Iran Rejects U.S. demand of access to prisoners




The U.S. believes that Iran has, in custody, some High Level Al-Queda leaders that could reveal future Al-Queda attacks and they will not let us have access to them. Iran says they will put them on trial themselves but i have a feeling the suspects will "escape custody" accidently and leave the country after Iranian officials "lose" them, leaving us screwed & guessing.

What is Iran hiding? Are they afraid of something being revealed about an Iran/Al-Queda connection? Could this be the justification of war with Iran that the U.S. is looking for?

It is entirely possible that there are no Al Qaeda operatives and that the announcement is just a PR stunt. Thus, there would be no detainees to question...

It is also possible that this is just a way of Iran thumbing its nose at the US.

OR, Iran could have legitimate concerns that the prisoners' rights might be violated

I doubt that the US is "looking for a justification for war" with Iran, and this certainly wouldn't be it. If we take Iran's word at face value and they have indeed taken some members of Al Qaeda into custody, then good for them, nothing says they have to turn them over to us. It's certainly nothing over which to go to war. I think the more proper course for the US at this point is to keep a close eye on Iran and see if the moderating influences there that seem to be cropping up can be "assisted" in some fashion.

Probably not. They are probably refusing to turn over the suspects for the following reasons:

1. They are a sovereign country, and under international law they don't have to turn anybody over.

2. The suspects are muslims. Iran is an Islamic country and they'd rather see the suspects tried in an Islamic country rather than America. Additionally, Islam has a custom of offering refuge and hospitality to those who ask for it, and I doubt the suspects will ask to be sent to America.

3. They feel bullied and abused by us, and are mistrusting of whatever assurances we might give regarding the fate of the suspects (including eligibility for the death penalty).

All of this happens against the continuing backdrop of the legacy of the Shah and American foreign policy towards Iran since the 1950's.

Putting side whatever speculative plot might be imagined regarding the suspects in question and Iran's involvement in terrorism or terrorism-assistance activities, the Iranians have enough reasons of their own to say "no" to our request for extradition.



No. It could never be a valid and legal justification to invade an entire country in order to capture a couple individuals we want to put on trial.

Perhaps this link will give a broader understanding to the refusal of the Iranians:

Bush Adminstration divided over Iranian offer




Clearly the Americans have refused to stop supporting a terrorist organisation, meaning that Iran sees no duty to hand over their terrorists. Seems reasonable enough for me.

Goamerica, that is certainly not a justification for war, perhaps you should start questioning your own Adminstrations conduct.

Considering our abyssmal record with the rest of the so-called detainees, I wouldn't expect anyone to turn over Al-Queda prisoners or anyone else, for that matter.

Iraq: U.S. Forces Disarm Armed Iranian Opposition Fighters

So much for supporting them. We just made them disarm

Obviously disarming them doesn't make the Iranians happy.


Amlord:



This is a contridiction in terms. Since when does Iran care about prisioners' rights?
Manuchehr Mohammadi


I bet we don't do this at Gitmo



THOMAS:

I'll question my government on why they didn't try harder to make Iran give us access to prisoners who could possibly prevent another 9/11.

That article was written in May, since than America has supported the terrorist group - at least the hawks who want to destabilise Iran.

followed by



followed by



The truth is, the MEK (Mujahideen-e-Khalq) is still a threat to Iranian government. In April, we disarmed their heavy weapons, took away their artillery and tanks, etc., but allowed them to retain their personal weapons (small arms), uniforms, and organization, including their bases in Northeastern Iraq. We did this to pre-emptively knock them out of the war.

But the conduct the Iranians currently complain of - the ability of the MEK to carry out insurgent activities inside Iran, including assasination - is still intact. It doesn't matter about the lack of tanks and artillery - the MEK was never really a conventional military threat to Iran. To the Iranians, the MEK continues to pose a serious terrorist threat.

We can't have it both ways. We need to either (1) cooperate on the Iranian's anti-terrorism requests and meet them in the middle, or (2) resign ourselves to accepting that the Al-Qaeda detainees in Iranian custody are not going to be extradited to the U.S.

And like Iran isn't PROBABLY letting organized groups go into Iraq to fight us?




I'm all for 1 if it will give us access to the Al-Queda members that they have in custody, so we can get some info on terrorist locations (cells, individuals, etc) & to learn if they are planning any big strikes on U.S. interests

It's not just a "probable" - its a fact. And they aren't just "letting" groups go into Iraq - they are supporting them with material, finance, and guidance! But their primary purpose isn't to "fight us" just for the sake of fighting the United States. Their primary purpose is to push the Iraqi Shia population towards collectively taking power and establishing an Islamic government in Iraq similar to the Iranian theocracy. The overthrow of Saddam and dismantlement of the Ba'ath party is their golden opportunity to make Iraq more like Iran, something they made very little progress on in their 1980-1988 war. The Iranians see it all as part of securing and safeguarding their interests (Iraq is right on their border) and promoting their version of Islam (which of course they believe is the true Islam). If we (the United States) were the Iranians and held their beliefs, we'd probably be doing the same thing; we shape our own foreign policy to secure and support our own interests in the same fashion.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't want the Iranians to support anti-Coalition organizations among the Shia in Southern Iraq anymore than you do. But its important for us to understand why these people are doing what they are doing and the motives behind their actions.

[/QUOTE]OR, Iran could have legitimate concerns that the prisoners' rights might be violated [QUOTE]

There is nothing funny about Iran having legitimate concerns over the treatment of prisoners by the US.

Guantanamo bay is a disgusting litany of human rights abuses.
From my own personal view point there are British citizens who have been held there for 19 months without access to any family, without legal representation and without charge!!
Now they are to be tried in front of a kangaroo court hand picked by the US administration. They may still face the death penalty and yet they cannot even be represented by their own lawyer. Instead they'll be represented by a carefully chosen (by the us) lawyer. Remember these men have not been tried or charged they are therefore innocent.

The US will not let us repatriate them because any testimony presented would be considered - under British law- to have been obtained under duress (torture lite I think they called it) and therefore be inadmissible in court. (Does any of this count as the prisoners' rights being violated yet?)

If this had happened in a less developed country we would have already suspended trade, diplomatic relations and be sending in the SAS to rescue them about now.

If Guantanamo Bay is an example of American justice at work then it is nothing to be proud of.