Khashoggi Murder: State Dept. Won’t Comment on Court Accepting Its View That Bin Salman Has Immunity
Text Audio00:0000:00Font Size
President Biden and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Jeddah last July. (Photo by Mandel Ngan / Pool / AFP via Getty Images)(CNSNews.com) – State Department spokesman Ned Price was asked five time on Wednesday if the administration was pleased that a federal judge had accepted its view that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was legally immune in a lawsuit relating to the murder of Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi.
Price each time declined to comment. He said he had no reaction to the fact the District of Columbia District Court judge accepted the administration’s stance on immunity.
“We weighed in on a narrow issue,” he said. “The judge then took that rather narrow input and determined that that input had implications for the broader case. And I’ll leave it at that.”
It was on the basis of the administration’s position that Judge John D. Bates dismissed the civil suit against bin Salman, brought by Khashoggi’s fiancée, Hatice Cengiz.
Khashoggi, a U.S.-based critic of the regime, was killed and dismembered inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018. A February 2021 U.S. intelligence assessment concluded that bin Salman approved the operation that resulted in his death.
Last September, while the civil case brought by Cengiz was underway, and as the court was awaiting input from the administration on the question of head-of-state immunity, King Salman transferred the post of prime minister – usually held by the kingdom’s ruling monarch – to the crown prince.
Critics saw the move as a transparent attempt to strengthen the claim of immunity – “a last ditch effort to escape the jurisdiction of the court,” in the view of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), an advocacy organization Khashoggi founded and led until his death.
In its “statement of interest” submitted to the court last month, the State Department said it “recognizes and allows the immunity of Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman as a sitting head of government of a foreign state.”
It added that in making the determination, the department “takes no view on the merits of the present suit and reiterates its unequivocal condemnation of the heinous murder of Jamal Khashoggi.”
In his ruling on Tuesday, Bates expressed his disquiet, but acceded to the administration’s position.
“Despite the Court’s uneasiness, then, with both the circumstances of bin Salman’s appointment [as prime minister] and the credible allegations of his involvement in Khashoggi’s murder, the United States has informed the Court that he is immune, and bin Salman is therefore ‘entitled to head of state immunity . . . while he remains in office.’ Manoharan, 711 F.3d at 180. Accordingly, the claims against bin Salman will be dismissed based on head-of-state immunity.”
(The Manoharan case cited by the judge was a 2013 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling relating to a civil claim brought against the sitting president of Sri Lanka.)
Bates also indicated that the administration’s recommendation weighed heavily.
“If the immunity determination was in front of the Court without input from the Executive Branch, the Court certainly would consider the plaintiff’s arguments about whether, as a substantive matter, bin Salman was entitled to head-of-state immunity,” he wrote.
‘Meritorious’
Bates said that “there is a strong argument that plaintiffs’ claims against bin Salman and the other defendants are meritorious.”
“However, the Court cannot resolve that issue at this time,” he said. “The Court has a responsibility to decide preliminary issues, such as jurisdiction, before the merits – however strong the merits may be.”
Bates also dismissed claims against two other Saudi defendants, Saud al-Qahtani and Ahmed al-Assiri, on the grounds the U.S. court lacked jurisdiction over them.
While campaigning for the White House, former Vice President Joe Biden said he believed the crown prince had ordered the killing of Khashoggi, and pledged as president to “make them pay the price and make them in fact the pariah that they are.”
Biden visited the kingdom last July, and came in for criticism at home after he was filmed greeting bin Salman in Jeddah with a fist bump.
He told reporters later he raised Khashoggi’s murder at the top of his meeting with the crown prince, “making it clear what I thought of it at the time and what I think of it now.”
Biden said he had made “crystal clear” his view that for an American president to be silent on human rights would be “inconsistent with who we are and who I am.”
When asked how bin Salman responded, Biden said, “He basically said that he – he was not personally responsible for it [the killing]. I indicated that I thought he was. He said he was not personally responsible for it and he took action against those who were responsible.”
Al-Qahtani and al-Assiri, the two co-defendants in the case against bin Salman, were among 18 Saudi officials targeted for U.S. sanctions over the killing.
The U.S. Treasury Department described al-Qahtani as a senior government official “who was part of the planning and execution of the operation that led to the killing of Mr. Khashoggi.”
The department said al-Assiri, a former top intelligence official, “was assigned to murder journalist Khashoggi” and “was the ringleader of the operation.”
