Full Version: Request Denied?
Recently Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a request to visit ground zero of the world trade towers to lay a wreath. His request was refused by the Port Authority and police representatives saying no dignitaries would be allowed because of security concerns. link
Questions for debate:
1). Should foreign dignitaries be allowed to visit ground zero and pay their respects? Should public opinion play a role in the decision process?
2). Was the Port Authority justified in their response or should they have made greater efforts to make it secure and accessible?
3). Do you agree the request was a photo op? Why or Why not?
4) How high would you place freedom of movement as a right in a democracy?
Questions for debate:
1). Should foreign dignitaries be allowed to visit ground zero and pay their respects? Should public opinion play a role in the decision process?
2). Was the Port Authority justified in their response or should they have made greater efforts to make it secure and accessible?
3). Do you agree the request was a photo op? Why or Why not?
4) How high would you place freedom of movement as a right in a democracy?
1). Should foreign dignitaries be allowed to visit ground zero and pay their respects? Should public opinion play a role in the decision process?
Yes, and they generally are:
Tony Blair visits Ground Zero
Vladimir Putin visits Ground Zero
Prince Charles visits Ground Zero
L K Advani (Indian Home Minister) visits Ground Zero
Not all of these foreign dignitaries are from especially friendly powers (it'd be no surprise for Blair &/or Chuck to have visited, given the close alliance between the two nations AND the fact that, with a death toll of over 300, 9-11 is Britain's biggest terrorist death toll as well as America's)
Now, this link indicates the reasons given for why Ahmadinejad was refused access - something to do with the state of construction progress. To me, this smells like something that comes out of the southern end of a North-bound bull - Ahmadinejad is being refused access because of who he is and where he comes from. If Gordon Brown or some other "friendly" national leader were to ask to visit tomorrow, the NYPD would bend over backwards.
In fact, Ahmadinejad's Iran and Bush's America are pretty inimical just now - why are the State Department just saying that he can't visit the USA at all?
Answer - because that would be too obviously a purely political snub, rather than the mealy-mouthed concern for site security used as a figleaf to spare international blushes.
2). Was the Port Authority justified in their response or should they have made greater efforts to make it secure and accessible?
They were perfectly justified in doing what I'd be very suprised if they weren't told to do - make up some excuse why the person we in the White House don't like can't visit Ground Zero and make sure it doesn't come back to us.
3). Do you agree the request was a photo op? Why or Why not?
Of course it was a photo op. If it wasn't Ahmadinejad would have entered on a tourist visa and walked there from a subway station, just like I did.
4) How high would you place freedom of movement as a right in a democracy?
I'm not sure how this question crept in - Ahmadinejad is not a citizen of a democracy, at least not one that gets a very high level of international confidence in their democratic standards. Even if he were, he isn't a citizen of the USA. And the USA and IRan are not on the best of terms just now.
So he gets to go wherever your government and other authorities let him.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
After saying all of that, I have to add that I think it would have been a rather fine gesture, showing the USA as the rather fine and noble place we all know that it can be (when it chooses) if Ahmadinejad had been treated with every bit as much pomp and for-you-we'll-make-an-exception as the friendliest of friendlies. If only to prove to him that he's wrong in thinking so poorly of you, and maybe even embarrass him on the public stage a little.
It isn't going to take a PR genius to turn this clumsy snub to his own advantage back inside his own sphere of influence.
But it would have been next to impossible to spin a VIP reception, joint presidential tour of Ground Zero with GWB leading him around personally, followed by a joint press conference then a weekend at Camp David as the behaviour of the uncivilised international bully he often tries to paint you as. (Though doubtless Ahmadinejad's flunkies would have tried to somehow.)
It would have been even better to have Ehud Olmert there as well as surprise guest. If only to see the look on Ahmadinejad's face.
