A Saudi journalist tweeted against the government – and was executed for ‘high treason'

The tweet posted by Saudi journalist Turki al-Jasser in 2014 was chillingly prescient: 'The Arab writer can be easily killed by their government under the pretext of 'national security',' he wrote.
On Saturday, the Saudi interior ministry announced that al-Jasser had been executed in Riyadh, for crimes including 'high treason by communicating with and conspiring against the security of the Kingdom with individuals outside it'.
Al-Jasser is believed to have been in his 40s and the execution – which in most cases in Saudi is carried out by beheading with a sword – followed seven years of detention. Dissidents who spoke to the Guardian alleged he was subjected to torture during his imprisonment.
It was the first high-profile killing of a journalist by the Saudi state since the 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist and prominent critic of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman who was lured into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul and murdered by Saudi agents. A UN report concluded that the murder was an extrajudicial killing by the state, and an intelligence assessment released by then president Joe Biden in 2020 concluded that bin Salman approved the murder.
But the circumstances around that murder and al-Jasser's killing, and the international response to it, are markedly different. Most dissidents and experts who followed al-Jasser's case say he was likely detained by Saudi authorities in 2018 after being identified as the writer behind a popular anonymous Twitter account that accused the Saudi royal family of alleged corruption and human rights abuses.
In public, al-Jasser was the founder of the news blog Al-Mashhad Al-Saudi (The Saudi Scene), which press freedom group Reporters without Borders said regularly addressed topics such as women's rights and Palestine. But it was the account on what was then known as Twitter (and now as X) that is believed to have riled Saudi authorities and led to his arrest during a broader crackdown on dissent.
'Turki had two Twitter accounts. While he was vocal using his real name, he was even more satirical and vocal with the other account, which was in the crosshairs of the Saudi government,' says Abdullah Alaoudh, senior director for countering authoritarianism at Middle East Democracy Center. 'The government assumed his and other anonymous Twitter accounts were part of a coordinated effort and delusional conspiracy to topple the Saudi government.'
The Saudi government gained access to the real identities and IP addresses behind thousands of anonymous Twitter accounts following Saudi agents' infiltration of the company in 2014-2015. The Department of Justice charged two former Twitter employees and a Saudi national in the plot. Ahmad Abouammo was found guilty by a federal jury of fraud, conspiracy, acting as a foreign agent for bribes, and conveying user information to the kingdom on behalf of the royal family. At the time, assistant attorney general Matthew Olsen of the justice department's national security division, said the guilty verdict showed the justice department would hold accountable anyone who aids 'hostile regimes in extending their reach to our shores'. Two other indicted men fled to Saudi before they could be arrested.
A Twitter spokesperson said in 2021 that it acted swiftly at the time of the incident when it learned there were malicious actors accessing Twitter user data. That view has been challenged by the family of another man who was arrested after the Twitter breach, who believe the social media platform is at least partly responsible for dissidents' arrests.
Abdulrahman al-Sadhan, a former aide worker, was arrested in 2018 and sentenced three years later to 20 years in prison and a 20-year travel ban. He is alleged to have maintained an anonymous account that mocked the kingdom's leaders.
'They broke his hand, smashed his fingers, saying this is the hand you tweet with,' Areej al-Sadhan told CBS News in a 2023 interview. 'They tortured him with electric shocks, beating and sleep deprivation.'
Reporters without Borders said al-Jasser was the first journalist to be sentenced to death and executed in Saudi under the rule of Mohammed bin Salman, and the second in the world since 2020, when Amadnews director Ruhollah Zam was put to death in Iran.
The state department did not respond to a request for comment.
When the Saudi crown prince was asked by Fox News's Brett Baier in 2023 about a case in which a Saudi court sentenced a man – Mohammed bin Nasser al-Ghamdi – to death for posts on X and his YouTube activity, bin Salman blamed 'laws' in the kingdom and said he was doing his best to 'change them'.
'Do we have bad laws? Yes. We are changing that, yes,' he said. Asked whether al-Ghamdi would ultimately be killed bin Salman said: 'I'm hoping that in the next phase of trials, the judge there is more experienced, and they might look at it totally different.'
Al-Ghamdi's death sentence was later commuted.
Legal scholars have pointed out that the crown prince could legally have intervened in al-Jasser's own execution. Under Saudi law the crown prince or the king must approve every execution.
The Saudi government has been approached for comment.
'With Jasser's execution, Mohammed bin Salman has once again shown us that he remains a vindictive, thin-skinned tyrant who kills people who criticize him,' said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Dawn, a pro-democracy group founded by Khashoggi.
'He has weaponized the Saudi judiciary to prosecute and execute a Saudi man under the country's bogus counter-terrorism law exclusively because of his critical commentary about the country on social media. Western governments are eager to pretend that MBS has morphed into some kind of reputable statesman, but it's hard to reform a sociopathic autocrat with zero domestic guardrails.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Mail​

