Saudis murder Washington Post writer

[Vince Vaughn]

Nuke Saudi Arabia!

[Dahon]

Congress must act, since the executive refuses to.

The Republican Party must either denounce this dick fully and unequivocally or die. They birthed this dick, they coddled him, they kill his chances in 2020, utterly -- or they can get shafted by a successor party, doomed forever as the Party of that fucking dick Trump.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Trump's statement might backfire as what Saudi Arabia, and MBS, are doing in the Yemen gets more and more media coverage. The arms sales aren't worth any where near the amount Trump is claiming.

[Dahon]

Trump's statement might backfire as what Saudi Arabia, and MBS, are doing in the Yemen gets more and more media coverage. The arms sales aren't worth any where near the amount Trump is claiming.

Trump's base ain't known for valuing facts -- but will they along with the rest of the GOP willingly trade a journalist's life for a fistul of fucking dollars?

I'll be back with the comments!

[The National Salvation Front for Russia]

Can't say I blame the Saudis for murdering a journalist who was constantly disparaging their regime. On the other hand, this is Saudi Arabia so Khashoggi was fighting the good fight.

[Bombadil]

Trump's statement might backfire as what Saudi Arabia, and MBS, are doing in the Yemen gets more and more media coverage. The arms sales aren't worth any where near the amount Trump is claiming.

It'll be forgotten in a few days as he makes some other outrageous statement, he keeps the ball rolling so quick that any traction for any one story is killed off quick.

I think the one I found more amazing was the Adam Schitt comment, from a President, publicly..

I am considering means to take a hiatus off the planet when the next elections come around, between Trump's comments and the drearily predictable attacks and defences on all sides.. it's going to be horrible.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Trump's statement might backfire as what Saudi Arabia, and MBS, are doing in the Yemen gets more and more media coverage. The arms sales aren't worth any where near the amount Trump is claiming.

Trump's base ain't known for valuing facts -- but will they along with the rest of the GOP willingly trade a journalist's life for a fistul of fucking dollars?

I'll be back with the comments!

85,000 dying children might have more impact than a dead journalist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46261983

[Dahon]

Wars are mere statistics to the Republican mind, inured as it is to worldwide projection and assurances of future combat in distant shores.

Providing cover for the murder and dismemberment of uppity journalists, in contrast, is uncharted territory, one that may yet give even diehards pause.

Time to make that pause a full fucking stop.

[Dahon]

Can't say I blame the Saudis for murdering a journalist who was constantly disparaging their regime. On the other hand, this is Saudi Arabia so Khashoggi was fighting the good fight.

No, by all means, blame the Saudis. What has happened and is happening is not normal, and those fucking dicks need a shitton of hammering down.

[Novus America]

Trump's base ain't known for valuing facts -- but will they along with the rest of the GOP willingly trade a journalist's life for a fistul of fucking dollars?

I'll be back with the comments!

85,000 dying children might have more impact than a dead journalist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-46261983

Although even though the Saudis do share blame for deaths during the war in Yemen, the Saudis did not start the war, so it is not fair to blame the entirety on them.
Saudi Arabia is a brutal and oppressive regime for sure, but the situation in Yemen is rather complicated.

[Publica]

The individuals might, but their government has investments at best, and if you take those you have to return them to the companies, sell them or gift them to people who have no idea wtf they're doing. Governments don't typically keep large amounts of cash sitting in bank accounts in other countries. They have Treasuries.

Sure, and then when fuel prices jump through the roof because you just cutoff your market from 33% of its oil? There's no way the government will sanction that, especially since that, while significant, won't be enough to destabilize the economies unless the US can afford to keep it up for an amount of time that would likely include several elections.

We already have procedures for that. You can collect a judgment against investments or property. Not just bank accounts.

Only 6.27% of our oil comes from OPEC, and there are plenty of other sources.

Besides some countries would rather leave OPEC then lose access to our markets.

