Isn't the King of Saudi Arabia is an absolute ruler? Do we all fully understand what that means? This event happened on sovereign Saudi soil. That's not a technicality, it applies to every embassy everywhere.
[[FONT=&]“We have nothing to hide,” the de-facto Saudi leader, known by his initials MBS, said three days later. “The premises are sovereign territory, but we will allow [Turkish authorities] to enter.”
[/FONT][FONT=&]On one thing at least, the Crown Prince was mistaken — consulates and embassies are not, in fact, sovereign territory under international law.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]“He is incorrect,” says Dapo Akande, a professor of public international law at the University of Oxford. “As a matter of international law that’s absolutely clear, the consulate is not within the sovereignty of Saudi Arabia.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Whatever happened to Khashoggi, he says, “is an event that happened within Turkish territory to which Turkish law applies.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Part of the confusion stems from the fact that the 1961 Vienna Convention, which sets out the rules governing consulates and embassies, guarantees the “inviolability” of diplomatic premises.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]“That means the host state can’t just go in without the consent of the state whose consulate it is,” says Akande. That’s why Turkish authorities had to wait for Saudi permission to enter. (In the end, they were finally allowed in on Monday, ten days after MBS’s guarantee.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Yet while the principle of inviolability guarantees some measure of protection to consulates, it does not mean that events that take place there are not subject to the host country’s own laws.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do not enjoy full [/FONT]extraterritorial status[FONT=&] and – in those cases – are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[/FONT][SUP][10][/SUP][FONT=&] Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions usually remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws) by the [/FONT]Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations[FONT=&].[/FONT]
So an open admitting of guilt.
Legal doesn't mean that we have to be OK with it or ignore it.
The guy was closer to being a spook than a journalist - think Brennan or Clapper
So we have to rewrite our foreign policy any time an ally's internal politics results in someone being killed. Got it
You realize we'll have to be neutral then in Yemen, no? Unless you think the Iranians and Houthis have no blood on their hands. Pretty much can't engage with anybody in the ME; not Africa , either
Can't have relationships with Russia or China or many of their current or former satellites. Certainly can't talk to the DPRK or Turkey
What about the French? No one has been killed yet, but they've come awfully close. Murderers! :shake fist:
Follow that Absurdum to Reductio and we can just close up shop at the state dept. Besides its pure guilt by association - we didn't kill the disinformation operative - and if murder is the problem I find Planned Parenthood much worthier of my scorn then MbS because we are complicit in that murder factory
That's a pretty weak justification for murder.
You should (re)read the article Hohn posted before you dial that self-righteousness back up to 11. The guy was closer to being a spook than a journalist - think Brennan or Clapper
Not exactly. The king didn't order it, but he apparently at least approved the payments.So an open admitting of guilt.
I have read this and could really give 2 ****s what they do to each other. No skin off my nads.
That's a pretty weak justification for murder.
I said that it needs to be unacceptable for governments to murder people for political speech. Basically, I said that our first amendment should be the default worldwide. I am confident you agree with that.
A person speaking on their own behalf because of the their own beliefs is rather different than someone speaking on behalf of a foreign power/agency/paymaster.
This was an assassination.
Yes, and it was part of the risk he chose to take. Assets are pawns and pawns are expendable on both sides.
It would be reported as a suicide anyway.Yep. If Hitlary had lured Seth Rich into the Harry S Truman building and dismembered him, maybe we could get a little more outrage about that death. Somehow I doubt it, though
The 5 man hit squad gets the death sentence, the 3 security execs not even prosecuted.
Kashoggi's sons did learn the lesson that critics are not safe anywhere in the world. They released a statement that they were glad to see justice served and denied receiving any money.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/saudi...entences-for-khashoggis-killing-state-tv-says