19 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

BBC scraps plans to show documentary about medics in Gaza after new bias concerns

The BBC has decided to scrap plans to show a documentary about medics in Gaza over concerns it 'risked creating a perception of partiality' of its coverage of the conflict. Gaza: Doctors Under Attack was commissioned by the corporation more than a year ago from an independent production company called Basement Films. However, its production was paused in April after an investigation was launched into the making of another controversial documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a War Zone. That programme was taken off the iPlayer earlier this year, and the corporation was forced to apologise after it was revealed that the documentary featured a 13-year-old narrator who is the son of a Hamas government minister and grandson of one of Hamas' s founding members. In the latest controversy over the BBC's coverage of the war, the broadcaster has confirmed discussions over the documentary showing the plight of medics in Gaza had 'reached the end of the road'. The corporation will now transfer ownership of the project to the independent production company that produced it. 'We wanted the doctors' voices to be heard,' the BBC said in a statement. 'Our aim was to find a way to air some of the material in our news programmes, in line with our impartiality standards, before the review was published. 'For some weeks, the BBC has been working with Basement Films to find a way to tell the stories of these doctors on our platforms.' But, the corporation added: 'Yesterday it became apparent that we have reached the end of the road with these discussions. 'We have come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect of the BBC. 'Impartiality is a core principle of BBC News. It is one of the reasons that we are the world's most trusted broadcaster. 'Therefore, we are transferring ownership of the film material to Basement Films.' It went on to say that since the pause in production of Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, 'it has not undergone the BBC's final pre-broadcast sign-off processes' and 'any film broadcast will not be a BBC film'. Critics were also enraged by the Beeb's failure to disclose who the film's narrator was, leading former director of BBC Television Danny Cohen to say: 'The BBC appears to have given an hour of prime-time coverage to the son of a senior member of the Hamas terrorist group. 'Either they were not aware of the terrorist links because they did not carry out the most basic journalistic checks or the BBC did know and misled audiences about the family's deep involvement with terrorism.' The BBC documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, was broadcast on BBC Two with the aim of showing a 'vivid and unflinching view of life' in the enclave Since the allegations were made, the BBC has apologised and added new text to the film which explains who Abdullah and his father are. In an email exchange via the BBC, Abdullah reportedly said he wanted to be part of the documentary, which was made by Hoyo Films, 'to explain the suffering that people here in Gaza witness with the language that the world understands, English.' He is said to have asked to be involved to help viewers learn about the situation on the ground without being 'blurred by misinformation'. The BBC documentary, Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone, was broadcast on February 17 on BBC Two with the aim of showing a 'vivid and unflinching view of life' in the strip. It was made by two producers based in London who remotely directed two cameramen on the ground over nine months. Independent investigative journalist David Collier claimed one of the child narrators, Abdullah, is the son of a Hamas government minister and grandson of one of Hamas's founding members. Using Facebook and publicly available data online, Mr Collier claimed the show's young star is the son of Gaza's deputy minister of agriculture Dr Ayman Al-Yazouri. This would mean his grandfather would be the Hamas founder Ibrahim al-Yazouri, who has previously been jailed by Egypt and Israel for involvement in proscribed groups. The Daily Mail has not been able to independently verify Mr Collier's claims. The BBC apologised for the inclusion of the documentary's young star, with a spokesperson for the corporation saying: 'Since the transmission of our documentary on Gaza, the BBC has become aware of the family connections of the film's narrator, a child called Abdullah. 'We've promised our audiences the highest standards of transparency, so it is only right that as a result of this new information, we add some more detail to the film before its retransmission. We apologise for the omission of that detail from the original film.' The BBC said the new text attached to the film: 'The narrator of this film is 13 year old Abdullah. His father has worked as a deputy agriculture minister for the Hamas-run government in Gaza. The production team had full editorial control of filming with Abdullah.' 'We followed all of our usual compliance procedures in the making of this film, but we had not been informed of this information by the independent producers when we complied and then broadcast the finished film,' the statement added. 'The film remains a powerful child's eye view of the devastating consequences of the war in Gaza which we believe is an invaluable testament to their experiences, and we must meet our commitment to transparency.'

Telegraph

27 minutes ago

• Telegraph

This is the ‘beginning of the end' for Iran's supreme leader. But what comes next?

