#Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The social media company formerly known as Twitter has been accused in a revised civil US lawsuit of helping Saudi Arabia commit grave human rights abuses against its users, including by disclosing confidential user data at the request of Saudi authorities at a much higher rate than it has for the US, UK or Canada.

The lawsuit was brought last May against X, as Twitter is now known, by Areej al-Sadhan, the sister of a Saudi aid worker who was forcibly disappeared and then later sentenced to 20 years in jail.

It centers on the events surrounding the infiltration of the California company by three Saudi agents, two of whom were posing as Twitter employees in 2014 and 2015, which ultimately led to the arrest of al-Sadhan’s brother, Abdulrahman, and the exposure of the identity of thousands of anonymous Twitter users, some of whom were later reportedly detained and tortured as part of the government’s crackdown on dissent.

Lawyers for Al-Sadhan updated their claim last week to include new allegations about how Twitter, under the leadership of then chief executive Jack Dorsey, willfully ignored or had knowledge of the Saudi government’s campaign to ferret out critics but – because of financial considerations and efforts to keep close ties to the Saudi government, a top investor in the company – provided assistance to the kingdom.

The new lawsuit details how X had originally been seen seen as a critical vehicle for democratic movements during the Arab spring, and therefore became a source of concern for the Saudi government as early as 2013.

The new legal filing comes days after Human Rights Watch condemned a Saudi court for sentencing a man to death based solely on his Twitter and YouTube activity, which it called an “escalation” of the government’s crackdown on freedom of expression.

The convicted man, Muhammad al-Ghamdi, 54, is the brother of a Saudi scholar and government critic living in exile in the UK. Saudi court records examined by HRW showed that al-Ghamdi was accused of having two accounts, which had a total of 10 followers combined. Both accounts had fewer than 1,000 tweets combined, and contained retweets of well-known critics of the government.

The Saudi crackdown can be traced back to December 2014, as Ahmad Abouammo – who was later convicted in the US for secretly acting as a Saudi agent and lying to the FBI – began accessing and sending confidential user data to Saudi Arabian officials. In the new lawsuit, it is claimed that he sent a message to Saud al-Qahtani, a close aide to Mohammed bin Salman, via the social media company’s messaging system, saying “proactively and reactively we will delete evil, my brother”. It was a reference, the lawsuit claims, to the identification and harming of perceived Saudi dissidents who were using the platform. Al-Qahtani was later accused by the US of being a mastermind behind the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

“Twitter was either aware of this message – brazenly sent on its own platform – or was deliberately ignorant to it,” the revised lawsuit states.

Twitter, now X, does not respond to questions from the press.

The Guardian contacted the company lawyer in the case, Ben Berkowitz of Keker, Van Nest & Peters, but did not receive a response. The Guardian also contacted Dorsey’s new company, Block, Inc, to request a comment from the former Twitter chief executive, but did not receive a response.

After Abouammo resigned in May 2015, he continued to contact Twitter to field requests he was receiving from Bader al-Asaker, a senior aide of Mohammed bin Salman, for the identity of confidential users. He made clear to the company, the lawsuit alleges, that the requests were on behalf of his “old partners in the Saudi government”.

The lawsuit also alleges that Twitter had “ample notice” of security risks to internal personal data, and that there was a threat of insiders illegally accessing it, based on public reporting at the time.

Twitter “did not simply ignore all these red flags … it was aware of the malign campaign”, the lawsuit claims.

On 28 September 2015, Twitter received a complaint from a Saudi user that their accounts had been compromised. But, the lawsuit alleges, the company did not act to bar one of the Saudis who was later accused – Ali Hamad Alzabarah – from having access to confidential user data, even though he had accessed the user’s account previously.

Saudi Arabian authorities, the lawsuit alleges, would formally follow up with Twitter once it received confidential user data from its agents working inside the company, by filing so-called EDRs – or emergency disclosure requests – in order to obtain documentation that confirmed a user’s identity, which it would then use in court. Often those EDRs were approved on the same day.

In May 2015, when two Twitter users tweeted about the kingdom in a way that al-Asaker found objectionable, Albabarah accessed the users’ data within hours. EDRs about the users were then sent, and automatically approved by Twitter, the lawsuit alleges.

Between July and December 2015, Twitter granted the kingdom information requests “significantly more often” than most other countries at that time, including Canada, the UK, Australia and Spain, the lawsuit alleges.

On 5 November 2015, just days before Twitter was confronted by the FBI about its concerns about a Saudi infiltration of the company, it promoted Alzabarah – now a fugitive living in Saudi. In response, Alzabarah sent his Saudi government contact, al-Asaker, a note, conveying his “unimaginable happiness” for the promotion. The note, the lawsuit claims, is evidence that Alzabarah believed al-Asaker had “arranged” or “been influential” in connection to the promotion.

Once Twitter was made aware of the FBI’s concerns, it put Alzabarah on leave and confiscated his laptop, but not his phone, which he has used extensively to contact his Saudi state contacts. Twitter, the lawsuit alleges, “had every reason to expect that Alzabarah would immediately flee to Saudi Arabia, which is exactly what he did.”

The US attorney’s office in San Francisco, which handled the case, did not respond to The Guardian’s request for comment on the company’s handling of the matter.

Twitter would later notify users who had been exposed, telling them their data “may” have been targeted, but did not provide more specific information about the scale or certainty that the breach had, in fact, occurred.

By “failing to give this crucial information, Twitter put thousands of Twitter users at risk,” the lawsuit alleges, claiming that some may have had time to escape the kingdom had they understood the risk. Even once Twitter was aware of the breach, it continued to meet and strategize with Saudi Arabia as one of its vital partners in the region. Dorsey met with bin Salman about six months after the company was made aware of the issue by the FBI, and the two discussed how to “train and qualify Saudi cadres.”