Again, how much of that is government owned. Also, what are you going to do with it? Give it to people who have no idea what to do with it either and then tax them on it?

Not according to the Energy Information Administration. According to them it's 33%.

Name one that doesn't have other resources the US wants enough to not be able to cut them off, like heavy earth metals or gold or diamonds.

[Novus America]

We already have procedures for that. You can collect a judgment against investments or property. Not just bank accounts.

Only 6.27% of our oil comes from OPEC, and there are plenty of other sources.

Besides some countries would rather leave OPEC then lose access to our markets.

Again, how much of that is government owned. Also, what are you going to do with it? Give it to people who have no idea what to do with it either and then tax them on it?

Not according to the Energy Information Administration. According to them it's 33%.

Name one that doesn't have other resources the US wants enough to not be able to cut them off, like heavy earth metals or gold or diamonds.

One trillion is Saudi government owned.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKCN1MC0D2
And again we have procedures for collecting judgements.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... 29546.html
That is a quick overview but obviously you would need an attorney.
And you are not going to seize all of it, just remove the unfair protections government investments get. Again collecting judgments is not something novel or new. Private investments get no protections. And if the Saudis do not want to risk their investments they can pay the judgement or stop committing crimes and torts in the first place. Again none of this is novel or new. It happens all the time, if you do something wrong as a private company or individual you can get sued. This is just keeping the Saudi government from getting an unfair advantage.

33% of US imports are from OPEC. But the vast majority of our oil is produced at home. You know the US is the world’s biggest oil producer, right?
Net imports only cover 19% of US oil consumption.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=32&t=6
.33x.19=.0627= 6.27%
This is not complicated math.

We actually get our rare earth minerals from China, although we have plenty here, but it is cheaper to exploit Chinese workers and pollute there. Despite the name rare earths are not actually rare.

The US generally exports more gold than we import, and no OPEC countries are among the biggest gold producers.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs ... 7-gold.pdf

We do not get most our diamonds from OPEC either.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs ... -diamo.pdf

So the answer is all of them. No OPEC country is a major source of any of that for us.

And what is your alternative? That we let these countries commit any crime and get away with it because they have oil? (Especially when we no longer rely on them?)

[Publica]

Again, how much of that is government owned. Also, what are you going to do with it? Give it to people who have no idea what to do with it either and then tax them on it?

Not according to the Energy Information Administration. According to them it's 33%.

Name one that doesn't have other resources the US wants enough to not be able to cut them off, like heavy earth metals or gold or diamonds.

One trillion is Saudi government owned.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKCN1MC0D2
And again we have procedures for collecting judgements.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... 29546.html
That is a quick overview but obviously you would need an attorney.
And you are not going to seize all of it, just remove the unfair protections government investments get. Again collecting judgments is not something novel or new. Private investments get no protections. And if the Saudis do not want to risk their investments they can pay the judgement or stop committing crimes and torts in the first place. Again none of this is novel or new. It happens all the time, if you do something wrong as a private company or individual you can get sued. This is just keeping the Saudi government from getting an unfair advantage.

33% of US imports are from OPEC. But the vast majority of our oil is produced at home. You know the US is the world’s biggest oil producer, right?
Net imports only cover 19% of US oil consumption.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=32&t=6
.33x.19=.0627= 6.27%
This is not complicated math.

We actually get our rare earth minerals from China, although we have plenty here, but it is cheaper to exploit Chinese workers and pollute there. Despite the name rare earths are not actually rare.

The US generally exports more gold than we import, and no OPEC countries are among the biggest gold producers.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs ... 7-gold.pdf

We do not get most our diamonds from OPEC either.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs ... -diamo.pdf

So the answer is all of them. No OPEC country is a major source of any of that for us.

And what is your alternative? That we let these countries commit any crime and get away with it because they have oil? (Especially when we no longer rely on them?)