In his many years as Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei has gained a reputation for political caution; deep conservatism; and absolute ruthlessness. But above all, he is stubborn. Faced with the killing of numerous members of his military high command, the destruction of swathes of the Islamic Republic's treasured nuclear program and with enemy jets operating freely over his capital, he responded to Donald Trump's demand for surrender this week by declaring: 'The Iranian nation will stand firmly against any imposed war, just as it always has.' 'The Iranian nation also firmly stands against any imposed peace. The Iranian nation will not capitulate to anyone in the face of coercion,' the 86-year-old cleric went on. It is fighting talk. But many believe it is at odds with reality. 'It is becoming clearer every day that this is the beginning of the end of the regime in Tehran,' says Lina Khatib, visiting scholar with the Harvard Kennedy School's Middle East Initiative. 'My crystal ball does not tell me how long it will take. But I do not see how the Islamic Republic – as it has been [for] over more than five decades – can survive this war.' 'The $10 billion question' Of course, it is not inevitable that Khamenei will fall. But the decisive moment may come sooner rather than later. Trump on Thursday gave Khamenei a two-week deadline to make a deal to end its nuclear programme and defuse the crisis. At the end of the fortnight, the US president will make a decision about 'whether or not to go' – in other words, to send American bombers to join the Israeli assault. Any such move would tip the scales of the conflict even more dramatically against Iran. But what would happen next? Could American bombs provide the shock to ignite a revolution, led by ordinary Iranians fed up with the corruption, mismanagement and repression that has marked the rule of the Ayatollahs? Or could the supreme leader face an internal coup by insiders determined to hold on to power? Might he even fall victim to the strongmen of his own Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), who control the bulk of the military and much of the economy? Would his downfall be followed by democracy, military dictatorship, or anarchy? Or might Iranians rally to the flag, unexpectedly giving the Islamic Republic a new lease of legitimacy? 'That is the $10 billion question, and it's clearly at the forefront of everybody's minds,' says Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House. 'Unless the Israelis are going to put boots on the ground in Iran, a country that has 90 million people and is geographically huge, what will likely ensue is changes within the system at a faster pace, and I think that's what they're trying to push for.' 'They know very well that they cannot engage in regime change, but they're trying to unscrew the bolts and see how the dominoes fall.' Assassination It has been reported that Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to kill Khamenei on the first night of the war. The US president has since said he knows exactly where the supreme leader is – and in a less than subtle threat to reconsider the Israeli assassination plan, said he was safe 'for now.' On Thursday, Israel Katz, the Israeli defence minister, said Khamenei 'can no longer be allowed to exist' after an Iranian attack struck a hospital in Beersheba, injuring dozens of people. Israeli officials seem to believe the supreme leader's removal might spark an uprising that would bring down the entire Islamic Republic, effectively unwinding the 1979 revolution that brought it to power. Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly called on Iranian citizens to do just that. 'We are also clearing the path for you to achieve your objective – which is freedom', he said in an address (in English) addressed to Iranians after the first wave of strikes killed top leaders. 'Now is the opportunity for you to stand up,' he added. Revolution That did not go down well even among most opposition-minded Iranians, many of whom have expressed fury at the Israeli bombing of central Tehran. That said, should Khameini be killed, people may well take to the streets, says Maryam Mazrooei, an exiled artist and photojournalist. 'But one of the main problems for the opposition is that there is no leader. The Islamic Republic has got rid of whoever could be leader now – everybody,' Mazrooei says. The regime tolerates a reformist wing. But over the past decade and a half, regime authorities have systematically jailed, exiled, or killed critics demanding fundamental changes to the Islamic Republic. And now, the disgruntled Iranians, who a revolution would rely on, are currently literally running for their lives. Many have fled Tehran for the relative safety of family homes in the provinces following a series of airstrikes on residential parts of the capital – and Israeli warnings that more are to come. And even if revolutionaries take to the streets, the uprising would likely meet stern and bloody resistance. The apparatus of repression that the government has used to suppress previous uprisings remains in place. The IRGC, police, and Basij militia have spent the past few years preparing to crush what they anticipate will be an enormous anti-regime uprising when Khamenei eventually dies. Their raison d'etre is to provide regime continuity. To imagine they would simply vanish or lose their power with Khamenei's assassination is a dangerous simplification. That is not to say a revolution can be ruled out, or that the security services might not split or melt away, as often happens in such moments. But it would almost certainly be violent, and the chance of success is slim. No leaders And as Mazrooei notes, there is no Iranian Nelson Mandela or Alexei Navalny behind whom an opposition movement might rally. Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the self-proclaimed National Council of Resistance of Iran, is almost universally despised inside the country. Reza Pahlavi Shah, the exiled crown prince, enjoys the support of a small but fanatical monarchist movement and has offered to act as a figurehead for a democratic some non-monarchists have begun to think of him as the best figurehead on offer. But he is not the most adept politician. He infuriated many this week with an interview appearing to defend the Israeli bombing campaign rather than condemning strikes on Iranian civilians. 'He will emerge bruised and battered by supporting Israel's attack on Iran,' says Dr Vakil. 'The fact that he is calling on Iranians to rise up at a time of a war is tone deaf, and the fact that he is not looking out for Iranians, for civilians, considering the trauma of this experience for the people that are living through it, is reflective of the daylight between his potential leadership and the facts on the ground in Iran.' 