Iran issues arrest warrant for Trump that Interpol rejects

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran has issued an arrest warrant and asked Interpol for help in detaining President Donald Trump and dozens of others it believes carried out the U.S. drone strike that killed a top Iranian general in Baghdad, a local prosecutor reportedly said Monday.

Interpol later said it wouldn’t consider Iran’s request, meaning Trump faces no danger of arrest. However, the charges underscore the heightened tensions between Iran and the United States since Trump unilaterally withdrew America from Tehran’s nuclear deal with world powers.

Tehran prosecutor Ali Alqasimehr said Trump and 35 others whom Iran accuses of involvement in the Jan. 3 strike that killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad face “murder and terrorism charges,” the state-run IRNA news agency reported.

Alqasimehr did not identify anyone else sought other than Trump, but stressed that Iran would continue to pursue his prosecution even after his presidency ends.

Alqasimehr also was quoted as saying that Iran requested a “red notice” be put out for Trump and the others, which represents the highest-level arrest request issued by Interpol. Local authorities generally make the arrests on behalf of the country that requests it. The notices cannot force countries to arrest or extradite suspects, but can put government leaders on the spot and limit suspects’ travel.

After receiving a request, Interpol meets by committee and discusses whether or not to share the information with its member states. Interpol has no requirement for making any of the notices public, though some do get published on its website.

Interpol later issued a statement saying its guidelines for notices forbids it from “any intervention or activities of a political” nature.

Interpol “would not consider requests of this nature,” it said.

Brian Hook, the U.S. special representative for Iran, dismissed the arrest warrant announcement during a news conference in Saudi Arabia on Monday.

“It’s a propaganda stunt that no one takes seriously and makes the Iranians look foolish,” Hook said.

The U.S. killed Soleimani, who oversaw the Revolutionary Guard’s expeditionary Quds Force, and others in the January strike near Baghdad International Airport. It came after months of rising tensions between the two countries. Iran retaliated with a ballistic missile strike targeting American troops in Iraq.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...erpol-rejects/

Good luck with that, but it does raise a point on War Crimes..... putting individuals aside, can a country's CiC be indicted ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Placid

Good luck with that, but it does raise a point on War Crimes..... putting individuals aside, can a country's CiC be indicted ?

---

I think maybe but only if the world is united against the CIC or other acting individuals in question. For example, the surviving Nazi members that were tried for war crimes after WW2 ended. I don't know what such an action would detail today, but I'm fairly sure there's some kind of framework in place for doing something like that. Maybe with the major players in the UN?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Placid

Good luck with that, but it does raise a point on War Crimes..... putting individuals aside, can a country's CiC be indicted ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonGeminiX

I think maybe but only if the world is united against the CIC or other acting individuals in question. For example, the surviving Nazi members that were tried for war crimes after WW2 ended. I don't know what such an action would detail today, but I'm fairy sure there's some kind of framework in place for doing something like that. Maybe with the major players in the UN?

---

Yeah, I would think that DGX is right, you would have to have the consensus of an international body before a head of state could be indicted on the count of war crimes. Otherwise, you would have things like this, countries filing for arrest warrants against heads of state that they disagree with.

Plus, when it comes to the airstrike that killed Soleimani, IMHO, that was a legitimate act because of his (Soleimani's) position in the framework of the Iranian military, so he becomes a valid military target because he was orchestrating the attacks against western military and civilian targets. That's the whole reason he was hardly ever out in a public area, because he knew he was a valid target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Placid

Good luck with that, but it does raise a point on War Crimes..... putting individuals aside, can a country's CiC be indicted ?

---

We cant even indict former presidents, or presidential nominees

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonGeminiX

I think maybe but only if the world is united against the CIC or other acting individuals in question. For example, the surviving Nazi members that were tried for war crimes after WW2 ended. I don't know what such an action would detail today, but I'm fairly sure there's some kind of framework in place for doing something like that. Maybe with the major players in the UN?

---

Probably depends on who decides. Like WWII - the victors decided but there waere war crimes on both sides.... admittedly Germany's were the worst....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teh One Who Knocks

Yeah, I would think that DGX is right, you would have to have the consensus of an international body before a head of state could be indicted on the count of war crimes. Otherwise, you would have things like this, countries filing for arrest warrants against heads of state that they disagree with.

Plus, when it comes to the airstrike that killed Soleimani, IMHO, that was a legitimate act because of his (Soleimani's) position in the framework of the Iranian military, so he becomes a valid military target because he was orchestrating the attacks against western military and civilian targets. That's the whole reason he was hardly ever out in a public area, because he knew he was a valid target.

---

Though I have no objection at all and applaud his removal, he was a member of the military of a foreign nation that the US has not declared war on. On the other hand, he was a prime terrorist target putting aside his connection to the military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Placid

Though I have no objection at all and applaud his removal, he was a member of the military of a foreign nation that the US has not declared war on. On the other hand, he was a prime terrorist target putting aside his connection to the military.

---

We had formally declared Soleimani a terrorist long before Trump was ever in office. I believe the terrorist designation was echoed by other countries as well. He was a bad guy. When a person is formally designated as a terrorist, it doesn't matter what country he belongs to, or what his position is, sooner or later, we're going after him. It doesn't matter that we're not at war with Iran, he wasn't in Iran when we killed him. We knew he was involved in previous attacks on American assets, hence the terrorist designation. He was a designated enemy combatant. He had no immunity. We had actionable intelligence that stated he was in Iraq to orchestrate more attacks on American assets. It was a clean kill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonGeminiX

We had formally declared Soleimani a terrorist long before Trump was ever in office. I believe the terrorist designation was echoed by other countries as well. He was a bad guy. When a person is formally designated as a terrorist, it doesn't matter what country he belongs to, or what his position is, sooner or later, we're going after him. It doesn't matter that we're not at war with Iran, he wasn't in Iran when we killed him. We knew he was involved in previous attacks on American assets, hence the terrorist designation. He was a designated enemy combatant. He had no immunity. We had actionable intelligence that stated he was in Iraq to orchestrate more attacks on American assets. It was a clean kill.

---

I wasn't arguing!