Neither the Trump nor Biden administration imposed sanctions on bin Salman himself. The Biden White House argued last year that “historically,” U.S. administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have not sanctioned leaders of countries “where we have diplomatic relations,” and even in some cases where the U.S. does not have diplomatic ties.
As CNSNews.com reported at the time, that assertion was not factual.
(CNSNews.com) – State Department spokesman Ned Price was asked five time on Wednesday if the administration was pleased that a federal judge had accepted its view that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was legally immune in a lawsuit relating to the murder of Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi.
Price each time declined to comment. He said he had no reaction to the fact the District of Columbia District Court judge accepted the administration’s stance on immunity.
“We weighed in on a narrow issue,” he said. “The judge then took that rather narrow input and determined that that input had implications for the broader case. And I’ll leave it at that.”
It was on the basis of the administration’s position that Judge John D. Bates dismissed the civil suit against bin Salman, brought by Khashoggi’s fiancée, Hatice Cengiz.
Khashoggi, a U.S.-based critic of the regime, was killed and dismembered inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018. A February 2021 U.S. intelligence assessment concluded that bin Salman approved the operation that resulted in his death.
Last September, while the civil case brought by Cengiz was underway, and as the court was awaiting input from the administration on the question of head-of-state immunity, King Salman transferred the post of prime minister – usually held by the kingdom’s ruling monarch – to the crown prince.
Critics saw the move as a transparent attempt to strengthen the claim of immunity – “a last ditch effort to escape the jurisdiction of the court,” in the view of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), an advocacy organization Khashoggi founded and led until his death.
In its “statement of interest” submitted to the court last month, the State Department said it “recognizes and allows the immunity of Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman as a sitting head of government of a foreign state.”
It added that in making the determination, the department “takes no view on the merits of the present suit and reiterates its unequivocal condemnation of the heinous murder of Jamal Khashoggi.”
In his ruling on Tuesday, Bates expressed his disquiet, but acceded to the administration’s position.
“Despite the Court’s uneasiness, then, with both the circumstances of bin Salman’s appointment [as prime minister] and the credible allegations of his involvement in Khashoggi’s murder, the United States has informed the Court that he is immune, and bin Salman is therefore ‘entitled to head of state immunity . . . while he remains in office.’ Manoharan, 711 F.3d at 180. Accordingly, the claims against bin Salman will be dismissed based on head-of-state immunity.”
(The Manoharan case cited by the judge was a 2013 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling relating to a civil claim brought against the sitting president of Sri Lanka.)
Bates also indicated that the administration’s recommendation weighed heavily.
“If the immunity determination was in front of the Court without input from the Executive Branch, the Court certainly would consider the plaintiff’s arguments about whether, as a substantive matter, bin Salman was entitled to head-of-state immunity,” he wrote.
‘Meritorious’
Bates said that “there is a strong argument that plaintiffs’ claims against bin Salman and the other defendants are meritorious.”
“However, the Court cannot resolve that issue at this time,” he said. “The Court has a responsibility to decide preliminary issues, such as jurisdiction, before the merits – however strong the merits may be.”
Bates also dismissed claims against two other Saudi defendants, Saud al-Qahtani and Ahmed al-Assiri, on the grounds the U.S. court lacked jurisdiction over them.
While campaigning for the White House, former Vice President Joe Biden said he believed the crown prince had ordered the killing of Khashoggi, and pledged as president to “make them pay the price and make them in fact the pariah that they are.”
Biden visited the kingdom last July, and came in for criticism at home after he was filmed greeting bin Salman in Jeddah with a fist bump.
He told reporters later he raised Khashoggi’s murder at the top of his meeting with the crown prince, “making it clear what I thought of it at the time and what I think of it now.”
Biden said he had made “crystal clear” his view that for an American president to be silent on human rights would be “inconsistent with who we are and who I am.”
When asked how bin Salman responded, Biden said, “He basically said that he – he was not personally responsible for it [the killing]. I indicated that I thought he was. He said he was not personally responsible for it and he took action against those who were responsible.”
Al-Qahtani and al-Assiri, the two co-defendants in the case against bin Salman, were among 18 Saudi officials targeted for U.S. sanctions over the killing.
The U.S. Treasury Department described al-Qahtani as a senior government official “who was part of the planning and execution of the operation that led to the killing of Mr. Khashoggi.”
The department said al-Assiri, a former top intelligence official, “was assigned to murder journalist Khashoggi” and “was the ringleader of the operation.”
Neither the Trump nor Biden administration imposed sanctions on bin Salman himself. The Biden White House argued last year that “historically,” U.S. administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have not sanctioned leaders of countries “where we have diplomatic relations,” and even in some cases where the U.S. does not have diplomatic ties.