'If the Israelis kill the supreme leader, the system will evolve, either constitutionally or through change from within. They're not going to be flying in their leader of choice from the diaspora,' she adds. Smooth succession The Iranian regime is already geared up for a transition of power. Ali Khamenei is elderly and ill. The question of succession already dominates Iranian politics, and several prominent figures are thought to see themselves as candidates to replace him. Before the war, the most likely successor was thought to be Mojtaba Khamenei, the supreme leader's 55 year old son. Like his father, he studied theology in the Holy City of Qom, so he meets the constitutional requirement for clerical training. He is a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, giving him revolutionary credibility. And most importantly, he has close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, meaning he has the backing of the men with guns. One IRGC member told The Telegraph last year that the corps 'top commanders are speaking very highly of him'. Another said plans had already been made to crush any opposition to his succession. Assuming he is still alive, that the Islamic Republic's constitutional mechanism continues to work, and that enough of his allies in the IRGC have escaped Israeli bombs, he is probably still best placed to succeed his father. The coup Others might take the opportunity for a less constitutional route to power. The Israelis have achieved deep intelligence penetration of the Iranian command structures. Rumours are already flying around Iranian internet users about generals supposedly working for Mossad, or being spirited into Israel just before the bombs hit. But it does not take an Israeli conspiracy to make a coup. It is possible to imagine a delegation of senior Army or IRGC officers, fed up with the old man's intransigence and desperate to make peace, paying a visit to Khamenei and telling him gently that his time is up. 'This has been my prognosis for a while: that either when Khamenei dies or before he dies, some group of people will effectively do some sort of a coup inside the Islamic Republic and come to power,' says Arash Azizi, an Iranian historian. Runners and riders One key candidate was Ali Shamkhani, a key security advisor to Mr Khamenei who was reported killed in the first wave of Israeli strikes, but who was then revealed to have survived the bomb sent for him. His unlikely resurrection is already fuelling the rumour mill. 'He is the head of a really financial, political, military empire. He is really one of those people who has actual power with his person and his network, which is not the case with a lot of others,' says Azizi. 'I think he's in hospital and I think his leg has been amputated. So he is probably not in a very good condition to lead a coup, but you know, he is, he is the kind of guy who could do it.' Like most power brokers in Iran, Shamkhani has close ties to the IRGC – he was an admiral in its naval wing for many years. He also runs his own media empire. Another potential player is Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of parliament, former mayor of Tehran, and one-time IRGC air force commander who has made no secret of his presidential ambitions. 'He is very bad at hiding his ambitions to be a sort of strong man,' says Azizi. He has, however, failed in several bids for the presidency. Shamkhani and Ghalibaf represent a class of cynical, ambitious, and wealthy officials who Azizi believes are likely to shape Iran's future. They are defined by immense wealth, ties to the security services, and a pragmatic approach to ideology that reflects the general public's disillusionment with the Islamic Republic's revolutionary creed. But neither of those men are qualified to be a supreme leader – that role is reserved for Islamic scholars – so to seize power they might have to upend the Islamic Republic's Constitution. The IRGC The exact result – a puppet supreme leader, a formal military dictatorship led by the IRGC, or something else – makes little difference to the bottom line. The IRGC – or at least the factions of the sprawling organisation closest to the winning strong man – would retain and tighten its grip on economic, political, and military power. In the interests of regime survival and personal enrichment, they might give up the nuclear program and usher in a period of relative liberalisation, just as Nikita Khrushchev did away with the worst repressions of Stalin. That would suit Israel – but not the millions of Iranians yearning to see the back of the corrupt and violent gang who have ruled them for so long. And of course, there is no guarantee they would change course. There are plenty of people who believe Khamanei's mistake was not to rush to a bomb earlier. A national unity government That said, rumours are now swirling about a kind of national-unity government with a more reformist bent. That theory centres on Hassan Rouhani, a former president and security advisor who is the nearest thing the regime has to a centrist. Mohammad Javad Zarif, the former foreign minister who negotiated the landmark 2015 nuclear deal between Iran, the US and a number of other world powers, and Ali Larijani, a former speaker of parliament, have also been mentioned. That is a lineup that might conceivably end the nuclear program, give up on militarisation and the forever war with Israel, and institute some domestic reform. 'Rouhani is the leader of what you can call a centrist, pragmatic camp. He's Iran's Deng Xiaoping,' says Azizi. 'The problem is, of course, he is a mullah, not a guy with guns. He's not an IRGC guy. The question is, can he, as a political leader, put together enough of a coalition that includes some of the people with the money and guns?' Failed state There is of course, another, much darker possibility. If Khamenei falls, but no faction can secure the succession, the country could fall into a period of anarchy – possibly even civil war. Pummelled by Israeli airstrikes, crippled by enduring sanctions, and riven by ethnic, religious, and regional divisions (Persians make up roughly half of the country's population, with about a quarter Azeri or Turkic people, including Khamenei, and the remainder comprised of Balochs, Kurds, Arabs, Jews Assyrians, and Armenians), Iran would effectively be crippled. That might suit Netanyahu perfectly well. A failed state cannot, after all, run an ambitious national project such as a nuclear weapons program. Nor would it be able to continue to project influence across the Middle East by other means. But for those who call Iran home, that would be the worst possible outcome. The truth, say both Dr Khatib and Dr Vakil, is that all bets are off. Iran is facing a moment of incredible volatility. The most likely successor may be someone no one has heard of, and the most likely course of events is one that no one can predict. Those wild cards include the ranks of political prisoners held in Tehran's infamous Evin prison, who would no doubt welcome Khamenei's fall. Even, they appear gloomy about what might follow, however. 'I know that some segments of the people are happy with the [Israeli] attacks, because they see it as the only way to change the failed clerical government,' Mostafa Tajzadeh, a former deputy interior minister and vocal critic of Khamenei, wrote on his Telegram channel from behind bars this week. 'But even assuming that the war leads to such an outcome, Iran will be left in ruins, where, most likely, statelessness and chaos will prevail – if the country is not torn apart.'