“We believe in Areej’s case and we will zealously prosecute it – but what she wants most is for Saudi Arabia to simply release her brother and let him re-join his family in the United States,” said Jim Walden, a lawyer representing Al-Sadhan from Walden Macht & Haran. “Were that to happen, she and Abdulrahman would gratefully resume their lives and leave justice in God’s hand.”

[saulsplace]

De strijd tegen de ‘factcheckers’

Allereerst! Ieder die dit leest en denkt dat het interessant is: kom 26 oktober naar Hilversum. Daar spreek ik samen met Paul Cliteur en Bart Maes over Zingeving en Realisme. Joris Bouwmeester gaat het gesprek leiden. Lees hier meer, en komt allen – tickets hier.

De redactie van Saul's Place HQ legde mij een email voor. Hierin staat het volgende:

“Beste heer, mevrouw, Voor Pointer (KRO/NCRV) zijn wij bezig met een verhaal over misinformatie in podcasts. Wij hebben transcripten van alle Nederlandse podcasts doorgenomen om te kijken naar misinformatie in drie categorieën: complottheorieën, medische misinformatie en het verspreiden van de omvolkingstheorie. Uw podcast kwam voor in één of meer van deze categorieën. Als u benieuwd bent naar onze definitie van deze drie soorten misinformatie en om welke van uw afleveringen het gaat, dan kunnen we dit aanleveren.

Naar aanleiding van ons onderzoek willen we u graag wat vragen stellen.

1. Bent u het eens met onze bevinding dat uw podcast misinformatie verspreidt?

2. Bent u zich ervan bewust dat u met deze aflevering(en) mogelijk ingaat tegen de richtlijnen van Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube en andere platformen, die dit soort inhoud vaak verbieden?

3. Bent u ooit door een van deze platformen aangesproken over de inhoud van een aflevering, of bent u ooit (tijdelijk) geweerd van een platform?

Bij voorbaat dank voor uw medewerking. Vriendelijke groet,

Joris Heijkant & Jerry Vermanen Pointer, KRO/NCRV”

U kent wellicht de zegswijze – nobody heard about ‘fact checkers’ until the truth started getting out. In dit essay zal ik nogmaals uiteenzetten waarom de EU zich hier niet mee bezig moet houden en bovendien is het een kwestie van ‘water under the bridge’. ‘Fact checken’ gáát helemaal niet om feiten: het gaat om het kaderen van de feiten, het duiden ervan. Het is volledig mogelijk om een propaganda artikel te schrijven zonder ook maar één leugen de wereld in te slingeren. 

Er gaat gewoon te veel mis in de maatschappij: of het nu gaat om overlast door de toestroom van te veel immigranten, klimaatmaatregelen die niet het gewenste resultaat leveren maar wél de lasten met onrealistische bedragen doen stijgen, of dubieuze dealtjes tussen politici en Big Pharma bedrijven ten tijde van corona – het is eigenlijk niet meer mogelijk om de heersende ideologie (multiculturalisme en de maakbare samenleving) geloofwaardig overeind te houden. 

De façade van Nederland als ‘rustig kikkerlandje’ begint nu voor te veel mensen tegelijkertijd in te storten. Maar de maatschappelijke bovenlaag wil wel de macht behouden, zo lang als dit kan. En dus moet die ideologie tóch overeind blijven, ook al kán dit eigenlijk niet. 

De filosoof Jelle van Baardewijk heeft dit benoemd in een uitzending van De Nieuwe Wereld: het gaat niet meer om feiten of om onwaarheden, het gaat om “hostile narratives”. Als je verhaal nuttig kan zijn voor Poetin – of zelfs maar de schijn daarvan heeft – dan boeien je feiten niet meer. Je staat dan ‘aan de verkeerde kant van de geschiedenis’. Met dat gesprek over ‘hostile narratives’ valt het masker af. Het gaat niet om feiten en het ging nooit om feiten.

Ursula von der Leyen, hoofd van de Europese Commissie heeft dit met zoveel woorden al toegegeven. De-bunken heeft geen zin, zo stelde ze, je moet “pre-bunken”. Je moet mensen preventief de juiste informatie geven, zodat ze niet wantrouwig worden tegenover de overheid. 

Dat zie je ook bij de AIVD, de MIVD en de NCTV: al die diensten houden zich tegenwoordig bezig met het narratief, de publieke opinie, het heersend vertoog, het gesponnen verhaal. Kritiek op de overheid en wantrouwen tegenover de overheid – vroeger heel gezond, en zelfs wenselijk in liberale en progressieve kringen – is vandaag een doodzonde. Zelfs al kunnen er toch wel gronden zijn voor enig wantrouwen. De Toeslagenaffaire, de Mondkapjesdeal, Toyota’s die aan ISIS zijn geleverd – ik vis wat willekeurige zaken uit het geheugen. Een columnist kan op deze manier zijn of haar werk als zuiverend geweten niet meer doen. 

Ik heb uit betrouwbare kringen dat de financiële journalist Arno Wellens onlangs in een vechtpartij belandde: het was wederom met een Marokkaan. De agent van dienst belde met de officier van justitie en zij keek hierop in een bestand. Ze zag dat hij “medeoprichter is van Forum voor Democratie”. Dit werd aan de telefoon besproken met oom agent. Voor de officier van justitie was zijn “mede oprichter zijn” een reden om Arno Wellens enkele dagen in voorarrest te houden. Toen zijn advocaat de vraag stelde, waarom deze informatie bij haar bekend was en waarom dit feit in deze context überhaupt genoemd moest worden, veranderde ze van inzicht en was er plots toch geen voorarrest nodig. 

