I am sorry to go against the tide at Daily Kos, and doubtlessly, I will be criticized, but, may I ask, why are so many in the United States driven to rage by the murder of Khashoggi?
OK, yes, I get it — the murder of anyone is bad. We don't like extra-judicial killing. Its a terrible thing for an ally to murder, particularly in another ally’s country. The murder was messy and awful and pre-planned. I deny none of these things.
But….
Khashoggi was well-known for having been an advisor to former Saudi intelligence official, Prince Turki al-Faisal. Many, many people believed he was a spy for the Saudis. Even if not a spy, he certainly served as an advisor to Prince al-Faisal when he was an ambassador to the United States and Britain. This was a man who had climbed the ladder to ultimate Saudi insider.
He had fallen out with the Saudi leadership with the rise of Crown prince M.B.S. — and he had decided to start the process of setting up websites to publish tell-all materials about the Saudi finances and the Saudi government. The Saudis responded by first warning him to be silent, then threatening him, and then killing him. Sure, it was murder, but it was murder of an ex-Saudi intelligence and diplomatic advisor done by the Saudi government using Saudi agents because the dissident was now interfering with Saudi diplomacy and Saudi interests.
Understand, the United States takes a rather broad view of its own rights to kill its own citizens in order to defend U.S. interests. For example, President Obama ordered the predator strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who published youtube videos and lectures which supposedly recruited people to Al Quaeda, and then subsequently ordered the strike which killed his 16-year-old son. These folks appeared far from the physical battlefield — but the President judged them to be threats to the United States, warranting their deaths.
Now, look, my point here is not to engage in silly whataboutism, but instead, to cal for a consistent position. ither (1) we tolerate the extrajudicial killing by a nation of its own citizens operating outside that nation to the detriment of that nation, or (2) we choose not to tolerate such killings, and universally condemn them. To date, we have accepted the first position.
Why now are we being pushed to change? What makes *this* killing so bad that others now propose to change the rules about what sovereign nations may do?