Page 542 – Nejat Society

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Officials must cut ties with confirmed terror group MEK

Washington, DC – In light of confirmation by U.S. officials that the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) Officials must cut ties with confirmed terror group MEK continues to engage in terrorism, despite the groups claim to have renounced violence, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) calls on all former officials who have taken part in the MEK’s lobbying and PR efforts to immediately cut ties with the organization, donate any money they have received to charity, and work with law enforcement to ensure this U.S.-designated terror group is dismantled.

“The MEK remains a terrorist organization but continues to operate within the United States and spend millions of dollars to advance their radical agenda,” said NIAC President Trita Parsi. “The former officials who have been duped by the MEK should see this as a wake up call and take immediate action to help protect Americans from this terror.”

The MEK is designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization but has claimed to have abandoned violence and has enlisted prominent officials to pressure the Obama Administration to remove it from the terror list. Among the officials are former Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, former Governor Howard Dean, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Member of Congress Patrick Kennedy, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton.

NBC News reported Thursday that senior U.S. government officials have confirmed that the MEK is still committing acts of terrorism by assassinating Iranian scientists. NBC also disclosed for the first time that the MEK worked with the terrorist Ramzi Yousef a year after he masterminded the first attack on the World Trade Center in New York City to bomb an Iranian shrine, killing at least 26 people, mostly women and children.

Many of the officials who have advocated in support of the MEK in the U.S. and abroad have acknowledged being paid, potentially in violation of U.S. anti-terror statutes. There is little clarity as to the origination of funding for the MEK’s efforts.
To learn more, visit www.MEKterror.org.

February 14, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

When the News Media Erases US-Israeli Terrorism

Today it was revealed that Israel has been funding, arming, and training the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, to conduct terrorist attacks killing Iranian nuclear scientists. Anonymous U.S. officials confirmed to NBC News that allegations of this Israeli-MEK connection are accurate. This is a story of national and international significance and, while it was published by NBC, it has been completely absent from the mainstream media.

Hey, I’m no idiot. I know the news media is incredibly biased in favor of powerful institutions and especially the state. But I don’t think I was naive to actually expect some coverage of this news on the day it broke. I scoured the major news media – CNN, MSNBC, Fox, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Daily Beast, al Jazeera English, my twitter feed and even my RSS feed (both of which are filled with the kind of dissident material that could spark the interest of Homeland Security) – and nothing. Virtually no coverage.

The U.S. has supported terrorism (and conducted its own state terrorism) innumerable times in the past without appropriate coverage in the news media. But this story of Israeli support of the MEK isn’t about some obscure, chronically marginalized issue. We’re not talking about U.S. support for murderous Colombian paramilitaries, an issue that has never piqued the interest of Americans. The issue of the impending conflict with Iran, however contaminated by false statements and jingoistic war propaganda, has certainly received its fair share of coverage. This is a mainstream issue.

This is a situation where the U.S. government’s closest ally, receiving billions in annual aid and unmatched diplomatic cover, is cooperating with a group that the State Department itself characterizes as a terrorist organization, to conduct assassination programs against innocent people in a sovereign nation. Taken in isolation, this is bad enough. But this kind of behavior has the potential to destabilize a very precarious situation and possibly suck the United States into another war in the Middle East. And these facts have now been confirmed by U.S. officials. I can’t imagine a more headline-worthy revelation.

But the news media is so subservient to the U.S. government and the credibility of its allies that this momentous story isn’t just twisted or lied about like America’s other propaganda – it’s erased. Whitewashed. Never happened.

It may be more enlightening at first, for those dismissing my observation as wacky conspiracy, to think about al Jazeera instead of the mainstream news in America. During the Iraq war, al Jazeera was often turned to in order to get the hard-hitting stories that the U.S. media couldn’t and wouldn’t report. It was “alternative.” They’ve since evolved and have had lots of questionable coverage that unfortunately overlaps that in the U.S. media. But why would a news organization, based in the region in which these Israeli terrorist attacks have taken place, whitewash this story?

