Do Not Be Surprised If The Saudis Get Away With Murder By Jacob G. Hornberger!!
(2018-10-18 at 11:36:48 )

Do Not Be Surprised If The Saudis Get Away With Murder By Jacob G. Hornberger

While many people are decrying the possibility that the Saudi regime orchestrated and carried out the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, they are limiting their analysis to whether the United States government should "punish" Saudi Arabia by cancelling weapons contracts and other related things.

Unfortunately, they are not thinking at a higher level, one that would entail recognizing the role that Saudi Arabias governmental structure plays in affairs such as this, a structure known by the name "National Security State."

What is a national-security state??

It is a type of governmental structure that is based on a vast, powerful military-intelligence establishment, one that is charged with the solemn responsibility of protecting "National Security" and that is vested with omnipotent powers, oftentimes exercised in secret, to fulfill that responsibility. Such omnipotent powers include the power to assassinate people who become threats to National Security.

North Korea is a national-security state. So is Egypt. So is Pakistan. And Saudi Arabia. And so is the United States, as reflected by the Pentagon, the vast military-industrial-congressional complex, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and, to a certain extent, the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

It was not always that way.

The United States was founded on the concept of a limited-government republic, a type of governmental structure that is the opposite of a national-security state. No vast military-intelligence establishment. No Pentagon. No Central Intelligence Agency. No National Security Agency. No Federal Bureau of Investigation. No power to assassinate. That is the way things were for the first 150 years of United States history.

Then came the Cold War, the "war" that United States officials used to justify converting the United States federal government into a national-security state. The communists were coming to get us, United States officials said, principally those in Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union, but also ones from China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, and elsewhere.

Since the communist regimes were national-security states, United States officials said, it was necessary for the United States government to become a national-security state too. A limited-government republic, they said, could not stand up to a communist national-security state. The idea, later discarded and now long-forgotten, was that as soon as the Cold War was over, the American people could have their limited-government republic back.

That is how the United States ended up with the Pentagon, the military-industrial-congressional complex, a vast array of domestic and foreign military bases and installations, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency, not to mention wars in faraway places like Korea and Vietnam.

That is also how the United States ended up with a government wielding the omnipotent power to snuff out peoples lives through assassination.

The original idea was to limit the Central Intelligence Agency to gathering intelligence and presenting it to the president. But someone inserted a provision in the law that established the Central Intelligence Agency which also empowered the Central Intelligence Agency to assassinate people and do whatever else was necessary to protect National Security.

In 1953, the Central Intelligence Agency began developing an "assassination manual" as part of a regime-change operation that the Central Intelligence Agency was carrying out against the democratically elected regime of President Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.

The manual shows that the Central Intelligence Agency was specializing not only in the art of assassination but also in the art of falsely denying and covering up the Central Intelligence Agencys role in its assassinations.

As part of that regime-change in Guatemala, the Central Intelligence Agency came up with a list of Guatemalan officials who were to be assassinated. While the Central Intelligence Agency will still not reveal to us the names of the people on that assassination list, it is a virtual certainty that Arbenz was at the top. Luckily for him, he was able to escape the country before his life could be snuffed out.

The justification for the coup in Guatemala and targeting Guatemalan officials with assassination?? National security. Arbenz was a socialist who favored friendly relations with Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union. That made him a grave threat to United States National Security.

In 1970, the people of Chile delivered a plurality of votes in their presidential election to a physician named Salvador Allende, who, like Arbenz, was a socialist who favored establishing friendly relations with Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union. United States officials deemed Allende a threat to United States National Security and decided to block his ascendancy to the Chilean presidency.

At the time, Chile, like the United States, was also a national-security state. United States national-security state officials spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to convince their national-security state counterparts in Chile that it was the solemn responsibility of a national-security establishment to remove all threats to national security, including domestic ones like a democratically elected president. (It was a position that obviously has serious ramifications with respect to the assassination of President Kennedy. See FFFs books "JFKs War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated" by Douglas Horne; " The Kennedy Autopsy by Jacob Hornberger; "Regime Change: The Kennedy Assassination by Jacob Hornberger"; "The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State" by Jacob Hornberger; and "CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files link" by Jefferson Morley. See also my current, ongoing "video-podcast series" on the JFK assassination.)

The commanding general of the Chilean armed forces, a man named Gen. Rene Schneider, took the opposite position. His position was that the Chilean constitution, like the United States Constitution, provided only two ways to remove a president from office, and a national-security-state coup was not one of them. The two ways to which Schneider was referring were elections and impeachment.

Since Schneider was an obstacle to the national-security-state coup that United States officials deemed was necessary to protect both Chilean national security and United States National Security, he himself was deemed to be a threat to national security. Thus, in a conspiracy based at Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Virginia, United States National-Security officials targeted Schneider for kidnapping and assassination.

After Schneider was shot dead on the streets of Santiago, Central Intelligence Agency officials vehemently claimed their innocence.

When evidence surfaced that the Central Intelligence Agency had smuggled high-powered weapons into the country under diplomatic pouch, had actually hired Chilean military personnel to kidnap Schneider, and then paid hush money to the kidnappers-assassins after Schneiders murder, the Central Intelligence Agencys fallback position was to claim that it only wanted to kidnap Schneider, not assassinate him.

Of course, that position was ridiculous given that once Schneider was kidnapped and removed as the obstacle to the coup, what else could be done with him except to kill him???

In any event, under the long-established "felony-murder rule", the Central Intelligence Agency was guilty of having killed an innocent man whether Central Intelligence Agency officials planned to limit the operation to a kidnapping or not.

That is not to say that anyone in the Central Intelligence Agency or the rest of the United States National-Security establishment was ever arrested, prosecuted, or convicted of Schneiders murder.

That rarely happens under a National-Security state. And when the Schneider family sued United States officials in federal court for the wrongful murder of their husband and father, the federal courts dutifully deferred to the supremacy of the National-Security branch of the federal government and dismissed the suit.

Thus, do not be surprised if no Saudi official is ever brought to account in the apparent murder of Jamal Khashoggi, who Saudi officials clearly believed was a threat to Saudi Arabian National Security given his public criticisms of the regime.

The power of a National-Security state to protect national security and get away with murder is almost always supreme and invincible.

Printed here with permission from Mr. Jacob G. Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation!! Their Great Website!!