Biden plans to 'recalibrate' Saudi relations in shot at MbS: White House

[Sujo]

7 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

No, you've misunderstood. I'm talking of the folks who state they are ashamed to be an American. Of course one can be critical and angry, it's our right. But to say you're ashamed because things aren't going your way is being fickle.

Dont let it worry you. Its not only an american thing. 

 

Im ashamed at being australian and hope i never have to return.

[Jeffr2]

50 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Well aware of that, but an American citizen, he was not. The US may have a moral obligation to investigate, or take steps against those involved, but I don't think it's compelled to do so (could be wrong). At least not while relying on the citizenship and permanent resident angles.  

https://qz.com/1428499/jamal-khashoggi-what-trump-owes-khashoggi-under-us-law-and-constitution/

 

However, US intelligence agencies do have a clear “duty to warn” any individual, US citizen or not, of any known violent threats against them. A 2015 directive to the National Security Act, issued by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, requires the US to give “non-US persons” notice of “impending threats of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping.”

An IC element that collects or acquires credible and specific information indicating an impending threat of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping directed at a person or group of people (hereafter referred to as intended victim) shall have a duty to warn the intended victim or those responsible for protecting the intended victim, as appropriate. This includes threats where the target is an institution, place of business, structure, or location. The term intended victim includes both U.S. persons, as defined in EO 12333, Section 3.5(k), and non-U.S. persons.

The US knew that Khashoggi was a target. US intelligence agents intercepted a plan to lure Khashoggi back to to the US, the Washington Post reported Oct. 10. An unnamed National Security Agency official also  told the Observer’s John Schindler that US intelligence had learned that Riyadh “had something unpleasant in store for Khashoggi,” at least a day before Khashoggi went to the embassy in Istanbul. The “threat warning was communicated to the White House through official intelligence channels,” Schindler writes, but it’s not clear whether Khashoggi ever received the warning.

[Jeffr2]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

Yeah, I got which terrorists. Was asking how you meant 'support of'.

Saudi Arabia is a state sponsor of terrorism. Sad that the US didn't go after them for involvement in the WTC attack. At a minimum, SA nationals were funding these guys. At a minimum.

[from the home of CC]

14 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

Any country that is in the arms business you can say has blood on its hands.

 

However, countries going to war will buy their arms whatever and from whoever will supply them. If the UK refused, the Russians would just step in.

 

Was it not the same as the Argentinians firing French Exocet missiles at the British ships down in the Falklands?.....................It's the dirty business of MONEY!

when it is obviously apparent that the killing of innocent women and children are but assured but you still chase the buck/pound then it's complicity of crimes against humanity imo.

as far as you last statement, that's kind of the karma of colonialism at work from both ends..

Edited February 18, 2021 by from the home of CC

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

https://qz.com/1428499/jamal-khashoggi-what-trump-owes-khashoggi-under-us-law-and-constitution/

 

However, US intelligence agencies do have a clear “duty to warn” any individual, US citizen or not, of any known violent threats against them. A 2015 directive to the National Security Act, issued by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, requires the US to give “non-US persons” notice of “impending threats of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping.”

An IC element that collects or acquires credible and specific information indicating an impending threat of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping directed at a person or group of people (hereafter referred to as intended victim) shall have a duty to warn the intended victim or those responsible for protecting the intended victim, as appropriate. This includes threats where the target is an institution, place of business, structure, or location. The term intended victim includes both U.S. persons, as defined in EO 12333, Section 3.5(k), and non-U.S. persons.

The US knew that Khashoggi was a target. US intelligence agents intercepted a plan to lure Khashoggi back to to the US, the Washington Post reported Oct. 10. An unnamed National Security Agency official also  told the Observer’s John Schindler that US intelligence had learned that Riyadh “had something unpleasant in store for Khashoggi,” at least a day before Khashoggi went to the embassy in Istanbul. The “threat warning was communicated to the White House through official intelligence channels,” Schindler writes, but it’s not clear whether Khashoggi ever received the warning.

 

Thank you, kinda forgot about this "Duty to Warn" thing. Seemed a bit daft the first time I heard of it, still is.

 

Anyway, interesting to read the quote in the WP article, which says that if it was assessed the Saudis only wished to detain him, it wouldn't count as grounds enough to warn. Makes it sound like the threshold for a warning to be issued is high.

 

Also, it is mentioned that the information was forwarded to the WH. It is not made clear (or maybe I missed it) if this means such warnings always have to go through the WH (seems untimely and complicated), or maybe just that this one did (raising the question of political interference), or whether the WH was simply informed.

 

I doubt that Khashoggi wasn't aware of the potential dangers, regardless of not being officially warned, though.

 

Wonder how far does this "Duty to Warn" goes. There must be some stipulations about not exposing ways and means, and categories of people who won't be warned regardless.

 

But yes, you were right on this one.

 

 

[Morch]

4 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Saudi Arabia is a state sponsor of terrorism. Sad that the US didn't go after them for involvement in the WTC attack. At a minimum, SA nationals were funding these guys. At a minimum.

 

Saudi Arabia being a 'state sponsor' of terrorism is a bit tricky statement to pin, but I get your point. In the WTC attack, I don't think that such support by the state was provided, though. Saudi Arabian national funding? Yes, there probably were. And that's where politics and money might have gotten in the way. But state level? Doubt it.

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Saudi Arabia being a 'state sponsor' of terrorism is a bit tricky statement to pin, but I get your point. In the WTC attack, I don't think that such support by the state was provided, though. Saudi Arabian national funding? Yes, there probably were. And that's where politics and money might have gotten in the way. But state level? Doubt it.

As you know, it's complicated and there's a lot that we don't know. I would guess someone at the state level knew? But who knows. Pure speculation.

 

Time to wean ourselves off oil and become truly energy independent.

[Scouse123]

19 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

when it is obviously apparent that the killing of innocent women and children are but assured but you still chase the buck/pound then it's complicity of crimes against humanity imo.

as far as you last statement, that's kind of the karma of colonialism at work from both ends..

 

Yeah.

And at 58 years old I had nothing to do with any country with a colonial past.

And trying to to put today's morals and standards against a historical time when things were vastly different and the world was a different place, is just plain unreasonable.

 

[Scott]

I am not sure how this jumped from Biden and MBS to slavery in the UK, but it did and numerous posts have been removed.  There is a thread roughly on that issue:  https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1167623-felling-of-british-slave-trader-statue-heats-up-simmering-debate/