Consider the politics of the region. The Gulf Arab states for a long time have been on the side of Israel and the U.S. when it comes to the issue of Iran. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, etc. – fear Iranian influence in the region because it crowds out their own. The Saudi King, for example, not only has secretly urged the U.S. to attack Iran, but has a strong interest in seeing Iran further isolated by eliminating its one regional ally, Syria (which is why Saudi Arabia has reportedly funneled support to the rebel Free Syrian Army and why it supported the Arab League’s Security Council resolution for intervention in Syria). Al Jazeera, which is based in Qatar, would be going against the interests of its owner and government (one in the same) if it appropriately covered revelations about Israeli terrorism in Iran.

Virtually the same calculations exist for the American media. Washington consistently pushes misinformation about the nature of Iran’s nuclear program (despite a near-consensus on the part of the intelligence and military community that Iran’s nuclear program is entirely civilian in nature) and demonizes the Iranian leadership because Iran lies outside Washington’s sphere of influence in the world’s most geopolitically important region. The news media reflects the state’s interests, both because ruffling the feathers of their commanders in Washington is against their own interests and because of what I call the “culture of regurgitation” in American journalism (“if my government says it, I’ll say it too”).

The focus of the media today, aside from the painfully stale political horserace, was the bank’s mortgage settlement and Syria. Regarding the former, there was gratuitous praise heaped on the Obama administration for overseeing a $26 billion settlement from the nation’s five biggest banks for their role in the mortgage meltdown (this, of course, after having colluded with banks to screw millions of people and bilk the economy out of far more than $26 billion). Regarding the latter, as I write these words CNN is running a story about Iran’s alleged material support for Syria’s killing of civilians.

I’m going to maintain my naiveté for another 24 hours. Let’s see if Israeli terrorism against Iran gets any coverage tomorrow.

By John Glaser

February 14, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Assassinations Joint work of Israel and Mojahedin Khalq

Deeper into Terrorism

Although the assassinations of Iranian scientists have until now been followed by no indication of responsibility other than smug comments of satisfaction from officials of the most likely foreign state perpetrator, now NBC offers something more specific. According to a report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem, the assassinations have been the joint work of Israel and the Iranian cult-cum-terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq. According to the report, the partnership has involved Israel providing financing, training and arms to the MEK to accomplish the hits, as well as to commit other acts of violent sabotage inside Iran. The story tracks with accusations from officials of the Iranian government, who say they base most of what they know on interrogations and captured materials from a failed assassination attempt in 2010. Such accusations by themselves would be easy to dismiss, of course, as more of the regime’s propaganda. But the NBC story cites two senior U.S. officials, speaking anonymously, as confirming the story. A third official said “it hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet,” although like the others he denied any U.S. involvement. The Israeli foreign ministry declined comment; the MEK denied the story.

With or without confirmation of details of this story, the assassinations are terrorism. (The official U.S. government definition of terrorism for reporting and statistic-keeping purposes is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”) The extra twist in this new report is the use by Israel—already widely believed to have been responsible for the murders—of the MEK, a group with a long track record of terrorism that has included American victims. Other parts of that record, including the MEK having been an arm of Saddam Hussein’s security forces, have meant the group has almost no popular support within Iran. Anyone in Israel, the United States, or anywhere else hoping for a salubrious regime change in Iran would be foolish to have anything to do with the MEK.

Even more important than what is foolish is what is immoral. Terrorism denies the high ground to anyone who uses it, including the use of it in disagreements with Iran. It also hastens the slide through mutually reinforcing hostility into what may be a far more destructive form of violence (i.e., a war). Although the United States has not been involved in the assassinations, the nature of its relationship with Israel, both real and perceived (President Obama commented the other day about staying in “lockstep” with Israel on Iran), means that Israel’s actions suck the United States farther down the slide.

Amid all the reasons for dismay and outrage over this, there is also an irony. One of the oft-repeated rationales for the conventional wisdom that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be unacceptable is that it would somehow turn Iran into a regional marauder that would recklessly throw its weight around the Middle East in damaging ways. Well, there is an example of a Middle Eastern state that behaves in such a way, but it isn’t Iran. This state invades neighboring countries, ruthlessly inflicting destruction on civilian populations, and seizes and colonizes territory through military force. It also uses terrorist group proxies as well as its own agents to conduct assassinations in other countries in the region.