Ik besluit daarom om dit artikel anders te schrijven, dan ik initieel van plan was. Wat ik wilde doen, was een grondige uiteenzetting geven van waarom Dilan Yeşilgöz en co al in 2018 een motie aangenomen kregen door de Tweede Kamer. Daarin staat uitgesproken dat de EU géén competentie heeft in het aanmerken van informatie als zijnde ‘desinformatie’. Herinnert u zich de context nog? Oekraïne was bezig om bronnen als ‘desinformatie’ aan te merken – dat was onder meer een reportage van Chris Aalberts die toen een interview publiceerde waarin een kritisch persoon een gepeperde mening gaf over Oekraïne. Het werd een hele rel – ook stukken in De Gelderlander werden als ‘desinformatie’ aangemerkt. 

Inmiddels is de PVV aan de macht, met ruggensteun van Yeşilgöz zoals u vast weet – kennelijk heeft het nergens invloed op. Dit brengt ons terug naar de email die ik hierboven citeerde. De Europese Commissie heeft een netwerk van gesubsidieerde 'factcheckers' opgezet binnen de EU, die internetplatforms afspeuren naar “desinformatie” en hierover verslag uitbrengen aan Brussel. Deze opdracht valt binnen de Benelux aan de organisatie Benedmo: Benelux Digital Media Observatory. Dit netwerk bevat ‘onderzoekers’ van universiteiten, organisaties als Bellingcat en het KRO-NCRV programma Pointer. Kennelijk acht de EU hen geschikt om scheidsrechter te spelen over de publieke opinie en het maatschappelijk narratief.

De vorige Nederlandse regering, die al zoveel ‘nieuw leiderschap’ liet zien bij onder meer, Nokia-gate en het willen wegpromoveren van een Kamerlid – en natuurlijk de bruiloft van minister Grapperhaus, die ja – onthulde op 18 juli nog een stevig assortiment aan maatregelen om desinformatie te bestrijden. Benedmo ving de subsidies en kreeg de voortrekkersrol. De dreigende verwijzing naar de “richtlijnen van Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube en andere platformen” moet u zien in het verlengde van de Digital Services Act. Het doel daarvan is dat Big Tech hand in hand met de overheid “polariserende” discoursvorming tegengaat – we komen dan terug op die afbrokkelende façade en de poging om wanhopig greep te houden op het narratief.

Ik had nog een boel interessante punten om hier te maken maar ik hou het even bondig, want wie mij al langer volgt, is hier wel bekend mee. En ik voel me een beetje zoals Thomas Sowell in die documentaire die in 2021 over hem werd uitgezonden en die ik toen heb gerecenseerd. Je doet je bijdrage aan het publiek debat, maar je merkt dat je argumenten zit te weerleggen die je twintig jaar geleden al hebt weerlegd, aldus Sowell. De wielen van de macht knarsen voort, gesteund door een scala van intellectuelen, journalisten, mensen bij geheime diensten – kortom volk dat beter zou moeten weten – en het gepeupel haalt de schouders op en gaat verder tot de orde van de dag. 

Hier dus de korte samenvattende punten die u moet lezen als ware het een erudiet, breed uitgesponnen vertoog: De mail van Joris Heijkant & Jerry Vermanen spreekt van: “complottheorieën, medische misinformatie en het verspreiden van de omvolkingstheorie.”

Complottheorieën – loopt stuk op, wanneer is iets een theorie? Waarom zou de burger geen vrijheid toekomen om te speculeren over de motieven van machthebbers? Zijn er nooit complotten geweest in de geschiedenis van de macht? Hoe zit het met Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi – om maar iets te noemen. Als je over zijn dood speculeert, iets wat onderop in de doofpot ligt van de obscure machtspolitiek tussen Turkije en Saoedi-Arabië, ben je dan ook “fout”? Of slechts als het een onderwerp betreft dat de Nederlandse overheid slecht uitkomt omdat het wel eens voor ‘opschudding’ zou kunnen zorgen? De vraag stellen is uiteraard hetzelfde als hem beantwoorden.

Het pedofielen eiland van Jeffrey Epstein was ook eerst een complottheorie. Totdat zelfs de Telegraaf er niet meer omheen kon dat voormalig Amerikaans president Bill Clinton dat eiland had bezocht. De theorie dat COVID19 in een Chinees lab zou zijn ontwikkeld – als je met dat idee kwam, werd je initieel ook als volslagen debiel weggezet. Totdat de overheid van de VS dit scenario plots officieel onderzocht. De krantenkoppen van vandaag zijn de complottheorieën van gisteren.

Medische desinformatie: In mijn boek De greep op de publieke opinie (2023) heb ik hier uitgebreid over geschreven – hier hou ik het zoals aangekondigd dus beknopt. Mark Zuckerberg van Facebook gaf destijds al aan, dat overheden hem dwongen om burger research over corona en het coronavaccin te onderdrukken, minder zichtbaar te maken. Maar hij noemde dit een kortzichtige aanpak van de overheid. Immers, de burgers baseren zich op dezelfde officiële rapporten als overheden: ze vergelijken rapporten van verschillende landen en trekken op basis daarvan conclusies. Het mondt uit in een kat-en-muisspel, waarbij de overheid voortdurend achter de feiten aanholt, eerst iets censureert en daarna de burgers vaak alsnóg gelijk moet geven. Het enige gevolg is dat de burgers hun overheden meer gaan wantrouwen.

Dan het verhaal over Ivermectine in coronatijd. Thierry Baudet heeft dit nader toegelicht in zijn rechtszaak destijds tegen YouTube, dat dit debat, gevoerd in het Nederlands parlement, censureerde. In India werden er volledig andere conclusies getrokken over de werkzaamheid van Ivermectine dan in Nederland. Waar slaat het op om burgers het inzicht in dit debat, te onthouden? De wetenschappelijke consensus is immers ook geen vaststaande monoliet, maar is iets dat zich ontwikkelt via voortschrijdend inzicht.

