Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sschueller 1347 days ago
I would not count of SA being an ally for ever. I find this highly inappropriate especially for someone with sich high rank. Very very dangerous territory that could end up with a treason charge.
2 comments

In the United States, the charge of treason only has meaning within the context of a declared war (due to it's specific definition within the constitution). Given that wars are no longer declared, I don't foresee even literal traitors being charged with treason until either a law is passed creating a different charge with different criteria, or Congress decides to check the Executive regarding the declaration of war. No reason to believe either are on the horizon; it's entirely possible no one will ever be charged with treason in the United States ever again.
Non-competes should include compensation commensurate for the non-compete period. In the case of these individuals is the retirement package not sufficient to guard national secrets?
Your comment reminds me of a scene in the Rolling Stones' Altamont Concert film: Keith Richards is hanging out of his dressing room door and he answers a queston, "Yeah, we sold out, but it was for the money so that's okay! (laughter)" From Keith Richards, it was funny. A retired general claiming the military did not provide enough incentive to guard national secrets would also be laughable, but in a different sense.

Unrelated to the topic of this discussion and elsewhere in the film, Mick Jagger answers another question, "Am I satisfied? Sexually, yes. Philosophically, no." (Working from hazy memories here -- I last saw the movie in the 1970s, I think.)

The security agreements they signed are sufficient to guard national secrets. It has nothing to do with whether they go to work for Raytheon, the Saudi Defense Ministry, or Goodwill in their retirement, their compensation packages, etc.
I'm not seeing how 'security agreements' can guard against them deciding to just stay in Saudi Arabia with the patronage of the princes.
Expatriates would still be subject to not disclosing national secrets. It's not like they're former second-rate steak salesmen.
Subject by whom? The Saudi Arabian government has their own agenda. And obviously the U.S. government cannot enforce laws or policies in Riyadh.
You honestly think an American flag officer would defect to Saudi Arabia? Really?

Russia, China, or Iran would be a far "better" choice for a number of reasons, chiefly the fact that the Saudis might turn the turncoat back over to the US for any number of reasons — like pulling American maintenance contractors out of KSA, which would ground their air force in a matter of days and leave them very vulnerable to Iranian aggression. Hell, without contractor representatives giving them cues I wonder if they can really run some of the gear we've sold them.

Besides, if I'm going to be stuck in one dictatorship for the rest of my life (because you could never safely travel again), I'd pick somewhere like Iran over KSA in a second.

Working for Raytheon vs working for KSA is like the difference between buying an index that has a bunch of AAPL and buying AAPL. You're "fractionally" working for KSA (and whoever else).