Besides terrorism, there also is, as with any prototypical rogue state, a nuclear weapons angle. This state, unlike Iran, has never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty or admitted an international inspector to any of its nuclear facilities. Even though it has had a sizable arsenal of nuclear weapons for decades, it has kept its nuclear weapons program completely out of reach of any international scrutiny or arms control regime and does not even acknowledge the program’s existence. It also is so intent on maintaining its regional nuclear weapons monopoly that it is using terrorism to strike at the nuclear program of a country that doesn’t even have one nuclear weapon and probably hasn’t made a decision to make one.

One could almost argue that this record of behavior supports that conventional wisdom about what an Iranian nuke would do to Iran’s behavior. But actually it doesn’t. The behavior of the state in question is made possible not by nuclear weapons but instead by its conventional military superiority over its neighbors and by the cover provided by a subservient, protective great power whose policies it is able to manipulate.

The United States needs to distance itself as much as possible from this ugliness, for the sake of adhering to its own principles as well as trying to avoid sliding any further toward catastrophe. It was good that Secretary of State Clinton quickly disavowed the most recent assassination, but distancing requires something more. Forget the lockstep business. Israel is out of step with American policy because it evidently is out of step with American values and American interests. Washington needs to proclaim loudly and repeatedly that the sort of terrorism that the NBC report describes is the antithesis of how differences with Iran ought to be settled, and that those differences need to be settled through diplomacy. Then negotiate like we really mean it. Two distinguished retired U.S. diplomats, William Luers and Thomas Pickering, have recently provided some excellent instruction on how to do that.

Paul Pillar, The National Interest

February 13, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

US paper: MKO deserves Nobel Prize for killing Iran experts

Were the MeK (MKO) to play the critical role in derailing an Iranian bomb, it would be far more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than a certain president of the United States we could mention.”

New York Post editorial

An editorial in a leading US daily has called for the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) terrorists to be rewarded with a Nobel Peace Prize for murdering Iranian scientists.

“Were the MeK (MKO) to play the critical role in derailing an Iranian bomb, it would be far more deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize than a certain president of the United States we could mention,” a New York Post editorial read on Friday.

The remarks come on the heels of a report, published by NBC News on Thursday, citing two “senior US officials” confirming that the Israeli secret service had “financed, trained, and armed,” the MKO terrorists for them to assassinate Iranian scientists.

The US, Israel and their allies accuse Iran of pursuing a military nuclear program and have used this allegation as a pretext to sway the UN Security Council to impose four rounds of sanctions on Iran.

Based on these accusations, they have also repeatedly threatened Tehran with the "option" of a military strike.

In November 2011, some of the US presidential hopefuls openly called for conducting covert operations ranging from assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists to launching a military strike on Iran as well as sabotaging Tehran’s nuclear program.

The calls for the assassinations were not idle threats as a number of Iranian scientists have been assassinated over the past few years. Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, Professor Majid Shahriari and Professor Masoud Ali-Mohammadi are among the victims of these acts of terror.

Ahmadi Roshan, a Sharif University of Technology chemical engineering graduate and a marketing deputy at Natanz nuclear facility, was killed on January 11 when two motorcyclists approached his car and attached a magnetic bomb to the vehicle.

Shahriari and Fereydoun Abbasi were targeted by terrorist attacks on November 29, 2010; Shahriari was killed immediately and Dr. Abbasi, the current director of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, only sustained injuries.

“We’d say the [Iranian] engineers basically needed killing,” the US daily wrote.

February 13, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Israel, MEK and state sponsor of Terror groups

One of the most under-reported political stories of the last year is the devoted advocacy of numerous prominent American political figures on behalf of an Iranian group long formally designated as a Terrorist organization under U.S. law. A large bipartisan cast has received substantial fees from that group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and has then become their passionate defenders. The group of MEK shills includes former top Bush officials and other Republicans (Michael Mukasey, Fran Townsend, Andy Card, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani) as well as prominent Democrats (Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark). As The Christian Science Monitor reported last August, those individuals “have been paid tens of Israel, MEK and state sponsor of Terror groups thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK.” No matter what one thinks of this group – here is a summary of its activities – it is formally designated as a Terrorist group and it is thus a felony under U.S. law to provide it with any “material support.”