Yes, and they generally are:
Tony Blair visits Ground Zero
Vladimir Putin visits Ground Zero
Prince Charles visits Ground Zero
L K Advani (Indian Home Minister) visits Ground Zero
Not all of these foreign dignitaries are from especially friendly powers (it'd be no surprise for Blair &/or Chuck to have visited, given the close alliance between the two nations AND the fact that, with a death toll of over 300, 9-11 is Britain's biggest terrorist death toll as well as America's)
Now, this link indicates the reasons given for why Ahmadinejad was refused access - something to do with the state of construction progress. To me, this smells like something that comes out of the southern end of a North-bound bull - Ahmadinejad is being refused access because of who he is and where he comes from. If Gordon Brown or some other "friendly" national leader were to ask to visit tomorrow, the NYPD would bend over backwards.
In fact, Ahmadinejad's Iran and Bush's America are pretty inimical just now - why are the State Department just saying that he can't visit the USA at all?
Answer - because that would be too obviously a purely political snub, rather than the mealy-mouthed concern for site security used as a figleaf to spare international blushes.
2). Was the Port Authority justified in their response or should they have made greater efforts to make it secure and accessible?
They were perfectly justified in doing what I'd be very suprised if they weren't told to do - make up some excuse why the person we in the White House don't like can't visit Ground Zero and make sure it doesn't come back to us.
3). Do you agree the request was a photo op? Why or Why not?
Of course it was a photo op. If it wasn't Ahmadinejad would have entered on a tourist visa and walked there from a subway station, just like I did.
4) How high would you place freedom of movement as a right in a democracy?
I'm not sure how this question crept in - Ahmadinejad is not a citizen of a democracy, at least not one that gets a very high level of international confidence in their democratic standards. Even if he were, he isn't a citizen of the USA. And the USA and IRan are not on the best of terms just now.
So he gets to go wherever your government and other authorities let him.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
After saying all of that, I have to add that I think it would have been a rather fine gesture, showing the USA as the rather fine and noble place we all know that it can be (when it chooses) if Ahmadinejad had been treated with every bit as much pomp and for-you-we'll-make-an-exception as the friendliest of friendlies. If only to prove to him that he's wrong in thinking so poorly of you, and maybe even embarrass him on the public stage a little.
It isn't going to take a PR genius to turn this clumsy snub to his own advantage back inside his own sphere of influence.
But it would have been next to impossible to spin a VIP reception, joint presidential tour of Ground Zero with GWB leading him around personally, followed by a joint press conference then a weekend at Camp David as the behaviour of the uncivilised international bully he often tries to paint you as. (Though doubtless Ahmadinejad's flunkies would have tried to somehow.)
It would have been even better to have Ehud Olmert there as well as surprise guest. If only to see the look on Ahmadinejad's face.
1). Should foreign dignitaries be allowed to visit ground zero and pay their respects? Should public opinion play a role in the decision process?
Yes of course they should be -- if they are from a country friendly to the US.
Should we ignore that we have a trade embargo against Iran and have since 1995 (i.e. pre-GWB)? Should we forget the Iran-Libya Sanctions act? Their "membership" in the Axis of Evil?
We are not friendly to Iran. Ahmadinejad is allowed in the country to address the UN, not to visit tourist destinations or memorials in the "land of infidels" (according to his predecessor).
2). Was the Port Authority justified in their response or should they have made greater efforts to make it secure and accessible?
Of course they made an excuse. It would be un-PC to say that we don't want his lying, anti-US self there at Ground Zero.
3). Do you agree the request was a photo op? Why or Why not?
I can't guess his motives, but I am sure they are not what he said they are. Buildings in downtown Tehran have anti-US slogans painted on them. link
4) How high would you place freedom of movement as a right in a democracy?
Since he is not a citizen nor resident here, this question has no relevance. Of course freedom of movement is imperative in a democracy, but that doesn't mean we allow our enemies (and yes, I consider Iran an enemy) free access to our country. They are the world's foremost backer of terrorists--a state sponsor of terror. That is undeniable.
Yes of course they should be -- if they are from a country friendly to the US.
Should we ignore that we have a trade embargo against Iran and have since 1995 (i.e. pre-GWB)? Should we forget the Iran-Libya Sanctions act? Their "membership" in the Axis of Evil?