As CNSNews.com reported at the time, that assertion was not factual.
As Saudis Bolster Ties With China, WH Says ‘Our Partners’ Make Their Own Relationship Decisions
Text Audio00:0000:00Font Size
Chinese President Xi Jinping and then-Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at a G20 meeting in Hangzhou in 2016. (Photo by Greg Baker / AFP via Getty Images)(CNSNews.com) – The United States does not tell its “partners” to choose sides, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Tuesday, in response to questions about Saudi Arabia’s strengthening of political and economic ties with China.
“Each country has its own bilateral relationships,” she told reporters aboard Air Force One as President Biden flew to Phoenix, Ariz. “It’s not up to us on what they – what they see their relationships need to be.”
“We don’t tell our partner – our partners – to choose sides,” Jean Pierre said. “That’s not something that we do.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday begins a three-day visit to Saudi Arabia, at a time when the longstanding U.S. relationship with the kingdom is undergoing strains over decisions by the Saudi-led OPEC cartel and its partners this fall to cut oil production.
According to the official Saudi Press Agency, Xi and Saudi King Salman will co-chair a bilateral summit “to strengthen the historical relations and the distinguished strategic partnership.” Crown Prince (and prime minister) Mohammed bin Salman will also take part.
More than 20 preliminary agreements between the two countries, valued at more than $29 billion, are set to be signed.
Two other “cooperation and development” summits will also take place in Riyadh during the visit, one involving China and Gulf states, and the other between China and Arab states, SPA said.
Saudi Arabia is a participant in Beijing’s massive Belt and Road infrastructure initiative, and China has been the kingdom’s biggest trading partner since 2018. The world’s biggest oil producer sells about a quarter of its oil exports to China.
China also enjoys diplomatic support from Saudi Arabia – an influential leader in the Arab and Islamic world – at the United Nations, including its backing for the Chinese Communist Party’s widely-condemned policies affecting minority Muslims in Xinjiang.
Jean-Pierre declined to speak about the China-Saudi summit.
“We are focused on strengthening our own partnerships in the Middle East and advancing our economic and national security,” she said.
‘Recalibrate’
The decision early October by the OPEC+ group to reduce oil production by two million barrels a day until the end of 2023 – despite U.S. urging to the contrary – angered the administration, which depicted it as a move taken to benefit Russia’s war in Ukraine and hurt U.S. interests.
The White House then signaled plans to “recalibrate” or “realign” the decades-old relationship with Saudi Arabia. It said Biden would consult with members of Congress in a “methodical and strategic” way about the issue, once lawmakers returned after the midterm elections.
A month after the election, Jean Pierre was unable Tuesday to offer any update on the discussions.
“I don’t have specifics to lay out on where we are on the conversation about our Saudi relationship,” she said.
Adding that the issue was being discussed “in a bipartisan way,” she said, “I don’t have anything to share on conversations that’s been had or what’s the path forward. As soon as we have that, we’ll be sure to share.”
The negative U.S. reaction to the October move did not appear to have had an impact on Saudi decision-making: OPEC+ minsters at a virtual meeting on Sunday agreed to stay with the plan to cut production by two million barrels a day.
They reiterated that the October decision was “purely driven by market considerations” and had been “the necessary and the right course of action towards stabilizing global oil markets.”
Although the next OPEC+ ministerial meeting is scheduled only for next June, at Sunday’s meeting participants did reiterate “their readiness to meet at any time and take immediate additional measures to address market developments and support the balance of the oil market and its stability if necessary.”
Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia over the summer, and afterward administration officials expressed optimism that an oil output increase would be forthcoming.
Several weeks after the OPEC+ decision that went in the opposite direction, the New York Times reported that U.S. officials had been blindsided by it, as they thought the U.S. had secured an agreement with the kingdom last May to boost production through the end of the year.
Reports also emerged to the effect that U.S. officials had asked the Saudis to postpone the early October decision for a month. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Saudis had turned down the request for a delay, “which they viewed as a political gambit by the Biden administration to avoid bad news ahead of the U.S. midterm elections.”
House Committee on Oversight and Reform ranking member James Comer (R-Ky.) at the weekend sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, requesting documentation relating to what he called a “secret deal to boost oil production” between administration officials and the Saudis.
“If [the Biden] administration is engaging in backdoor market manipulations with adversarial nations while jeopardizing our national security for the sake of securing more favorable election conditions for Democrats, the American people have a right to know,” Comer wrote.