There are several remarkable aspects to this story. The first is that there are numerous Muslims inside the U.S. who have been prosecuted for providing “material support for Terrorism” for doing far less than these American politicians are publicly doing on behalf of a designated Terrorist group. A Staten Island satellite TV salesman in 2009 was sentenced to five years in federal prison merely for including a Hezbollah TV channel as part of the satellite package he sold to customers; a Massachusetts resident, Tarek Mehanna, is being prosecuted now ”for posting pro-jihadist material on the internet”; a 24-year-old Pakistani legal resident living in Virginia, Jubair Ahmad, was indicted last September for uploading a 5-minute video to YouTube that was highly critical of U.S. actions in the Muslim world, an allegedly criminal act simply because prosecutors claim he discussed the video in advance with the son of a leader of a designated Terrorist organization (Lashkar-e-Tayyiba); a Saudi Arabian graduate student, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, was prosecuted simply for maintaining a website with links “to groups that praised suicide bombings in Chechnya and in Israel” and “jihadist” sites that solicited donations for extremist groups (he was ultimately acquitted); and last July, a 22-year-old former Penn State student and son of an instructor at the school, Emerson Winfield Begolly, was indicted for — in the FBI’s words — “repeatedly using the Internet to promote violent jihad against Americans” by posting comments on a “jihadist” Internet forum including “a comment online that praised the shootings” at a Marine Corps base, action which former Obama lawyer Marty Lederman said “does not at first glance appear to be different from the sort of advocacy of unlawful conduct that is entitled to substantial First Amendment protection.”

Yet here we have numerous American political figures receiving substantial fees from a group which is legally designated under American law as a Terrorist organization. Beyond that, they are meeting with the Terrorist leaders of that group repeatedly (Howard Dean told NPR last year about the group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi: “I have actually had dinner with Mrs. Rajavi on numerous occasions. I do not find her very terrorist-like” and has even insisted that she should be recognized as Iran’s President, while Rudy Giuliani publicly told her at a Paris conference in December: “These are the most important yearnings of the human soul that you support, and for your organization to be described as a terrorist organization is just simply a disgrace”). And, after receiving fees from the Terrorist group and meeting with its Terror leaders, these American political figures are going forth and disseminating pro-MEK messages on its behalf and working to have it removed from the Terrorist list.

Given all the prosecutions of politically powerless Muslims for far fewer connections to Terrorist groups than the actions of these powerful (paid) political figures, what conceivable argument is there for not prosecuting Dean, Giuliani, and the rest of them for providing “material support for Terrorism”? What they are providing to MEK is the definitive “material support.” Although these activities (along with those of the above-listed prosecuted Muslims) should be protected free speech, the U.S. Government has repeatedly imprisoned people for it. Indeed, as Georgetown Law Professor David Cole noted, these activities on behalf of MEK are clearly prosecutable as “material support for Terrorism” under the standard advocated by the Bush and Obama DOJs and accepted by the Supreme Court in the Holder v. Humanitarian Law case of 2009, which held that even peaceful advocacy on behalf of a Terrorist group can be prosecuted if done in coordination with the group (ironically, many of these paid MEK supporters have long been advocates of broad application of “material support” statutes (when applied to Muslims, that is) and have even praised the Humanitarian Law case). If we had anything even remotely approaching equal application of the law, Dean, Giuliani, Townsend and the others would be facing prosecution as Terrorist-helpers.

Then there’s long been the baffling question of where MEK was getting all of this money to pay these American officials. Indeed, the pro-MEK campaign has been lavishly funded. As the CSM noted: ”Besides the string of well-attended events at prestigious American hotels and locations, and in Paris, Brussels, and Berlin, the campaign has included full-page advertisements in The New York Times and Washington Post — which can cost $175,000 apiece.” MEK is basically little more than a nomadic cult: after they sided with Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, they were widely loathed in Iran and their 3,400 members long lived in camps in Iraq, but the Malaki government no longer wants them there. How has this rag-tag Terrorist cult of Iranian dissidents, who are largely despised in Iran, able to fund such expensive campaigns and to keep U.S. officials on its dole?