We are not friendly to Iran. Ahmadinejad is allowed in the country to address the UN, not to visit tourist destinations or memorials in the "land of infidels" (according to his predecessor).
2). Was the Port Authority justified in their response or should they have made greater efforts to make it secure and accessible?
Of course they made an excuse. It would be un-PC to say that we don't want his lying, anti-US self there at Ground Zero.
3). Do you agree the request was a photo op? Why or Why not?
I can't guess his motives, but I am sure they are not what he said they are. Buildings in downtown Tehran have anti-US slogans painted on them. link
4) How high would you place freedom of movement as a right in a democracy?
Since he is not a citizen nor resident here, this question has no relevance. Of course freedom of movement is imperative in a democracy, but that doesn't mean we allow our enemies (and yes, I consider Iran an enemy) free access to our country. They are the world's foremost backer of terrorists--a state sponsor of terror. That is undeniable.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 20 2007, 01:36 PM) 
1). Should foreign dignitaries be allowed to visit ground zero and pay their respects? Should public opinion play a role in the decision process?
Yes of course they should be -- if they are from a country friendly to the US.
Yes of course they should be -- if they are from a country friendly to the US.
Oh! Did it ever occur to you that Iran and other countries might be a little more friendly to us if the Bush Administration tried a little diplomacy.
3). Do you agree the request was a photo op? Why or Why not?
I think this is irrelevant. When do politicians not go for photo ops, including our own "dearly beloved"
(can't you just feel the love) George W. Bush?
Should foreign dignitaries be allowed to visit ground zero and pay their respects?
Of course. Anyone who is allowed in the country should be allowed to visit any public place, whether it's to pay their respects or not. Another Iranian diplomat, for example, was recently denied a visa to attend the General Assembly meeting at the UN next week because he was allegedly involved in the 1979 hostage crisis. If Ahmadinejad was granted a visa, he should be granted access to any public area.
Should public opinion play a role in the decision process?
No.
Was the Port Authority justified in their response or should they have made greater efforts to make it secure and accessible?
I've seen one statement that suggested that access was being denied to all dignitaries - due to the construction as well as security reasons. If that is the case, fair enough. If Ahmadinejad was the only dignitary requesting access to the site (and it's not clear whether he wanted to lay the wreath on the site itself or on the sidewalk outside the "construction area" as many have done) and the excuse was devised simply to deny him access, I wouldn't say they were justified.
There is, of course, the whole question of security (particularly when so much anti-Iranian hatred has been drummed up by the Bush administration and its lackeys over the past couple of years), but visiting dignitaries are not a rare thing in New York, even unpopular ones. As a rule, visitors - especially political or diplomatic visitors - are easily accommodated. I doubt Ahmadinejad's visit would have required a security detail that was beyond the scope or experience of the NYPD.
Do you agree the request was a photo op? Why or Why not?
In part, sure. But one thing that everyone seems to be forgetting (or ignoring) is the fact that there were Iranians killed in the September 11 attacks. I've been unable to find specific numbers anywhere, but in the State Department's Remembrance issued for the fifth anniversary, the bulk of the page is devoted to all countries that lost citizens:
Now Ahmadinejad hasn't said that he wanted to visit the site only to pay tribute to the innocent Iranians who lost their lives on September 11, but to deny any head of state (especially titular, ceremonial heads of state like the President of Iran or the Prince of Wales - who has visited the site) the opportunity to memorialize their own citizens strikes me as being very mean-spirited - and extremely undiplomatic. I can't imagine any other country with names on the victim list being denied the opportunity of laying a wreath where their own people fell.
Interestingly, Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud attended a memorial service at Ground Zero with Rudy Giuliani a month after the attack. Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries that doesn't appear on the list of victims. I guess all of the Saudis who died during the attacks were flying the planes.
Of course. Anyone who is allowed in the country should be allowed to visit any public place, whether it's to pay their respects or not. Another Iranian diplomat, for example, was recently denied a visa to attend the General Assembly meeting at the UN next week because he was allegedly involved in the 1979 hostage crisis. If Ahmadinejad was granted a visa, he should be granted access to any public area.
Should public opinion play a role in the decision process?
