Crown Prince Royal Prerogative to Execute Heretic Journalism Subjects

A Saudi journalist employed by the leftist-corporatist Bezos organ Washington Post disappeared recently after being last seen entering the Saudi embassy in Turkey. The incident of the alleged killing of the journalist raises some interesting question besides the obvious whodunit sort.

Does a near absolute monarch or his crown prince heir apparent have the right to take the life of a politically inconvenient, antipathetic subject such as Mr. Khashoggi may have been? Was the journalist a sedulous tool of public media foreign policy objectives for the Middle East? Further, in the case of the Saudi monarchy that is also the keeper of the keys of Mecca and Wahhabist Sunni Islam, does the monarch or prince-heir apparent have the right to decree a left-leaning journalist heretical and have him executed as an offense to Islam? In my opinion the answer to each question is yes, conditionally speaking.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-politics-dissident-search/trump-says-it-looks-like-saudi-journalist-khashoggi-is-dead-idUSKCN1MS08Q?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FworldNews+%28Reuters+World+News%29&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results

https://www.npr.org/2017/06/08/532022826/saudi-billionaire-arms-dealer-adnan-khashoggi-dies

The condition is not the rightness of an execution so much as the power to execute. If a monarch has the real power to order executions and may do so privately or publicly the political rightness of the action is inherent in the power to do order such an action.     

People of the west since the Lord Jesus walked on the Earth have worked toward a different end and idea of moral and political right. It is in the basic equality of all people before God and of their inherent right for self-determination and equal representation under the lows that they make themselves together within democracy. There are two fundamental political forms; the first is that of social equality politically and legally while the other is an asymmetric political system with higher power of one group over another. The latter includes systems such as dictatorship, oligarchy, plutocracy, corporatism and in real application state social as well as communism with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Individual self-determination is as important as legal equality for a political system if it is avoid falling into the master-slave political systems that have prevailed for most of the history of mankind, and today that exists in Saudi Arabia.

The United States for quite some time has had rather poor Middle East polices except in regard to support for Israel and the Hashamite Kingdom. What it should do in regard to Saudi today is to not fall into the trap of side-switching whipsaws that generate civil conflicts. The Trump administration should recognize the traditional monarchical prerogatives and history with understanding rather than condemnation yet advocate openly for legal equality of all citizens and democracy, in addition to the installation and legal requirement that all new Saudi construction have exteriors covered with solar photon capturing and circuiting voltaic panels.

Economic evolution rather than whipsawing sabotage and irrational fast alliance changes are better approaches to international relations than support for irregular guerrilla groups. Presently a dead monarchy would mean a Sunni Saudi equivalent of the Shi'a fundamentalist regime of Iran governing transition replete with mass civilian casualties. It is strange to even be concerned about such extremes about a Saudi subject when there are lots of people killed for all manner of wrong reasons every day around the world. Original sin and the sin of homicide have not become so rare as to produce shock in observers of mass media reports.

 The Khashoggi conundrum is perhaps comparable to the situation of Iran during the Shah's time as an American ally when he sent his Savak secret police agents abroad to intimidate or eliminate Iranian dissidents and the left and media were aghast and incensed at it. The left supported the Iranian revolution and one of the first thing the Khomeaniists did in power was to liquidate the left and communists so far as they could. As the left and corporate media are dwelling upon the loss of a single journalist employed by the world's richest man's Washington Post leftist-corporatist organ they should recall what can happen when taking things too far and stimulating regime change instead of directed regime evolution.

One might wonder why laptop computers aren't built with electronic diagnostic and report alternate circuitry in case a hardware component breaks interrupting the electrical flow and preventing the computer from starting again. It would be simple to manufacture and would allow trustworthy use of old laptops that need be repaired by an expert or thrown out as it is-even when the part that needs replacement, if it could be known, costs just a few dollars. Politics is like that situation in some respects. People argue or urge actions without any idea of the consequences or even the nature of the problem and how it fits into the political stream as a component itself.