All of these mysteries received substantial clarity from an NBC News report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem yesterday. Citing two anonymous “senior U.S. officials,” that report makes two amazing claims: (1) that it was MEK which perpetrated the string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and (2) the Terrorist group “is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service.” These senior officials also admitted that “the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign” but claims it “has no direct involvement.” Iran has long insisted the Israel and the U.S. are using MEK to carry out Terrorist attacks on its soil, including the murder of its scientists, and NBC notes that these acknowledgments “confirm charges leveled by Iran’s leaders” (MEK issued a statement denying the report).

If these senior U.S. officials are telling the truth, there are a number of vital questions and conclusions raised by this. First, it would mean that the assurances by MEK’s paid American shills such as Howard Dean that “they are unarmed” are totally false: whoever murdered these scientists is obviously well-armed. Second, this should completely gut the effort to remove MEK from the list of designated Terrorist groups; after all, murdering Iran’s scientists through the use of bombs and guns is a defining act of a Terror group, at least as U.S. law attempts to define the term. Third, this should forever resolve the debate in which I was involved last month about whether the attack on these Iranian scientists constitutes Terrorism; as Daniel Larison put it yesterday: “If true, the murders of Iranian nuclear scientists with bombs have been committed by a recognized terrorist group. Can everyone acknowledge at this point that these attacks were acts of terrorism?”

Fourth, and most important: if this report is true, is this not definitive proof that Israel is, by definition, a so-called state sponsor of Terrorism? Leaving everything else aside, if Israel, as NBC reports, has “financed, trained and armed” a group officially designated by the U.S. Government as a Terrorist organization, isn’t that the definitive act of how one becomes an official “state sponsor of Terrorism”? Amazingly, as Daniel Larison notes, one of the people who most vocally attacked me for labeling the murder of Iranian scientists as “Terrorism” and for generally arguing that Terrorism is a meaningless, cynically applied term — Commentary‘s Jonathan Tobin — yesterday issued a justification for why Israel should be working with Terrorist groups like MEK. As Larison wrote about Tobin’s article:

In other words, Israeli state sponsorship of a terrorist group is acceptable because it’s in a good cause. . . . Because Israel is overreacting to a perceived threat from Iran, Tobin believes it is entirely defensible for Israel to partner with a recognized terrorist group. In other words, Tobin believes that terrorism is “entirely defensible” so long as it is committed by the right people and directed at the right targets. It’s as if he is going out of his way to vindicate Glenn Greenwald.

Of course, as I documented in my last book, those who are politically and financially well-connected are free to commit even the most egregious crimes; for that reason, the very idea of prosecuting Giuliani, Rendell, Ridge, Townsend, Dean and friends for their paid labor on behalf of a Terrorist group is unthinkable, a suggestion not fit for decent company, even though powerless Muslims have been viciously prosecuted for far less egregious connections to such groups. But this incident also underscores the specific point that the term Terrorism is so completely meaningless, manipulated and mischievous: it’s just a cynical term designed to delegitimize violence and even political acts undertaken by America’s enemies while shielding from criticism the actual Terrorism undertaken by itself and its allies. The spectacle whereby a designated Terrorist group can pay top American politicians to advocate for them even as they engage in violent Terrorist acts, all while being trained, funded and aided by America’s top client state, should forever end the controversy over that glaringly obvious proposition.

* * * * *

Four notes: (1) The book event I did with Noam Chomsky last November in Boston will be broadcast several times this weekend on C-SPAN; the schedule is here; (2) The New Zealand political journal Listener has an interview and profile of me and With Liberty and Justice for Some; (3) the video for two of the civil liberties events I did this week are now online: this one at Indiana University/Purdue and this one from Columbia University; and (4) I’ll be the keynote speaker at the annual dinner of the ACLU in Idaho tomorrow night; ticket information is here.