Sky News

29 minutes ago

• Sky News

Trump's update on Iran timeline is significant - but it still keeps everyone guessing

This is the most significant statement from the US president in days, though it still keeps everyone guessing. In a message conveyed through his press secretary, he is giving diplomacy up to two weeks to work. "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," Karoline Leavitt quoted him as saying. It is not clear what "whether or not to go" entails. 0:40 We know that he has been given a spectrum of different military options by his generals and we know that the Israelis are pressuring him to use American B2 bombers with their bunker-busting bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear facility at Fodow. The Israelis are encouraging no delay. But against that, he is weighing up many risks, both military and political. Militarily, it is not clear how successful a bunker-busting strike on Fordow would be. Experts have suggested it would require several of the massive bombs, which have never been used in combat before, to be dropped on the site. It is not as simple as one clean strike and job done. Politically, the president is under significant pressure domestically not to get involved in Iran. 2:40 Within his own MAGA coalition - influencers, politicians and media personalities are lining up in criticism of involvement in the conflict. One of those leading the criticism, his former chief strategist Steve Bannon, who maintains huge influence, was seen entering the White House on Thursday. His press secretary reiterated to us that the president always wants to give diplomacy a chance and she confirmed that his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff has spoken to the Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi. European leaders, including the UK foreign secretary David Lammy, who is in Washington, are meeting Mr Araghchi in Geneva on Friday. The two-week window - assuming it lasts that long - also gives space to better prepare for any strike and mitigate against some of the other risks of US involvement. There are 40,000 troops in bases across the Middle East. It takes time to increase security at these bases or to move non-essential personnel out. It also takes time to move strategic military assets into the region. The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and its support vessels were redeployed from the Indo-Pacific on Monday. Their last known position was the Strait of Malacca two days ago. The Nimitz Carrier Group will overlap with the USS Carl Vinson group which was deployed to the Middle East in March. The potential two-week window also allows for more time for a 'day after' plan, given that the Israeli strategy appears to be regime change from within. Since the Israeli action in Iran began last week, the worst-case scenario of mass casualties in Israel from Iranian attacks has not materialised. The president is said to be surprised and encouraged by this. "Israel has exceeded a lot of people's expectations in their abilities," press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. The Israeli success, the absence of a mass casualty event in Israel, and the lack of any sustained counterattack by Iranian proxies in the region remove reservations that previous presidents have had about taking on Iran. That said, sources have told Sky News that the president is determined that the diplomatic solution should be given a chance despite current pessimism over the chances of success.