Intelligence Agencies Sued For Refusing To Turn Over Documents Related To Jamal Khashoggi's Brutal Murder
from the letting-the-passage-of-time-do-the-dirty-work dept
The shocking and brutal murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi by members of the Saudi Arabian government late last year was breathtaking in its audacity and execution. Lured to the Saudi consulate in Turkey by Saudi government officials, Khashoggi was strangled and dismembered by a team of Saudi security operatives.
Khashoggi was a legal resident of the United States, in self-imposed exile from Saudi Arabia as a result of the government's treatment of dissidents. As a lawful resident, Khashoggi was technically protected by the many of the same laws and rights US citizens are. While the US government limits those rights and protections when legal residents (but not citizens) travel out of the country, the US intelligence community still bears a "duty to warn" lawful residents of any violent threats against them.
The IC knew Khashoggi was a target of the Saudi government. It knew Riyadh had "something unpleasant" waiting for Khashoggi should he return to Saudi Arabia. A plan to lure Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia was intercepted by US intelligence. No one knows whether Khashoggi was ever warned by US intelligence of these plans.
The Committee to Protect Journalists -- along with the Knight Institute -- wants to know if any attempts were made to inform the murdered journalist of Saudi Arabia's plans. So far, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has refused to publicly comment on the IC's "duty to warn." These two entities have filed FOIA requests seeking info about the IC's duty to warn Jamal Khashoggi, asking each of the IC's five components to release documents detailing their actions/inactions. These were filed shortly after news broke of Khashoggi's murder. So far, none of the agencies have handed over any documents.
As the Knight Institute points out, there definitely should be documents related to Khashoggi and the government's "duty to warn."
Intelligence Community Directive 191 provides that, when a U.S. intelligence agency acquires information indicating an impending threat of intentional killing, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping directed at a person, the agency must “warn the intended victim or those responsible for protecting the intended victim, as appropriate.” The directive further obligates the agencies to “document and maintain records” on any actions taken pursuant to that duty.
"Document" is a key part of "document and maintain," but so far, the IC agencies haven't turned over any documents, or even admitted they have any. All five agencies have rejected the request for expedited processing and most haven't even gotten around to deciding whether or not a fee waiver applies. So, the two entities have sued [PDF], hoping to jolt the Intelligence Community out of its complacency.
Documents pertaining to the IC's duty to warn are extremely newsworthy... right now. The IC knows this just as much as the plaintiffs know this. But the IC has much more to gain by stonewalling these requests. If these agencies failed to pass on information to Khashoggi -- in effect allowing him to end up in the hands of people who wanted him dead -- it's not going to reflect well on the IC. The longer it takes for the news to get out, the greater the chance a new obscenely-disturbing incident will grab the attention of the American public and allow it to walk away from any dereliction of duty unscathed.
If it does have documents and it did warn Khashoggi of the Saudi government's plans for him, it would make little sense to withhold these facts and allow public perception to fill the void. But the IC tends to indulge in secrecy for secrecy's sake, viewing frustrated requesters, Senators, and Congresspersons as a reward in itself.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: duty to warn, foia, jamal khashoggi, journalism, state department, transprarency, us government
Companies: committee to protect journalists, knight institute
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That's a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe they didn't want to reveal their sources
While pure obstinance and covering up incompetence are possible motives for not handing over documents, another possibility is that that comes to mind is that they didn't want to tip off the Saudi government that they had a leak. In this scenario the more charitable interpretation is that they hoped that if they kept the leak open that they could use it to saved a bunch of lives in the future, as opposed to just one life now. A more cynical interpretation is that they wanted to keep the leak open in the hopes of using it in the future for a more high-profile case than simply warning a journalist of possible danger.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
(With all apologies, Mike…)
“Absolutely nothing — which you are about to become!”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Relevance (amid violation of international norms)?
Unless him being in Turkey was part of the "plan to lure him to Saudi Arabia", but I was under the impression he never left...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's a Sticky Wicket
If it does have documents and it did warn Khashoggi of the Saudi government's plans for him, it would make little sense to withhold these facts and allow public perception to fill the void.
When the US intelligence community seeks to hide it's actions/inactions behind a pitch dark doctrine of official state secrecy the rational is often repugnant but in certain instances US intelligence community sources/methods used must remain secret.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Maybe they didn't want to reveal their sources
Khashoggi was not "low-profile" rather than negative-profile, someone who the U.S. did not particularly desire to stay alive either. This should not have made a difference for maintaining law and the most basic human decency of not idly watching someone get killed for base reasons, but then we are talking about the U.S. here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's why it's in the "Legal Issues" category.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's a Sticky Wicket
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Relevance (amid violation of international norms)?
The official version is that the Saudi-Arabian team including a pathologist with a bone saw was in the consulate to convince Khashoggi to return with them to Saudi Arabia but Khashoggi started an altercation in which more than a dozen agents had to kill and dismember him (not necessarily in that order) in self-defense.
After which they disposed of the body and immediately traveled back home, as did the consul before the country's officers could do anything they might have regretted later on.
So yes: the official version contains a "plan to lure him to Saudi Arabia", and "we knew Saudi Arabia wanted to lure him back into their country and remained quiet" still sounds better than "we knew Saudi Arabia wanted to murder him and remained quiet".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Relevance (amid violation of international norms)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Relevance (amid violation of international norms)?
It turns into a real mess because he wasn't a US Citizen, but had been granted US Residency.
What is puzzling is how this threat was "discovered".
If a US intel agency knew, but didn't tell *him*, who did they tell that leaked to the press that they knew?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's a Sticky Wicket
Many conceivable channels of secret service information will suffer from being made public. That's likely part of the reason Turkey has not published its evidential recordings: if they did, the recording locations would be disclosed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Strategically, to fight domestic spying at this point it makes more sense to help it along. Proliferate open source tools to expand surveillance tool deployment everywhere, aiming for data feeds that include greater observation of government and private industry sources open to all.
If we're going to be naked, everyone is getting naked. That way we can see who is skimming extra resources under their clothes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brutal?
But of course Putin doesn't both with such rigamarole.
Putin and Cheeto - besties forever:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, not that sticky at all
In which case 'We've redacted data which could expose a sensitive source, but other than that here's what we have.'
We're talking about information that could expose or exonerate(though the latter is very unlikely, as they would likely have no problem releasing that) them of sitting on highly important data and as a result letting someone walk to their brutal death. If that is the result of their methods then it damn well deserves to be exposed and made public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No really, we'd love to release this information clearing us...
At this point I'd say the default assumption when a government agency stonewalls a request for information should be that the information being sought is damning in some way until they release it and prove otherwise.
'Assume the worst until proven otherwise', given the intel community's track record odds are good that if anything you'll have been underestimating how bad things are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Brutal?
It doesn't matter. This is about the Secret Services' role. If they decided on their own that looking askew while Khashoggi got dismembered was fine, the public deserves to know. And if they decided after presidential instruction that looking askew while Khashoggi got dismembered was fine, the public deserves to know all the more. Either way, the role of the Secret Services needs to be analyzed and measures taken that this will not repeat itself whether or not the U.S. is being presided on by a person void of morals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]