By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Saudi journalist Turki al-Jasser was executed in Riyadh after seven years of detention, for alleged crimes against national security, including communicating with individuals outside the kingdom. His execution follows the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi and is believed to be linked to anonymous Twitter accounts criticizing the Saudi royal family. Al-Jasser’s case highlights the Saudi government’s crackdown on dissent, facilitated by the infiltration of Twitter and subsequent access to user data. Despite international condemnation and legal mechanisms for intervention, the execution underscores Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s continued intolerance of criticism.
Read the original article here
A Saudi journalist, Turki al-Jasser, penned a chillingly prescient tweet in 2014: “The Arab writer can be easily killed by their government under the pretext of ‘national security’.” This statement proved tragically prophetic when, seven years later, the Saudi interior ministry announced his execution in Riyadh for “high treason,” specifically, communicating with and conspiring against the kingdom’s security with individuals abroad. Al-Jasser, believed to be in his 40s, endured seven years of detention, during which dissidents allege he suffered torture. His execution, likely by beheading – the standard method in Saudi Arabia – underscores a harsh reality of dissent under the regime.
The circumstances surrounding al-Jasser’s arrest highlight the lengths to which the Saudi government will go to silence criticism. It’s believed that his anonymous Twitter account was uncovered through a sophisticated infiltration of the platform itself. Between 2014 and 2015, Saudi agents successfully gained access to the real identities and IP addresses of thousands of anonymous Twitter users, a fact confirmed by the Department of Justice’s charges against two former Twitter employees and a Saudi national involved in the plot. This infiltration wasn’t just a data breach; it represented a deliberate effort to identify and target those voicing opposition to the regime.
This incident, far from being an isolated case, reflects a broader pattern of repression under the Saudi crown prince. While attempts have been made to improve the kingdom’s international image, the reality remains grim for those who dare to speak out. The crown prince’s response to questions about another death sentence handed down for online activity reveals a disturbingly casual attitude towards such actions. His claim that he’s working to change “bad laws” rings hollow when faced with the stark reality of continued executions for dissent. He seemingly presents himself as powerless to intervene, a claim many find unconvincing, given that all executions require his approval.
The casual use of the term “executed” in describing al-Jasser’s death feels inadequate. It’s a sanitized word for what amounts to state-sponsored murder. This act of violence underscores the hypocrisy surrounding Saudi Arabia’s attempts at sportswashing its image through events like golf tournaments and WWE matches. The implication is clear: entertainment is used to distract from the brutal realities of the regime. The murder of a Saudi journalist echoes the kingdom’s prior killing of a US journalist, showcasing a disturbing pattern of violence against those who challenge their authority.
The Saudi government justified al-Jasser’s execution by claiming his anonymous account, along with others, was part of a coordinated effort to overthrow the government. This narrative suggests a vulnerability within the Saudi regime, one that is seemingly threatened by online dissent, a rather ridiculous notion. The implication that Twitter accounts could topple a powerful government raises questions about the actual stability of the regime. The government’s reaction, however, far from demonstrating weakness, highlights its ruthlessness in suppressing any perceived threat.
The situation raises concerns far beyond Saudi Arabia’s borders. The Saudi government’s actions, including the infiltration of Twitter, represent a significant threat to free speech and online privacy globally. The thought of similar infiltration occurring in other countries, particularly the US, is deeply alarming. The potential for such actions to be mirrored in other nations, and the enabling role of international relations based on financial and political interests, further underscores the international concern arising from the Saudi government’s actions. The incident raises questions about the nature of alliances and the compromises made in the name of political expediency. The long-term implications, both domestically within Saudi Arabia and internationally, remain a profound concern.