The letter forms part of a broader probe by Comer into Biden’s energy policies, including what he called “abuse of strategic oil reserves” and the “implementation of radical Green New Deal policies that drive up costs for American consumers.”
(CNSNews.com) – The United States does not tell its “partners” to choose sides, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Tuesday, in response to questions about Saudi Arabia’s strengthening of political and economic ties with China.
“Each country has its own bilateral relationships,” she told reporters aboard Air Force One as President Biden flew to Phoenix, Ariz. “It’s not up to us on what they – what they see their relationships need to be.”
“We don’t tell our partner – our partners – to choose sides,” Jean Pierre said. “That’s not something that we do.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday begins a three-day visit to Saudi Arabia, at a time when the longstanding U.S. relationship with the kingdom is undergoing strains over decisions by the Saudi-led OPEC cartel and its partners this fall to cut oil production.
According to the official Saudi Press Agency, Xi and Saudi King Salman will co-chair a bilateral summit “to strengthen the historical relations and the distinguished strategic partnership.” Crown Prince (and prime minister) Mohammed bin Salman will also take part.
More than 20 preliminary agreements between the two countries, valued at more than $29 billion, are set to be signed.
Two other “cooperation and development” summits will also take place in Riyadh during the visit, one involving China and Gulf states, and the other between China and Arab states, SPA said.
Saudi Arabia is a participant in Beijing’s massive Belt and Road infrastructure initiative, and China has been the kingdom’s biggest trading partner since 2018. The world’s biggest oil producer sells about a quarter of its oil exports to China.
China also enjoys diplomatic support from Saudi Arabia – an influential leader in the Arab and Islamic world – at the United Nations, including its backing for the Chinese Communist Party’s widely-condemned policies affecting minority Muslims in Xinjiang.
Jean-Pierre declined to speak about the China-Saudi summit.
“We are focused on strengthening our own partnerships in the Middle East and advancing our economic and national security,” she said.
‘Recalibrate’
The decision early October by the OPEC+ group to reduce oil production by two million barrels a day until the end of 2023 – despite U.S. urging to the contrary – angered the administration, which depicted it as a move taken to benefit Russia’s war in Ukraine and hurt U.S. interests.
The White House then signaled plans to “recalibrate” or “realign” the decades-old relationship with Saudi Arabia. It said Biden would consult with members of Congress in a “methodical and strategic” way about the issue, once lawmakers returned after the midterm elections.
A month after the election, Jean Pierre was unable Tuesday to offer any update on the discussions.
“I don’t have specifics to lay out on where we are on the conversation about our Saudi relationship,” she said.
Adding that the issue was being discussed “in a bipartisan way,” she said, “I don’t have anything to share on conversations that’s been had or what’s the path forward. As soon as we have that, we’ll be sure to share.”
The negative U.S. reaction to the October move did not appear to have had an impact on Saudi decision-making: OPEC+ minsters at a virtual meeting on Sunday agreed to stay with the plan to cut production by two million barrels a day.
They reiterated that the October decision was “purely driven by market considerations” and had been “the necessary and the right course of action towards stabilizing global oil markets.”
Although the next OPEC+ ministerial meeting is scheduled only for next June, at Sunday’s meeting participants did reiterate “their readiness to meet at any time and take immediate additional measures to address market developments and support the balance of the oil market and its stability if necessary.”
Biden traveled to Saudi Arabia over the summer, and afterward administration officials expressed optimism that an oil output increase would be forthcoming.
Several weeks after the OPEC+ decision that went in the opposite direction, the New York Times reported that U.S. officials had been blindsided by it, as they thought the U.S. had secured an agreement with the kingdom last May to boost production through the end of the year.
Reports also emerged to the effect that U.S. officials had asked the Saudis to postpone the early October decision for a month. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Saudis had turned down the request for a delay, “which they viewed as a political gambit by the Biden administration to avoid bad news ahead of the U.S. midterm elections.”
House Committee on Oversight and Reform ranking member James Comer (R-Ky.) at the weekend sent a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, requesting documentation relating to what he called a “secret deal to boost oil production” between administration officials and the Saudis.
“If [the Biden] administration is engaging in backdoor market manipulations with adversarial nations while jeopardizing our national security for the sake of securing more favorable election conditions for Democrats, the American people have a right to know,” Comer wrote.
The letter forms part of a broader probe by Comer into Biden’s energy policies, including what he called “abuse of strategic oil reserves” and the “implementation of radical Green New Deal policies that drive up costs for American consumers.”
No comments:
Post a Comment