Omvolkingstheorie: Hoe krankzinnig om nog steeds het woord ‘theorie’ hiervoor te gebruiken. Meestal verwijzen ‘journalisten’ dan naar de Nazi-tijd. Maar ook dát slaat nergens op, want de situatie van de huidige massa-immigratie, is juist ontstaan tijdens de nasleep van de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Toen werden de vluchtelingenverdragen opgenomen waar linkse advocaten en NGO’s zich vandaag nog op beroepen; toen begon de gastarbeid, de wederopbouw, het werven van arbeidskrachten in het buitenland, het afkoppelen van de koloniën waardoor ook veel mensen overkwamen. Nazi’s gebruikten omvolking – als ze het überhaupt al gebruikten – in een totáál andere context. Namelijk Slavische volkeren in Oost-Europa vervangen door Arische Germanen.

Als we het hebben over ‘omvolking’, dan bedoelen we niet een standje met een Vietnamese loempia op de hoek van het dorp. Wat we bedoelen is, Mohammed als meest voorkomende jongensnaam, het openen van moskeeën en het afboeken van kerken – we hebben het over de vruchtbaarheid van de Nederlandse vrouw die ongeveer onder het nulpunt is gedaald, niet gek ook, want vind maar eens een woning om je baby kwijt te kunnen. En oh ja, varkensvlees verdwijnt overal en het heeft er vast iets mee van doen dat het vruchtbaarheidscijfer in Maghreb landen gemiddeld hoger ligt.

Dus ja, iedereen weet wat je bedoelt als je over OMVOLKING spreekt. Als dat kwetsend zou zijn, zeg dan: bevolkingsvervanging, of: veranderingen in de demografische samenstelling met dienovereenkomstige gevolgen voor de culturele representativiteit van het authentieke Nederland. Als je dát zegt, is iemand dan niet gekwetst? Klinkt veel chiquer, maar je zegt precies hetzelfde. Niet over OMVOLKING mogen praten is dus onnodig rond de hete brij draaien. De brave Pieter Omtzigt benoemde dit demografische verhaal laatst, vlak voor zijn zoveelste burn out. Niet gek toch? Als de culturele samenstelling van de bevolking verandert, zou het dan zo kunnen zijn dat gerechtelijke instituties en dergelijke ook mee veranderen? De interpretatie van mores en regels?

Vroeger had je overheidscampagnes voor de boodschap: ‘durf duidelijke taal te spreken!’. Zouden Pointer en KRO óók moeten doen.

Kom 26 oktober naar Hilversum. Daar spreek ik samen met Paul Cliteur en Bart Maes over Zingeving en Realisme. Joris Bouwmeester gaat het gesprek leiden. Lees hier meer, en komt allen – tickets hier.

Volg Sid Lukkassen via Telegram: https://t.me/SidLukkassen Steun Sid Lukkassen via BackMe: https://sidlukkassen.backme.org

[m2024a]

Paura dell'arresto o del Papa? Bin Salman assente in Puglia dopo lo "strappo" sul petrolio Temeva di venir arrestato perché un'associazione italiana lo ha denunciato per l'omicidio del dissidente Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi. Ha ascoltato il «consigliere» Matteo Renzi accettando di rifilare un reale sgarbo a Giorgia. Non voleva farsi vedere con il Papa cristiano. O semplicemente l'infastidiva la visita a un'Italia con cui è stato in competizione per l'Expo 2030. Le voci sono tante, ma nessuno conosce la vera ragione per cui il principe ereditario saudita Mohammed Bin Salman ha evitato di farsi vedere al G7 e stringere la mano all'ex-alleato Joe Biden. Dietro le quinte dell'economia internazionale la reale defezione vien spiegata con ragioni ben più serie e gravide di conseguenze. Il 9 giugno, tre giorni prima dell'annullamento della visita, era infatti arrivato a scadenza il cinquantennale accordo sui petrol-dollari stretto da Usa e Arabia Saudita nel lontano 1974. E a decidere la rottura - con uno sgarbo non da poco all'America e a Biden - è stato proprio il principe Bin Salman. Lo sgarbo è, infatti, tutt'altro che formale. In base alla defunta intesa il regno saudita s'impegnava a vendere e quotare il suo greggio esclusivamente in dollari. E a utilizzare una parte dei dollari incassati per pagare la protezione garantita al regno dagli Stati Uniti. Oltre all'acquisto di armamenti prodotti da aziende americane. Ma non solo. La terza parte di quell'intesa prevedeva il reinvestimento dei surplus derivanti dalla fatturazione del greggio in bond americani. I sauditi s'impegnavano, insomma, ad acquistare parti consistenti del debito americano. E se ci aggiungiamo che di conseguenza tutto il petrolio del mondo veniva quotato e pagato in dollari, anche se a comprarlo o venderlo erano Paesi come Russia o Cina, è facile capire perché il mancato rinnovo rischi di scatenare un terremoto finanziario che non poteva lasciar indifferente il G7. Anche perché il terremoto minaccia innanzitutto la tradizionale stabilità della valuta di Washington garantita dal ruolo di moneta indispensabile per l'acquisto di energia. Senza più quel ruolo la richiesta di dollari andrebbe incontro a un'inevitabile flessione capace di generare svalutazione e inflazione sui mercati americani. Sul piano strategico lo sgarbo saudita ha implicazioni che vanno ben aldilà delle dinamiche finanziarie. La mossa è la diretta conseguenza della crisi nei rapporti tra Washington e Riad aperta nel 2021 da un Joe Biden pronto ad attribuire al principe ereditario saudita l'omicidio di Jamal Khashoggi. Da quel momento tra Riad e Washington nulla è più stato come prima. La ritirata saudita dal fronte anti Houthi nello Yemen è andata di pari passo con gli accordi sugli aumenti del greggio che nel 2022 hanno garantito le entrate di Mosca nonostante le sanzioni. E subito dopo sono arrivate le intese tra Riad e lo storico nemico iraniano mediate inaspettatamente da una Cina sempre lontana dagli affari mediorientali. Bazzecole rispetto a quanto potrà succedere nelle prossime settimane quando la Russia chiederà che il suo petrolio venga pagato in rubli mentre Pechino pretenderà fatture energetiche da saldare in yuan. O in valute digitali. Un meccanismo totalmente nuovo che rischia di avere per Washington l'effetto di un'indesiderata quanto non dichiarata sanzione finanziaria.

