go after him! But the issue is our own western leaders and generals walking free when they have the blood of hundreds of thousands innocent lives on their hands.
- FpUser 4y agoexactly the point
- __turbobrew__ 4y agoThe war in the Middle East is tough because it was congress who gave the power to invade, but the president also had the ability to not invade as the head of the DoD. 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?
- diego_moita 4y agoThis is called "Realpolitik": international relations are meant to serve your national interests, not ethical principles. By now, the main national interest in the West is to not give oil money to the psychotic butcher in Moscow. The Saudi butcher is a little less psychotic by comparison. 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.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y agoBut this "Realpolitik" was already contested successfully by India ( among others ). Are you saying that this example does not test the rule? Perfect should not be the enemy of the good? I buy your argument, but your example is not good.
- diego_moita 4y ago> contested successfully by India ( among others ). 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.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago<<In the end dirty affairs/realpolitik are what things are, not what they should be, right? I thought about your argument and I believe you convinced me. I was wrong. I think I had my head stuck in my ideal version of the world.
- pessimizer 4y agoI thought the rule of law was the reason behind the endless quest to disqualify Trump from being the President or running for the Presidency, but actually heads of state can sawzall barely-critical journalists into a pile of body parts as a fee for a marriage license.
- erellsworth 4y agoTo be fair, Salman is also disqualified from being President here.
- tabtab 4y agoHe did it on 5th Ave. :-)
- coding123 4y agoFist Bump
- xorcist 4y agoHead of state or not, the very concept of immunity is a travesty on every juridical principle. It should have no place in civilized society.
- JumpCrisscross 4y agoHas the court given him immunity? Or is the President just telling the court he should?
- adamc 4y agoLegally, I am not qualified to comment. But as a citizen of the US, this makes me very, very angry.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- curious_cat_163 4y ago> "This is a legal determination made by the State Department under longstanding and well-established principles of customary international law," a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said in a written statement. ... > "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.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bearcobra 4y agoI really hope the world can accelerate it's adoption of energy sources that will replace oil. They aren't without their own flaws but besides Norway, I can't think of place where oil hasn't corrupted society in some major way.
- mcculley 4y agoI am not optimistic that there will not be some other resource or reason for which governments will eschew principles.
- scottLobster 4y agoJust wait until The Saudis figure out that they're a desert, and maybe instead of stupid line cities they should be building solar farms and long-range international transmission lines.
- stepbeek 4y agoiirc long range transfer of electricity is extremely expensive and difficult. They might be able to supply power locally, but they wouldn’t be able to export to the west. Unless they used it to power manufacture of other fuel sources like green hydrogen.
- scottLobster 4y agoAccording to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Lo... "As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for DC transmission was 7,000 kilometres (4,300 miles). For AC it was 4,000 kilometres (2,500 miles), though US transmission lines are substantially shorter." The distance from Saudi Arabia to Greece, by road, is roughly 2389 km according to Google Maps (albeit passing through Jordan, Syria and Turkey). As the crow flies or using an undersea cable it would be even shorter, so a monumental project but it could be done. Would require striking a deal with the Jordanians and Israelis, but that's well with Saudi capabilities should they choose to do so.
- 4y ago
- ok123456 4y agoSo you let some people download books and the long arm of the law comes after you in Argentina, but you murder a reporter and you get immunity?
- nashashmi 4y agoHow come Nelson Mandela still was treated like a crook and on the terrorist list up to the point of visit to the US in his last years of life. And this MBS guy gets away with it already?
- npinterview 4y agoThe world isn't stupid, every country does some dirty deeds for national interest. 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?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoI think the headline is a bit misleading. "given" immunity to me implied that there was some deal or something where the US government proactively gave MBS immunity. 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).
- EGreg 4y agoI find this obsession with 1 or 4 people obscene while millions are ignored. We invaded Libya and left behind a failed state where millions live amid violent gangs, but we spent more ink about 4 Americans in Benghazi than the millions who were affected by our policies. It's almost like we don't care. 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 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/2022/saudi-war-crimes-yemen/ 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.
- manv1 4y agoObama would be personally liable for drone strikes that were done under his authority. Would you be OK with that? 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.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- gdsdfe 4y ago"no one is above the law" got to be the biggest joke in human history ... sad but true
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- aiProgMach 4y agoWhat's interesting in this whole Khashoggi case is not the US response or lack of response. Any other crime committed by the US and KSA will make Khashoggi murder a joke in comparison. What irritates me is that KSA committed and still commit genocide in Yemen since at least 2015 (this is only one place), people are being starved, and no one feel the "ethical burden" to take any action or ask their "free world" leader to take any action or stop helping and leading that war. Yet the sensitive liberals are mad because of Mr. Khashoggi murder, they have the nerve the mention the "ethics" even when they're trying to invoke the geo-political argument (Yes MBS is bad but not as Bad as X while X changes every few years, today it's Putin). The hard and brutal truth is that if you ever voted in US for Trump or Obama or Biden or Bush Or almost any President in the past 50 years, you have more ethical burden than simply worrying about the lack of response against MBS.
- locallost 4y agoPretty shameful. Up to this article being flagged.
- hit8run 4y agoThis was expected and nothing surprising. The world is deeply corrupt and law is only for the poor. 99.99% of the population is just cattle that is supposed to stay in the fenced area and pay taxes.