No, but charging them and attempting to sue them isn't going to work. Sanctions, I get, but suing them just encourages them to pull out and invest elsewhere. But it's not like trade sanctions have ever had knock-on unpredictable effects. Find a way that doesn't involve screwing everyone over. Hell, going to war would probably be less damaging than long term economic sanctions on nearly 10% of the world.

[Novus America]

One trillion is Saudi government owned.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reu ... SKCN1MC0D2
And again we have procedures for collecting judgements.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... 29546.html
That is a quick overview but obviously you would need an attorney.
And you are not going to seize all of it, just remove the unfair protections government investments get. Again collecting judgments is not something novel or new. Private investments get no protections. And if the Saudis do not want to risk their investments they can pay the judgement or stop committing crimes and torts in the first place. Again none of this is novel or new. It happens all the time, if you do something wrong as a private company or individual you can get sued. This is just keeping the Saudi government from getting an unfair advantage.

33% of US imports are from OPEC. But the vast majority of our oil is produced at home. You know the US is the world’s biggest oil producer, right?
Net imports only cover 19% of US oil consumption.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=32&t=6
.33x.19=.0627= 6.27%
This is not complicated math.

We actually get our rare earth minerals from China, although we have plenty here, but it is cheaper to exploit Chinese workers and pollute there. Despite the name rare earths are not actually rare.

The US generally exports more gold than we import, and no OPEC countries are among the biggest gold producers.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs ... 7-gold.pdf

We do not get most our diamonds from OPEC either.
https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs ... -diamo.pdf

So the answer is all of them. No OPEC country is a major source of any of that for us.

And what is your alternative? That we let these countries commit any crime and get away with it because they have oil? (Especially when we no longer rely on them?)

No, but charging them and attempting to sue them isn't going to work. Sanctions, I get, but suing them just encourages them to pull out and invest elsewhere. But it's not like trade sanctions have ever had knock-on unpredictable effects. Find a way that doesn't involve screwing everyone over. Hell, going to war would probably be less damaging than long term economic sanctions on nearly 10% of the world.

The assets they have are not liquid and easily removed and besides they did not after JASTA, and private companies still invest in the US despite the fact the can be sued for doing bad things.

JASTA already lets you sue Saudi Arabia, but only for terrorism, I am simply proposing we extend it to other murders (well technically wrongful deaths) and other such things.

All the arguments you have made were emperically disproven by the passage of JASTA.

I never said use generalized long term sanctions. Only target certain high level officials.

And you say “find a way” but continue to fail to offer any solutions whatsoever.

[Publica]

No, but charging them and attempting to sue them isn't going to work. Sanctions, I get, but suing them just encourages them to pull out and invest elsewhere. But it's not like trade sanctions have ever had knock-on unpredictable effects. Find a way that doesn't involve screwing everyone over. Hell, going to war would probably be less damaging than long term economic sanctions on nearly 10% of the world.

The assets they have are not liquid and easily removed and besides they did not after JASTA, and private companies still invest in the US despite the fact the can be sued for doing bad things.

I never said use generalized long term sanctions. On target certain high level officials.

And you say “find a way” but continue to fail to offer any solutions whatsoever.

JASTA has done absolutely nothing since it was passed. The plaintiffs have lost every case so far. Stocks can be sold in a day, depending on what losses you are prepared to take. How much of that investment is actually solid?

I was under the impression you were planning to use long term tariffs against them, my apologies.

Targeted tariffs against individuals, or the SA government would probably be decently effective. Give the UN some teeth, or take them to the ICC and then back it up.

[Mardla]

Murder according to Saudi jurisprudence, or American?

[Bombadil]

Murder according to Saudi jurisprudence, or American?

..or Turkish..

[Novus America]

The assets they have are not liquid and easily removed and besides they did not after JASTA, and private companies still invest in the US despite the fact the can be sued for doing bad things.

I never said use generalized long term sanctions. On target certain high level officials.

And you say “find a way” but continue to fail to offer any solutions whatsoever.

JASTA has done absolutely nothing since it was passed. The plaintiffs have lost every case so far. Stocks can be sold in a day, depending on what losses you are prepared to take. How much of that investment is actually solid?