No.
Was the Port Authority justified in their response or should they have made greater efforts to make it secure and accessible?
I've seen one statement that suggested that access was being denied to all dignitaries - due to the construction as well as security reasons. If that is the case, fair enough. If Ahmadinejad was the only dignitary requesting access to the site (and it's not clear whether he wanted to lay the wreath on the site itself or on the sidewalk outside the "construction area" as many have done) and the excuse was devised simply to deny him access, I wouldn't say they were justified.
There is, of course, the whole question of security (particularly when so much anti-Iranian hatred has been drummed up by the Bush administration and its lackeys over the past couple of years), but visiting dignitaries are not a rare thing in New York, even unpopular ones. As a rule, visitors - especially political or diplomatic visitors - are easily accommodated. I doubt Ahmadinejad's visit would have required a security detail that was beyond the scope or experience of the NYPD.
Do you agree the request was a photo op? Why or Why not?
In part, sure. But one thing that everyone seems to be forgetting (or ignoring) is the fact that there were Iranians killed in the September 11 attacks. I've been unable to find specific numbers anywhere, but in the State Department's Remembrance issued for the fifth anniversary, the bulk of the page is devoted to all countries that lost citizens:
QUOTE
On September 11, 2006, the United States remembers the other nations that five years ago also suffered grievous losses:
[list of ninety countries, including Iran]
We are united with the peoples of these countries in solemn remembrance of those we lost.
[list of ninety countries, including Iran]
We are united with the peoples of these countries in solemn remembrance of those we lost.
Now Ahmadinejad hasn't said that he wanted to visit the site only to pay tribute to the innocent Iranians who lost their lives on September 11, but to deny any head of state (especially titular, ceremonial heads of state like the President of Iran or the Prince of Wales - who has visited the site) the opportunity to memorialize their own citizens strikes me as being very mean-spirited - and extremely undiplomatic. I can't imagine any other country with names on the victim list being denied the opportunity of laying a wreath where their own people fell.
Interestingly, Saudi Arabian Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Alsaud attended a memorial service at Ground Zero with Rudy Giuliani a month after the attack. Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries that doesn't appear on the list of victims. I guess all of the Saudis who died during the attacks were flying the planes.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Since he is not a citizen nor resident here, this question has no relevance. Of course freedom of movement is imperative in a democracy, but that doesn't mean we allow our enemies (and yes, I consider Iran an enemy) free access to our country. They are the world's foremost backer of terrorists--a state sponsor of terror. That is undeniable.
The purpose of the first three questions was to clarify how genuine the Port Authority was in their decision to restrict travel. If there was a legitamate safety concern from the construction or from an unruly mob than the P.A. decision was by all means warranted as long as they were consistent with their response as Wertz has said. If the decision was political, then this event becomes an example of authoritarianism. The right to restrict movement is not a very democratic ideal when justified through politics. Take this one step further, if RFID chips or National identity cards get the go-ahead they present another window of opportunity for the state to reject travel, but on a more domestic level. At what level are you comfortable with the state restricting travel?
Amlord, how do you reconcile humanitarian intervention when espoused by war-on-terror advocates which are global projecting in nature, yet cannot adhere to free movement of individuals within your own borders? I thought ideas such as these knew no borders? Could you state how citizenship applies here when thousands of tourists are free to attend as Julian has done but foreign dignitaries are handled on a case by case basis?
The purpose of the last question is to get an opinion poll of people's upper limit of yes - security. The more security the more restriction we will see on who can go where. I'm trying to differentiate what is a prudent, sensible action and what is obstruction. I hope this clears things up.
1). Should foreign dignitaries be allowed to visit ground zero and pay their respects? Should public opinion play a role in the decision process?
I think so. To throw an onion in here, it appears that the UN Headquarters agreement prohibits any "impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district." Additionally, it prescribes that "appropriate American authorities shall afford any necessary protection to such persons while in transit to or from the headquarters district." The U.S. has traditionally interpreted this to give members of the U.N. missions freedom to roam a 25 mile radius from Columbus Circle.
