Can Iran's president be arrested legally in U.S?

I was wondering would CIA perhaps be able to have a "chat" with the Iranian president when he is over in New York this month?

Can anyone think of a possible hypothetical situation is which he could be arrested?

Is it even worth it?

ta,

[edit on 8-9-2005 by zurvan]

That would be a terrible idea. Allowing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be beneficial to the United States as well as its allies. By allowing President Bush the chance to meet President Ahmadinejad it is possible they could grow more so fond of one another than they currently are, and perhaps even come to an understanding.

I don't think America has any legal grounds to detain him anyhow. The US suspects a thing or two, but lacks proof. If the US captured him it would cause war between Iran and the US as well as irritate many other nations throughout the world who are already annoyed with America. All it would do is cause Americas' diplomatic relations with other nations to suffer.

I see no up-side....

I doubt it due to Diplomatic immunity, he could go round killing people and they probably couldn't arrest him, they could throw him out the country though.


But why exactly do you think he should be arrested?

and What would that achieve? (apart from making the Iranians even more pissed off at the US)

Why should he be arrested??

AP Photo of Iran President as hostage taker. Fake ?

CIA finds Iranian president likely not hostage-taker

Diplomatic Immunit protects him. The United States would face expulsion from the UN if they were to do that.

Maybe better for his plane to have some "difficulties" over the Atlantic.

www.no2ahmadinejad.com... are people in NY bored or something?

It seems to me those people in New York feel Irans' President is a terrorist. Obviously a terrorist being allowed into the United States would bother them, and for good reason. I'm guessing Ahmadinejad hasn't been directly linked to any terrorism otherwise this would probably be a bigger deal. President Bush isn't likely to simply allow a terrorist within our borders on grounds that they're a leader of a nation. We don't negotiate with terrorists, remember?

This NYCA probably just doesn't have all their facts straight, and as people are sheep, they will follow any shepherd which leads them. This will all either blow over or erupt massively, I'm willing to bet blow over.

Shouldn't Bush also be arrested then? I mean, he is hardly Mr Innocent, the invasion of Iraq was quite illegal under international law for a start, so why not stick him in a cell? Preferably with Ahmadinejad in the same cell...

oh and there was this on the abc news website

Aug. 31, 2005 -- The State Department says Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a terrorist, but will grant him a visa anyway, ABC News has learned.

The State Department has issued a legal finding that Ahmadinejad is ineligible for a U.S. visa because of section 212(a)3(b) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which says anyone with terrorist ties cannot be granted a visa.

But U.S. officials have decided to waive section 212, so that Ahmadinejad can get a limited visa to attend the United Nations General Assembly, which begins on Sept. 12. A senior State Department official tells ABC News the waiver will be granted because of the limited nature of his visit. Ahmadinejad won't be allowed to travel more than 25 miles beyond U.N. headquarters in New York City.

Furthermore, denying a visa to a head of state would violate the agreement that put the U.N. headquarters in New York.

According to the State Department, no head of state has ever been denied a visa to attend the U.N. General Assembly, although Yasser Arafat was denied a visa in 1988.

The Bush administration has been under tremendous pressure from the veterans of the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis to deny Ahmadinejad a visa. Many of the former hostages say Ahmadinejad was one of their captors. An extensive U.S. investigation, however, has uncovered no evidence to prove Ahmadinejad had any role in the hostage crisis. Evidence or no evidence, the legal finding says the Iranian president has terrorist ties.

In America, people are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This is because words and probability is not enough to be sure any individual did what they are accused of. Can you honestly say that beyond a shadow of doubt, you know Ahmadinejad took part in the act which the US says he did, or may have? I don’t see enough evidence, so I won’t speculate any further than to say he may have been a hostage taker.

To my knowledge, the best piece of evidence against the man at the moment is a picture taken in the seventies of a militant which resembles the Iranian President today. There’s also the witnesses who claim he was that captor decades ago (which if their captor looked like Ahmadinejad, of course that’s what they’re going to think), but what other indication is there? I know of none. This is not something which stands as the stone monument the Bush Administration and US intelligence agencies claim. I don’t believe there’s even a motive.

Maybe he did it, maybe he didn’t, but I recall something about WMDs being in Iraq before the war, there was “evidence,” more so than in this case even. I’m not saying Bush fabricated anything but I am saying no nuclear devices were found in Iraq, and if you went into Iran right now I doubt you’d find The Ahmadinejad Terror Camp in his backyard.

I think the NYCA and others who feel the same as them toward the Iranian President have jumped to a conclusion which is a bit premature.
Also, how many government officials does the United States allow to cross their boarder from Saudia Arabia, another nation said to sponser terrorism? Ironic that Saudia Arabia is somewhat of an allie to the US, isn't it?

Originally posted by zurvan
I was wondering would CIA perhaps be able to have a "chat" with the Iranian president when he is over in New York this month?

No, he's a head of a recognized state, he can't be arrested.

Can anyone think of a possible hypothetical situation is which he could be arrested?

No. Short of committing an act of war while in the US.

Is it even worth it?

No. It'd be exceedingly bad form to arrest the leaders of other sovereign countries when they visit.


umm, not trying to be as combative as it reads.

Originally posted by Nygdan

No. It'd be exceedingly bad form to arrest the leaders of other sovereign countries when they visit.

amen.. I like the way you put it.."exceedingly bad"..
Yeah that NY site is quite sad..It ain't going to achieve much besides being catalogued as one of the pro-bush-iran policy types of prop-ups..
And I'm sure these people don't want that..
Unless all those congressmen/senators are republicans..
Are they?



[edit on 18-9-2005 by Daedalus3]

^
|
...But he wasn't. Fare enough this is exactly what the thread predicted
|
^