I was under the impression you were planning to use long term tariffs against them, my apologies.

Targeted tariffs against individuals, or the SA government would probably be decently effective. Give the UN some teeth, or take them to the ICC and then back it up.

JASTA is simply too limited. It only applies to state sponsored terrorizing which is hard to prove.
The point is that no country withdrew investments because of JASTA despite threatening to. I am saying we give JASTA border coverage beyond terrorism and real teeth.
Taking a loss is still a loss. It still hurts them.
Plus why take a loss trying to sell the assets instead of losing less money by just following the law?

I agree targeted sanctions (tariffs cannot really be targeted against individuals) is a route we should be and are taking.

Giving the UN teeth is impossible. The UN is controlled by dictatorships and corruption.
The ICC has no power, because the Saudis are not party to it. How are you going to take them to it? You cannot go into Saudi Arabia and arrest them.

US courts have far more power than the ICC. Because unlike the ICC the US has real economic power. So I am saying we use them instead.

[Publica]

JASTA has done absolutely nothing since it was passed. The plaintiffs have lost every case so far. Stocks can be sold in a day, depending on what losses you are prepared to take. How much of that investment is actually solid?

I was under the impression you were planning to use long term tariffs against them, my apologies.

Targeted tariffs against individuals, or the SA government would probably be decently effective. Give the UN some teeth, or take them to the ICC and then back it up.

JASTA is simply too limited. It only applies to state sponsored terrorizing which is hard to prove.
The point is that no country withdrew investments because of JASTA despite threatening to. I am saying we give JASTA border coverage beyond terrorism and real teeth.
Taking a loss is still a loss. It still hurts them.
Plus why take a loss trying to sell the assets instead of losing less money by just following the law?

I agree targeted sanctions (tariffs cannot really be targeted against individuals) is a route we should be and are taking.

Giving the UN teeth is impossible. The UN is controlled by dictatorships and corruption.
The ICC has no power, because the Saudis are not party to it. How are you going to take them to it? You cannot go into Saudi Arabia and arrest them.

US courts have far more power than the ICC. Because unlike the ICC the US has real economic power. So I am saying we use them instead.

They might be more willing to if you expand it beyond a very hard to prove crime.

Or they could sell when they are first given a court summons and get full price. Also, I'm pretty sure the US doesn't give a damn whether it's actions follow the laws of other countries, so I'm not sure Saudi Arabia does either, for much the same reasons.

The UN (at least in terms of force) is controlled by the UK, US, RF, PRC, and France.

I suppose, but I wouldn't be surprised if SA accuses the US courts of bias, and keeps them caught in appeals and retrials for years. Political repercussions might have larger effects.

[Duhon]

Murder according to Saudi jurisprudence, or American?

By every jurisprudence known to man.

[Mardla]

Murder according to Saudi jurisprudence, or American?

By every jurisprudence known to man.

Wrong

[Publica]

By every jurisprudence known to man.

Wrong

There probably is a jurisprudence that would allow murder to go unpunished. Neither Saudia Arabia nor US nor even Turkey (which would be the jurisdiction the crime would be punished under) have murder as legal.

[Duhon]

By every jurisprudence known to man.

Wrong

Because Saudi jurisprudence is essentially "what the qadi says goes", without regard to precedent?

[Cameroi]

america, putting up with saudi b.s. and infamy, for the sake of keeping saudi oil in the control of u.s. dollars instead of euros or some other currency, is not a new thing.
as for chump's never ending outrages, these are the hand he distracts us with, while his other is twisting the knife in everyone's back.

not saying i have any love for either.
its not the little green pieces of paper that are unhappy either.

but try telling that to the idiots who equate belligerence with conserving anything.

[Kowani]

Wrong

Because Saudi jurisprudence is essentially "what the qadi says goes", without regard to precedent?

Rule by decree is basically precedent in Saudi Arabia at this point...