2). Was the Port Authority justified in their response or should they have made greater efforts to make it secure and accessible?
I'm not sure they can deny him access, at least up to the point of where construction is blocked off with a marker or something. He is legally entitled to go where any other diplomat would be permitted to go (within the above parameters).
3). Do you agree the request was a photo op? Why or Why not?
Of course it is. And I am sure the media will be there to record the incident if and when Ahmadinejad decides that he will go to Ground Zero, with permission or not. Should make for some interesting footage.
I think so. To throw an onion in here, it appears that the UN Headquarters agreement prohibits any "impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district." Additionally, it prescribes that "appropriate American authorities shall afford any necessary protection to such persons while in transit to or from the headquarters district." The U.S. has traditionally interpreted this to give members of the U.N. missions freedom to roam a 25 mile radius from Columbus Circle.
2). Was the Port Authority justified in their response or should they have made greater efforts to make it secure and accessible?
I'm not sure they can deny him access, at least up to the point of where construction is blocked off with a marker or something. He is legally entitled to go where any other diplomat would be permitted to go (within the above parameters).
3). Do you agree the request was a photo op? Why or Why not?
Of course it is. And I am sure the media will be there to record the incident if and when Ahmadinejad decides that he will go to Ground Zero, with permission or not. Should make for some interesting footage.
QUOTE(Trouble @ Sep 20 2007, 09:27 PM)
Amlord, how do you reconcile humanitarian intervention when espoused by war-on-terror advocates which are global projecting in nature, yet cannot adhere to free movement of individuals within your own borders? I thought ideas such as these knew no borders? Could you state how citizenship applies here when thousands of tourists are free to attend as Julian has done but foreign dignitaries are handled on a case by case basis?
The President of Iran has a diplomatic visa. He is not entitled to freedom of movement. He is not a citizen nor is he a guest worker. He has been granted limited access to the United States so that he can address the United Nations. He is not owed anything beyond that.
Iran and the United States are in a pseudo war with each other. Whether you agree with what the government's position is or not vis-a-vis Iran, the situation is what it is. The head of state (titular or not) of a hostile country is absolutely not guaranteed any type of freedom of movement in the US.
Keep in mind, this guy is the leader of a country which the US says is targetting our soldiers in Iraq, is funding groups which foment revolution, has and continues to back Hezbollah. IEDs in Iraq are coming from Syria and Lebanon--which are funded by Iran.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 24 2007, 11:55 AM)
The President of Iran has a diplomatic visa. He is not entitled to freedom of movement. He is not a citizen nor is he a guest worker. He has been granted limited access to the United States so that he can address the United Nations. He is not owed anything beyond that.
Iran and the United States are in a pseudo war with each other. Whether you agree with what the government's position is or not vis-a-vis Iran, the situation is what it is. The head of state (titular or not) of a hostile country is absolutely not guaranteed any type of freedom of movement in the US.
Keep in mind, this guy is the leader of a country which the US says is targetting our soldiers in Iraq, is funding groups which foment revolution, has and continues to back Hezbollah. IEDs in Iraq are coming from Syria and Lebanon--which are funded by Iran.
Iran and the United States are in a pseudo war with each other. Whether you agree with what the government's position is or not vis-a-vis Iran, the situation is what it is. The head of state (titular or not) of a hostile country is absolutely not guaranteed any type of freedom of movement in the US.
Keep in mind, this guy is the leader of a country which the US says is targetting our soldiers in Iraq, is funding groups which foment revolution, has and continues to back Hezbollah. IEDs in Iraq are coming from Syria and Lebanon--which are funded by Iran.
I agree that in principle we're in a low-level confrontation with Iran, and I also agree that Iran is smuggling weapons into Iraq. However, even the White House has stated that it's New York City's call, not theirs. By my understanding, this is not (legally) a federal issue....if it were, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is denied access that any other diplomat is granted under the UN headquarters agreement, they should not have issued the visa in the first place. By doing so they are defering to New York city. Aren't they? And according to what I linked to above, New York city might have some legal trouble if they attempt to deny this visit (if the Iranian president decides to attempt it).
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.