[garyrevel]

Ezekiel N. Drews to play Akbar in Khashoggi

The Gary Revel Investigations Franchise movie Khashoggi is in development at Jongleur Pictures LLC and finds its actor to play the role of Akbar. The actor is Ezekiel N. Drews. Ezekiel N. Drews In the movie, the Special Operations team of Gary Revel and Alisha Petrucci will set out to find the killers of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi.   Khashoggi was a Saudi journalist, dissident, author, columnist…

[creepingsharia]

Two Muslim Twitter employees arrested, recruited by Saudis to spy on users

Ahmad Abouammo, a U.S. citizen, and Ali Alzabarah, a Saudi citizen, were charged with acting as agents of Saudi Arabia. Creep. Creep.

SAN FRANCISCO — The Saudi government, frustrated by growing criticism of its leaders and policies on social media, recruited two Twitter employees to gather confidential personal information on thousands of accounts that included prominent opponents, prosecutors alleged Wednesday.

The complaint unsealed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco detailed a coordinated effort by Saudi government officials to recruit employees at the social media giant to look up the private data of Twitter accounts, including email addresses linked to the accounts and internet protocol addresses that can give up a user’s location.

The accounts included those of a popular critic of the government with more than 1 million followers and a news personality. Neither was named.

The complaint also alleged that the employees �� whose jobs did not require access to Twitter users’ private information — were rewarded with a designer watch and tens of thousands of dollars funneled into secret bank accounts. Ahmad Abouammo, a U.S. citizen, and Ali Alzabarah, a Saudi citizen, were charged with acting as agents of Saudi Arabia without registering with the U.S. government.

The Saudi government had no immediate comment through its embassy in Washington. Its state-run media did not immediately acknowledge the charges.

The complaint marks the first time that the kingdom, long linked to the U.S. through its massive oil reserves and regional security arrangements, has been accused of spying in America.

The allegations against two former Twitter employees and a third man who ran a social media marketing company that did work for the Saudi royal family comes a little more than a year after the execution of Jamal Khashoggi. The Washington Post columnist and prominent critic of the Saudi government was slain and dismembered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

Saudi Arabia under King Salman and his son, 34-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, have aggressively silenced and detained government critics even as it allows women to drive and opens movie theaters in the conservative kingdom.

Prince Mohammed also has been implicated by U.S. officials and a United Nations investigative report in the assassination of Khashoggi. The prince has said he bore ultimate responsibility for the kingdom, though he denies orchestrating the slaying.

The criminal allegations reveal the extent the Saudi government went to control the flow of information on Twitter, said Adam Coogle, a Middle East researcher with Human Rights Watch.

The crown prince’s former top adviser, Saud al-Qahtani, who also served as director of the cyber security federation, started the “Black List” hashtag to target critics of the government. He ominously tweeted in 2017 that the government had ways of unmasking anonymous Twitter users.

“Does a pseudonym protect you from #the_black_list? No,” al-Qahtani wrote, according to a report by Coogle released this week. “1) States have a method to learn the owner of the pseudonym 2) the IP address can be learned using a number of methods 3) a secret I will not say.”

“If you combine that with what we know about at least these two individuals and what went on in 2014 and into 2015, it’s pretty chilling,” Coogle said.

Al-Qahtani has been sanctioned for his suspected role in orchestrating the brutal killing of Khashoggi. His Twitter account was suspended in September for violating its platform manipulation policy.

Twitter acknowledged that it cooperated in the criminal investigation and said in a statement that it restricts access to sensitive account information “to a limited group of trained and vetted employees.”

“We understand the incredible risks faced by many who use Twitter to share their perspectives with the world and to hold those in power accountable,” the statement said. “We have tools in place to protect their privacy and their ability to do their vital work.”

A critic said Twitter didn’t live up to its principle of restricting access to information about private individuals to the smallest possible number of employees.

“If Twitter had implemented this principle, this misappropriation of information would not have been possible,” said Mike Chapple, who teaches cybersecurity at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business. “Social media companies must understand the sensitivity of this information and restrict access to the smallest possible number of employees. Failing to do so puts the privacy, and even the physical safety, of social media users at risk.”

Abouammo was also charged with falsifying documents and making false statements to obstruct FBI investigators — offenses that carry a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison if convicted.

At his appearance in Seattle federal court Wednesday, Abouammo was ordered to remain in custody pending a detention hearing set for Friday.

His lawyer, Christopher Black, declined to comment, as did Abouammo’s wife, who did not give her name.

The complaint said Abouammo, a media partnership manager for Twitter’s Middle East region, and Alzabarah, a site reliability engineer at Twitter, worked with an unnamed Saudi official who leads a charitable organization belonging to a person named Royal Family Member 1.

Prosecutors said a third defendant, a Saudi named Ahmed Almutairi who worked as a social media adviser for the Saudi royal family, acted as an intermediary with the Twitter employees.

The complaint said Almutairi recruited Alzabarah and flew him to Washington, D.C., in the spring of 2015, when a Saudi delegation visited the White House.

“Within one week of returning to San Francisco, Alzabarah began to access without authorization private data of Twitter users en masse,” the complaint said.

The effort included the user data of over 6,000 Twitter users, including at least 33 usernames for which Saudi Arabian law enforcement had submitted emergency disclosure requests to Twitter, investigators said.

