First, Biden should release other key docs about the killing—like the still-withheld CIA report, as well as records showing what U.S. intel agencies knew about the Saudi regime’s plans for Khashoggi, when they learned it, and what they did about it. justsecurity.org/63955/intellig…
Second, Biden should ban the Crown Prince from the United States. The State Department already banned 16 others for their role in the killing. Given the intel community’s conclusion that the Crown Prince likely ordered the killing, he needs to be banned, too.
Third, given the role that MBS played here, Biden should extend and expand the freeze it has already imposed on arms sales to Saudi Arabia. It must send a clear message that the U.S. won’t supply weapons to regimes whose leadership persecutes journalists and activists.
Fourth, Congress should consider what legal reforms are necessary to ensure that U.S. courts can hold accountable those who persecute journalists and dissidents, as well as the companies that peddle surveillance technology to persecutors.
Fifth, American business and civic leaders must curtail their engagement with the Crown Prince. Engagement with him normalizes the grotesque and increases the likelihood that other journalists and dissidents will find themselves similarly targeted in the future.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The new admin has taken important steps to make government more transparent and reaffirm the freedoms of speech and the press. Here are some of them. /X
We litigated this with @CREWcrew, and we highlighted the importance of this transparency in our First Amendment Agenda for the New Administration, which is here. /3 knightcolumbia.org/content/a-firs…
Some quick thoughts about the social media companies suspending Trump’s accounts. /1 nytimes.com/2021/01/07/tec…
The platforms should have a heavy bias in favor of leaving political leaders' speech up. Not because platforms owe this to political leaders, but because they owe it to the public. /2
Knowing what political leaders are saying is crucial to the public’s ability to hold those leaders accountable for their decisions. /3
Laura Poitras says the Assange indictment poses a grave threat to press freedom. She's right. 1/x nytimes.com/2020/12/21/opi…
It doesn’t matter whether Assange himself is a properly described as a journalist. He’s being charged for acts that are integral to national security journalism. 2/x
The Assange indictment was part of the Trump admin’s effort to constrain and demonize the press—an effort that also included describing journalism as fake news, describing journalists as enemies of the people, and embracing foreign tyrants who murder reporters and activists. 3/x
I didn’t respond to @paulkrugman's original tweet because I assumed it was just a bad tweet and that he’d figure that out on his own. But now I'm realizing that a lot of the events that defined the past 19 years for people like me didn’t even register with him. THREAD
The problem with the argument he makes here is that it doesn’t recognize that most of the "anti-Muslim sentiment and violence" was *officially sanctioned*. Focusing narrowly on hate crimes stats has the effect of moving all of that out of the picture.
For example, hundreds of Muslim men were rounded up in New York and New Jersey in the weeks after 9/11. They were imprisoned without charge and often subject to abuse in custody because of their religion. None of this would register in any hate crimes database.
I don’t think DOJ is going to get its prior restraint against the bookstores, Simon & Schuster, or John Bolton. Still… (1/x)
Events of the past few days really make you wonder whether it might not have been better if the Bush and Obama DOJs hadn’t persuaded courts to defer blindly to the executive branch’s classification decisions. (2/x)
Maybe it wasn’t such a great idea to argue, as the Bush and Obama DOJs did, that government employees never have a First Amendment right to disclose info the executive branch has classified. (3/x)