In the week that followed, excitement has been emerging over the content of the CIA’s report on the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi ended with no new info.
The report did not reveal a new content compared to what had been leaked before. In fact, the CIA’s released report was less than what has been expected. It brought to the light no clear evidence, such as a text or a voice message, which proves that H.H MBS issued orders to kill Khashoggi.
The CIA’s report is an assessment, as the US intelligence agency itself called, and not a list of evidence. The “assessment” infers that MBS might ordered to murder or to abduct Khashoggi, based on a background about the hierarchy of decision making in Saudi, in addition to the CIA’s evaluation of MBS’s personality. One other weakness lays in the informational value of the CIA assessment, as it was unable to determine the criminal intent, whether it was kidnapping or murdering Khashoggi.
The brightest example of the so-called “international justice” is the Hariri Tribunal which condemned a single member of Hezbollah, Salim Ayach, without convicting any superordinate decision-makers, such as the secretary general of Hezbollah, the supreme leader of Iran, nor Syrian President Bashar al- Assad as the supreme reference to the intelligence order that was in place in Lebanon, nor the guide Ali Khamenei, who follows Hezbollah to his command, according to statements made public by Nasrallah. This confirms what has been evolving around the parties who have conducted the International Tribunal. A political agreement might have taken place to keep the leaders of Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran out of trial.
Here is the interview with Prince Bandar bin Sultan:
The crime had taken place and Saudi Arabia owned the moral responsibility for it as was evident from a statement by MBS, and the trial resulted in judgments convicting some of the accused and acquitting some others.
Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, former chief of the Saudi Intelligence and former ambassador to the United States, revealed to ASAS-Media his personal insights regarding the latest updates on Khashoggi’s report.
“In the general and objective context, there is a second level of dealing with it in the Kingdom and that is pertaining to the position of the victim’s family members. Accordingly, sentences were commuted from death to life, and this is what happened. If they (the family) did not ask for it, the death sentences would have been carried out according to the provisions of the judiciary and the Shariah”, Bin Sultan said.
“This is how Saudi dealt with the crime that affected all Saudis. The media, political reports, and speeches are mainly shaped by prejudices and mental, psychological, and political positions toward Saudi Arabia in general”, Prince Bandar notes, “these positions are developed even before the occurrence of the crime and perhaps the crime was an opportunity to articulate these prejudices and use them against the KSA”, he added.
“Many previous crimes involved Senior US officers and soldiers, while on missions ordered by the highest authority in the US. However, it does not mean that the US president, as the supreme commander of the armed forces, is the one responsible for these crimes”, former ambassador to the US said.
Prince Bandar takes Abu Ghraib prison as an example. “The concept of secret prisons or the post-September 11 investigation process is an American policy approved by the American authority, including the inner circle of former president George W. Bush, his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and some senior advisors. The Abu Ghraib abuse was the result of such concepts that are were once again approved by the President himself. Yet, those measures deviate from the purpose of Bush’s policy and reflect a serious flaw in his administration. Knowing how decisions are made in the American defense and intelligence, does that mean that the American president and his secretary of defense are directly responsible for the crimes? Of course not. However, they share part of the moral responsibility which Saudi has accepted to carry, with courage, in the murder of Khashoggi”, he added
The US has always maintained its sovereign right to refuse to try American soldiers before a court other than the American judiciary, even the one of the allies, as happened during that famous incident with Britain”, Prince Bandar recalls, “The root of this position is rather the sovereign consideration of the state than lack of confidence in the other judiciary”, he explained.
“Saudi Arabia has carried out what any other country does in terms of the investigation, trial and issuing sentences and that is in accordance with its sovereign right and responsibility as a state and as a legitimate member of the international community. In my own point of view, the murder case is a closed one unless new evidence shows up before the Saudi judiciary”, he stated
Prince Bandar reassures that “any kind of investment in this case is a political one, in compliance with political needs and positions which have always been part of foreign affairs. Every country would accommodate the case to its own political, security, and diplomatic advantage”.
لقراءة المقال باللغة العربية اضغط هنا