After being confronted by his supervisors at Twitter, Alzabarah acknowledged accessing user data and said he did it out of curiosity, authorities said.

Alzabarah was placed on administrative leave, his work-owned laptop was seized, and he was escorted out of the office. The next day, he flew to Saudi Arabia with his wife and daughter and has not returned to the United States, investigators said.

A warrant for his and Almutairi’s arrests were issued as part of the complaint.

[grootpoepjeplasjehoofd]

The charges, unveiled Wednesday in San Francisco, came a day after the arrest of one of the former Twitter employees, Ahmad Abouammo, a U.S. citizen who is alleged to have spied on the accounts of three users — including one whose posts discussed the inner workings of the Saudi leadership — on behalf of the government in Riyadh.

Abouammo is also charged with falsifying an invoice to obstruct an FBI investigation.

The second former Twitter employee — Ali Alzabarah, a Saudi citizen — was accused of accessing the personal information of more than 6,000 Twitter accounts in 2015 on behalf of Saudi Arabia. One of those accounts belonged to a prominent dissident, Omar Abdulaziz, who later became close to Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist who was killed by Saudi government agents last year.

Prosecutors said a third individual, Saudi citizen Ahmed Almutairi, acted as an intermediary between Saudi officials and the Twitter employees. He is also charged with spying. Alzabarah and Almutairi are believed to be in Saudi Arabia. Analysts said it is the first time federal prosecutors have publicly accused Saudis of spying in the United States.

[pascalkirchmair]

Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi (13 October 1958 – 2 October 2018) was a Saudi Arabian Islamist activist, dissident, author, columnist for the Washington Post, and a general manager and editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel who was assassinated at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 by agents of the Saudi government. (Quoted from Wikipedia.org)

ジャマル・カショギ

[sloeserwij]

Spyware next level

Spyware, the next level te lezen op mijn blog

In 2013 onthulde Edward Snowden het bestaan van een grootschalig afluisterprogramma, genaamd PRISM. Dit leidde tot hevige protesten. Lange tijd bleef het stil totdat in 2018 de Saoedische journalist Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi werd vermoord. Later bleek dat de smartphone van zijn vrouw Hanan Elatr was besmet met de afluistersoftware Pegasus van het Israëlische bedrijf NSO. Sindsdien haalt dergelijke…

[quotidiantimes]

Jamal Khashoggi Fast Facts - CNN

Jamal Khashoggi Fast Facts – CNN

Although the CIA has concluded that the crown prince personally ordered Khashoggi’s murder, US President Donald Trump has signaled he would not take strong action against Saudi Arabia, a key US ally, or its crown prince, despite pressure at home and internationally. Birth place: Medina, Saudi Arabia Birth name: Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi Marriage: Rawia al-Tunisi; at least one other previous…

[prthrive18-blog]

How To Get Away With Murder

Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi was a Saudi Arabian journalist, author, and a former general manager and editor-in-chief of Al-Arab News Channel. He also served as editor for the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al Watan, turning it into a platform for Saudi Arabian progressives.

Khashoggi fled Saudi Arabia in September 2017 and went into self-imposed exile in the US. He said that the Saudi Arabian government had "banned him from Twitter" and he later wrote newspaper articles critical of the Saudi government. Khashoggi had been sharply critical of Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman, and the country's king, Salman of Saudi Arabia. He also opposed the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen.

Khashoggi entered the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 but did not leave the building. Amid news reports claiming that he had been killed and dismembered inside, an inspection of the consulate, by Saudi Arabian and Turkish officials, took place on 15 October. Initially, the Saudi Arabian government denied the death, claiming Khashoggi had left the consulate alive, but on 20 October admitted that Khashoggi was killed inside the consulate, claiming he had been strangled to death after a fight had broken out. This was later contradicted when, on 25 October, Saudi Arabia's attorney general stated that the murder was premeditated.

As Mohammad Bin Salman’s PR campaign manager you are required to come up with strong defense strategies in order to deny any involvement of the crown prince Mohammad bin Salman in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi as well as formulate and pitch in the PR Strategies to shrug off the negative impact this incident had on Vision 2030 of Saudi Arabia.

Deliverables required, but not restricted to:

1. Case Summary

2. Cover-up Story for the murder.

3. Defence Strategies defending all the misdeeds that could ruin Vision 2030

4. PR Strategies promoting the Vision 2030 initiative

5. Press Release

Remember, a good defence is the best offence.

Report submission tomorrow (21st November) at 7 pm to pr.thrive18@gmail.com

Report presentation on 22nd November at 3 pm

[thelittlethinginsaigon]

Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi Born 13 October 1958 Medina, Saudi Arabia Died 2 October 2018 (aged 59)  Istanbul, Turkey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45812399

[jgmail]

¿Cómo interpreta el concepto de libertad usado por la Freedom House?

Por Leonid Savin

Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

 Aunque la Freedom House (FH) dice ser una organización no gubernamental, el 70-80% de todo su presupuesto proviene del gobierno de los Estados Unidos. Por lo tanto, mucho del trabajo que hace esta ONG es un reflejo de las políticas estadounidenses. Hace poco, la FH publicó su último informe anual en donde analiza la situación de las libertades civiles a nivel mundial (1). El informe se basa en el concepto occidental de libertad negativa, la cual concibe la libertad como la liberación de las obligaciones y restricciones que son dictadas por las relaciones sociales.

 Los países son divididos en tres categorías: libres, parcialmente libres y no libres. Para el 2020, la FH dice que existen 82 países libres, 59 países parcialmente libres y 54 países no libres.

