[hn_throwaway_99]

I think the headline is a bit misleading. "given" immunity to me implied that there was some deal or something where the US government proactively gave MBS immunity.

What happened was the US State Dept determined he had immunity due to his current role as Saudi Arabia PM. Thus, my understanding is that this would be standard diplomatic immunity, no? And if MBS ever stopped being PM he would lose that immunity, as MBS only became PM after the killing took place (not sure if this part is correct).

[mike_d]

> Thus, my understanding is that this would be standard diplomatic immunity, no?

Diplomatic immunity is very nuanced and has multiple levels, but in general being a head of state alone does not qualify you. You need to hold a role within a diplomatic mission to the country in which you committed the crime.

Historically the US justice system has blocked civil suits against foreign states and heads of state out of respect for their sovereignty. The major exemption to this under the FSIA is if the foreign state has a commercial nexus to the United States. The Saudi sovereign wealth fund's multiple investments in the US absolutely pierce the protections they would have had.

[mkl95]

This is what I understood as well. Any attempts to prosecute him would be expensive and futile. Even if there were some law that allowed for it, he could remove it overnight or "pass" a new law that gives him immunity.

[EGreg]

I find this obsession with 1 or 4 people obscene while millions are ignored. We invaded Libya and left behind a failed state where millions live amid violent gangs, but we spent more ink about 4 Americans in Benghazi than the millions who were affected by our policies. It's almost like we don't care.

Why do people write far more about Khashoggi, rather than the millions in Yemen?

That should be more than enough reason to not deal with Saudi government. We have sanctioned Russia and its government so much, but not a single one on Saudis. We have called Putin a dictator who falsifies elections and kills people. And yet MBS is not even elected. We don't say "unelected dictator" who "oppresses his own people" or "bombs his enemies".

The situation in Saudi-Yemen is similar in many respects to Russia-Ukraine. In response to a foreign government (USA in Ukraine, Iran in Yemen) encouraging a revolution that overthrew friendlier rulers in the country, they carried on a war with them for years, with no end in sight.

The difference is Saudi Arabia has blockaded Yemen for years, leading to the world's largest preventable humanitarian crisis. Russia did nothing of the sort with Ukraine, they didn't blockade it, in fact they let NATO weapons keep pouring over the border from Poland.

This year, the UN warned of an "outright catastrophe" in Yemen, as millions are facing hunger. Ukraine has lots arable land while Yemen did not.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113852

But far from sanctioning them, or even spending 1% of the outrage that it does on Russia, the USA instead sends them the very weapons they use to bomb civilians!

This year, investigators showed that the USA supported the majority of airstrikes on Yemenite civilians!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/20...

To quote:

While Russia’s bombings of a maternity hospital and other civilian targets in Ukraine have drawn widespread public indignation as war crimes, thousands of similar strikes have taken place against Yemeni civilians. The indiscriminate bombings have become a hallmark of the Yemen war, drawing international scrutiny of the countries participating in the air campaign, and those arming them, including the United States. U.S. support for the Saudi war effort, which has been criticized by human rights groups and some in Congress, began during the Obama administration and has continued in fits and starts for seven years.

[scottLobster]

Hate to break it to you, but we don't care. We never have. "We" being the "enlightened west" in general. Study enough history and it becomes pretty clear. Governments only take humanitarian action against evil when there's a clear threat to their interests (Ukraine), a perceived strategic opportunity (Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya) or there's little/no risk in the confrontation (Somalia/Libya). We have a hard enough time getting people to care about their immediate neighbors, I'd be surprised if 1/100 Americans could even find Yemen on a map. Throw institutions and economics/ideologies on top and the international good of the common people always takes a back seat.

And lest people think I'm just shitting on America right now, look at the deals Finland/Sweden are making with Turkey for NATO membership. The vaunted, enlightened, socially democratic, supposedly-closest-thing-to-the-Star-Trek-Federation Nordics are screwing the Kurds for their own interests.

No institution outside of charities/NGOs has ever functioned from a standpoint of moral purity. Sure many have claimed to when a convenient narrative was available, but no nation that implemented a "morality first" platform would survive for long. They simply wouldn't be able to strike deals with most other nations on moral grounds, and would turn themselves into a nicer, gentler North Korea. I guess Bhutan comes the closest, but aside from their use as a buffer zone/chess piece between the Indians and Chinese, no one outside of some human-interest bloggers cares about Bhutan (if I have to hear about their happiness index one more time...). Europe's various moral stances are the result of American strategic overwatch and a globalized economic system where they didn't have to secure their own resources. Take those away and the morality will dry up awful fast (where do you think the old European empires came from?)

As for the Saudis and Yemen specifically, I think most Americans in the abstract would agree we should be sanctioning the Saudis... right up until they learn that means gas shortages and insane prices at the pump. For most Americans the cost of gas directly impacts their families' livelihoods, and people will always pick their own family's welfare over the welfare of strangers half a world away. Sure there's a minority that's willing to sacrifice regardless, and sure it would be nice if the whole world was that way. But it isn't, not even close. So we have to deal with what we have, and Yemen, among other places, is screwed.

[boxed]

I disagree. We do care. We just think some things are savable, and some not. That's why there's pressure on Iran now, and Russia now. That's why the west bitches and moans about the US doing immoral shit. Not because it's the worst, but because we think there's a chance they might care. Unlike Saudi Arabia, which we pretty much write off as total monsters.

[EGreg]

So we have had sanctions on Iran for decades because ae actually think they’re more moral than Saudis and will eventually come around, rather than having to do with Saudis being our allies and selling oil cor dollars while Iranians overthrew the Shah?

I think during the Shah times, if Iran was bombing people we’d also look the other way. We looked the other way when Afghanistan did genocidal rapes of Bangladesh in their war of independence…

And in your view btw who are moral monsters — Arabs vs Persians or their governments?