 Para hacernos una idea del enfoque que usa la Freedom House con tal de clasificar a los diferentes Estados, basta observar que países como Rusia, Turquía, Kazajstán, China y Vietnam son considerados como países no libres, mientras que Ucrania, el Reino de Marruecos, Pakistán e India son clasificados como parcialmente libres; las vacas sagradas de la democracia son los países de Europa Occidental y los Estados Unidos.

 Dado que la Freedom House mide la libertad individual que existe en una sociedad por medio de un sistema de puntos, tanto Noruega como Suecia y Finlandia son los países más libres de todos obteniendo 100 puntos de 100. Estonia es el país que más se acerca a ellos con un total de 94 puntos, algo extraño, ya que esta democracia báltica es muy conocida por el hecho de que considera que la población rusa no hace parte de su ciudadanía y esto infringe los derechos humanos por motivos étnicos, pero Estonia es considerado un país libre por los empleados de la Freedom House. La misma discriminación existe en Letonia, pero este país recibe un total de 89 puntos.

 El informe señaló que el nivel de libertades democráticas se ha reducido de forma significativa durante el año pasado en un total de 45 países (2). La FH se refiere a varios países, en particular a Bielorrusia.

 En Estados Unidos, el nivel de libertad individual ha empeorado y eso ha causado que este país quedara muy por debajo de Letonia y Estonia (el puntaje con respecto a las libertades civiles en los Estados Unidos se ha reducido de 94 a 83 durante el año pasado), pero esto es debido a la culpa de Donald Trump.

 El informe también señala que la epidemia de coronavirus ha tenido un impacto negativo en la promoción de la libertad, esto es claro con respecto a países como Hungría, Polonia, Argelia, Egipto, España, Gran Bretaña, India, China, Canadá, Argentina, Brasil, Venezuela, Colombia, Irán, Tailandia y Filipinas...

El sistema de clasificación es bastante tendencioso. Por ejemplo, el informe se caracteriza por hacer juicios como estos: “Los enemigos de la libertad defienden la falsa idea de que la democracia ha entrado en un proceso de decadencia debido a que es incapaz de satisfacer las necesidades de los pueblos. De hecho, la democracia está en decadencia por otra razón: porque sus representantes más destacados no hacen nada para defenderla. Se necesita urgentemente que las democracias empiecen a ser solidarias entre sí con tal de mantener el liderazgo mundial. Los gobiernos que defienden la democracia, incluida la nueva administración de Washington, deben unirse lo antes posible...”

 ¿Qué significa “no hacer lo suficiente para defender la democracia”? ¿Bombardear Yugoslavia, invadir Irak y Afganistán, destruir el Estado libio, intentar derrocar al presidente de Siria, promover un golpe de Estado en Ucrania? ¿Apoyar una dictadura brutal en Bahréin con tal de asegurar la presencia de la Quinta Flota de la Marina de los Estados Unidos?

 Casi al mismo tiempo de que fue publicado el informe de la Freedom House, el Director de Inteligencia Nacional de los Estados Unidos publicó un informe especial sobre la participación del gobierno saudí en el asesinato del periodista Jamal Khashoggi. El asesinato sucedió en octubre del 2018 en el consulado de Arabia Saudita en Estambul. El informe indica que el príncipe heredero Mohammed bin Salman dio luz verde para que se llevara a cabo una operación de captura y asesinato de este periodista saudí, pero Estados Unidos no impuso ninguna sanción contra este país ni contra el príncipe heredero (Washington se ha limitado a imponer algunas sanciones contra el exjefe de la inteligencia saudí, Ahmad al-Asiri).

 Tampoco importa que los empleados de la Freedom House escriban acerca de la situación de las libertades civiles en en países no libres (como Arabia Saudita), ya que estos países son, en general, vasallos de los Estados Unidos. A los vasallos se les permite hace ciertas cosas que a los otros no, y entre esas cosas se debe incluir la supresión de las libertades civiles, como está sucediendo ahora en Ucrania con la aprobación del gobierno de los Estados Unidos (3).

 Notas:

 1. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2021/democracy-under-siege

2. https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2021

3. https://www.fondsk.ru/news/2021/03/01/ozhestochennaja-borba-so-svobodoj-slova-na-ukraine-perehodit-v-novuju-stadiju-53049.html

 Fuente: https://www.fondsk.ru/news/2021/03/07/o-nesvobodnoj-rossii-i-otnositelno-svobodnoj-ukraine-v-traktovke-freedom-house-53088.html

[garyrevel]

Khashoggi - The Murder and Mayhem of a Washington Post Journalist

Khashoggi – The Murder and Mayhem of a Washington Post Journalist

Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi was brutally murdered and butchered by a team of killers. The team of Gary Revel and Alicia Petrucci are activated to get the facts of the killing. Danger and intrigue follow as they get to the truth. Screenplay by Frank Burmaster and Gary Revel in development at Jongleur Pictures. Khashoggi – Production & Contact Info | IMDbPro

[beritasaatini]

Pangeran Arab Restui Pembunuhan Khashoggi

Pangeran Arab Restui Pembunuhan Khashoggi

Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia – Laporan intelijen Amerika Serikat (AS) menunjukkan bahwa Putra Mahkota Arab Saudi Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) ternyata menyetujui operasi penangkapan dan pembunuhan jurnalis Jamal Khashoggi pada 2018. Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi adalah wartawan Saudi, kolumnis Washington Post, penulis, dan mantan manajer umum dan pemimpin redaksi Al Arab News Channel yang disebutkan meninggal…

[thisdaynews]

BREAKING:U.S. Intelligence Reports Says Mohammed bin Salman Approved Khashoggi's Murder

New Post has been published on https://thebiafrastar.com/breakingu-s-intelligence-reports-says-mohammed-bin-salman-approved-khashoggis-murder/

BREAKING:U.S. Intelligence Reports Says Mohammed bin Salman Approved Khashoggi's Murder

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the 2018 killing of U.S.-based journalist and Saudi critic Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, according to a declassified report released by the Biden administration on Friday.

The report, released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), said the crown prince, the kingdom’s de facto leader, “approved an operation … to capture or kill” Khashoggi.

“We base this assessment on the Crown Prince’s control of decisionmaking in the Kingdom, the direct involvement of a key adviser and members of Muhammad bin Salman’s protective detail in the operation, and the Crown Prince’s support for using violent measures to silence dissidents abroad, including Khashoggi,” the report said.

“Since 2017, the Crown Prince has had absolute control of the Kingdom’s security and intelligence organizations, making it highly unlikely that Saudi officials would have carried out an operation of this nature without the Crown Prince’s authorization,” it continued.

The four-page report’s release was highly anticipated and is part of President Biden’s strategy to “recalibrate” the relationship with Saudi Arabia, where he has committed to emphasize democratic values and human rights in Washington’s dealings with Riyadh.

“For too long, the United States failed to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for the brutal murder of journalist, dissident, and Virginia resident Jamal Khashoggi,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner (D-Va.) said in statement Friday. “I’m encouraged to see the new administration taking steps to rectify that by releasing this long-overdue congressionally mandated report into his killing.”

The report was released the day after Biden spoke with Saudi Arabia’s King Salman. A White House statement on the call did not mention Khashoggi or the report, but said the president “affirmed the importance the United States places on universal human rights and the rule of law.”

On Wednesday, Biden said he had read the report, without elaborating.

Asked Friday whether Biden raised Khashoggi with the king, White House press secretary Jen Psaki declined to elaborate on the call, but stressed to reporters that officials “at every level” have publicly raised concerns about human rights abuses.

Khashoggi was killed by a Saudi hit squad, including a bone saw-wielding forensic doctor, in October 2018 while he was at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul to obtain documents for a marriage license. Turkish authorities have said he was strangled soon after entering the consulate and dismembered.

The report’s release Friday was paired with an announcement by Secretary of State Antony Blinken of visa restrictions against 76 Saudi individuals believed to be engaged in threatening dissidents overseas, including but not limited to those connected to Khashoggi’s murder.

“While the United States remains invested in its relationship with Saudi Arabia, President Biden has made clear that partnership must reflect U.S. values,” Blinken said in a statement. “To that end, we have made absolutely clear that extraterritorial threats and assaults by Saudi Arabia against activists, dissidents, and journalists must end. They will not be tolerated by the United States.”

Called the “Khashoggi ban,” the visa restrictions can be imposed on any individual believed to be directed by a foreign government to seriously harass and threaten people perceived as dissidents.

The Treasury Department also announced sanctions on Ahmad Hassan Mohammed al Asiri, Saudi Arabia’s former deputy head of the General Intelligence Presidency, who the department said was “assigned to murder” Khashoggi and was the “ringleader” of the operation.

Treasury also slapped sanctions on Saudi Arabia’s Rapid Intervention Force, Crown Prince Mohammed’s elite personal protective detail whose members were part of the hit squad. But the sanctions notably did not target the crown prince himself.

The report on Friday listed the names of 21 individuals U.S. intelligence officials have “high confidence … participated in, ordered, or were otherwise complicit in or responsible for” Khashoggi’s murder “on behalf of” Crown Prince Mohammed. Still, it says the United States can’t confirm if the individuals knew the operation would result in the journalist’s death.

The report highlighted that members of the hit team included officials linked to the Saudi Center for Studies and Media Affairs, whose leader publicly said in 2018 he did not make decisions without the crown prince’s approval.

The team also included seven members of Crown Prince Mohammed’s elite personal protective detail, who the U.S. officials “judge would not have participated in the operation against Khashoggi without Muhammad bin Salman’s approval,” the report said.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who represents the Virginia district where Khashoggi resided, called for a “reevaluation” of the U.S. and Saudi relationship in the wake of the crown prince’s responsibility.

“This report lays the blame for the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, my constituent, directly at the feet of the Crown Prince. Saudi Arabia must be held accountable, and that demands a careful and complete re-evaluation of the US relationship with the Kingdom,” Connolly said in a statement. “It is a dark stain on the Trump administration that they were willing to keep this report from the American people in order to protect its relationships with the Crown Prince over and above basic American values and Jamal’s life itself.”

Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), a U.S. organization founded by Khashoggi shortly before his murder, said the report’s release helps confirm previously reported details.

“At minimum, certainly this information is really just further confirmation of what we all know — and that is that Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for the murder of Jamal, our founder,” she said.

Whitson said DAWN is likely to include the ODNI report in its own civil suit against the crown prince, which was filed with Khashoggi’s fiancee Hatice Cengiz in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia and seeks monetary damages.

Whitson added the report’s release serves as a warning against such brazen violent actions.

“It is an important warning and we hope an important measure of deterrence against other despots who think they can go around the world killing people they don’t like in foreign countries,” she said.

Biden has already taken actions shifting the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia, in part over Khashoggi’s murder and supported by Congress. They include ending U.S. support for the Saudi-led offensive in Yemen, as well as relevant weapons sales to the kingdom.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, urged the Biden administration to follow the report’s release with “serious repercussions against all of the responsible parties it has identified, and also reassess our relationship with Saudi Arabia.”

“We must ensure that if foreign governments target journalists simply for doing their jobs, they are not immune to serious repercussions and sanctions, because restoring confidence in American leadership requires we act in accordance with the values that have long set America apart,” Schiff said. “The administration should take further steps to diminish the United States’s reliance on Riyadh and reinforce that our partnership with the Kingdom is not a blank check.”

The State Department on Friday is reportedly expected to announce further restrictions on offensive weapons to the kingdom.

Still, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby stressed after the report’s release that Saudi Arabia “remains a strategic partner in the region.” He declined to comment on the ODNI report itself, describing it as outside the purview of the Defense Department.