* * * * *

According to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a NATO airstrike yesterday in Afghanistan killed 8 children. Meanwhile, the Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar yesterday patiently explained that drone strikes — which Americans widely support, including American liberals — are “completely illegal and unlawful” and “counterproductive” because they “fuel terrorism,” since people tend to become quite angry at the foreign power which slaughters their children, their spouses, their parents, their neighbors, etc., i.e., for every Terrorist the U.S. allegedly kills, it creates five more people wanting to attack the U.S. (see her answers to the two questions beginning at 4:30):

By Glenn Greenwald,

February 13, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Israel teams with MEK terrorists to kill Scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News

Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.

ROCK CENTER EXCLUSIVE The group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the United States, accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980.

The attacks, which have killed five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile research and development site, have been carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign but has no direct involvement.

The Iranians have no doubt who is responsible – Israel and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, known by various acronyms, including MEK, MKO and PMOI

Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, describes what Iranian leaders believe is a close relationship between Israel’s secret service, the Mossad, and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, which is considered a terrorist organization by the United States.

“The relation is very intricate and close,” said Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, speaking of the MEK and Israel. “They (Israelis) are paying … the Mujahedin. Some of their (MEK) agents … (are) providing Israel with information. And they recruit and also manage logistical support.”

Moreover, he said, the Mossad, the Israeli secret service, is training MEK members in Israel on the use of motorcycles and small bombs. In one case, he said, Mossad agents built a replica of the home of an Iranian nuclear scientist so that the assassins could familiarize themselves with the layout prior to the attack.
Much of what the Iranian government knows of the attacks and the links between Israel and MEK comes from interrogation of an assassin who failed to carry out an attack in late 2010 and the materials found on him, Larijani said.

The U.S.-educated Larijani, whose two younger brothers run the legislative and judicial branches of the Iranian government, said the Israelis’ rationale is simple. “Israel does not have direct access to our society. Mujahedin, being Iranian and being part of Iranian society, they have … a good number of … places to get into the touch with people. So I think they are working hand-to-hand very close. And we do have very concrete documents.”

Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News the MEK’s role in the assassinations, with one senior official saying, “All your inclinations are correct.” A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet.” All the officials denied any U.S. involvement in the assassinations.

As it has in the past, Israel’s Foreign Ministry declined comment. Said a spokesman, "As long as we can’t see all the evidence being claimed by NBC, the Foreign Ministry won’t react to every gossip and report being published worldwide."

For its part, the MEK pointed to a statement calling the allegations “absolutely false.”

Ali Safavi, a long-time representative of the MEK, underscored the denial after publication of this article,

"There has never been and there is no MEK member in Israel, period," he said. "The MEK has categorically denied any involvement. The idea that Israel is training MEK members on its soil borders on perversity. It is absolutely and completely false."

The sophistication of the attacks supports the Iranian claims that an experienced intelligence service is involved, experts say.

In the most recent attack, on Jan. 11, 2012, Mostafa Ahamdi Roshan died in a blast in Tehran moments after two assailants on a motorcycle placed a small magnetic bomb on his vehicle. Roshan was a deputy director at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and was reportedly involved in procurement for the nuclear program, which Iran insists is not a weapons program.

Previous attacks include the assassination of Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, killed by a bomb outside his Tehran home in January 2010, and an explosion in November of that year that took the life of Majid Shahriari and wounded Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, who is now the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.

In the case of Roshan, the bomb appears to have been a shaped charge that directed all the explosive power inside the vehicle, killing him and his bodyguard driver but leaving nearby traffic unaffected.

Although Roshan was directly involved in the nuclear program, working at the huge centrifuge facility between Tehran and Qom, Iran’s religious center, at least one other scientist who was killed wasn’t linked to the Iranian nuclear program, according to Larijani.

Speaking of bombing victim Ali-Mohammadi, whom he described as a friend, Larijani told NBC News, “In fact this guy who was assassinated was not involved in the nitty-gritty of the situation. He was a scientist, a physicist, working on the theoretically parts of nuclear energy, which you can teach it in every university. You can find it in every text.”

“This is an Israeli plot. A dirty plot,” Larijani added angrily. He also claimed the assassinations are not having an effect on the program and have only made scientists more resolute in carrying out their mission.

Not so, said Ronen Bergman, an Israeli commentator and author of “Israel’s Secret War with Iran” and an upcoming book tentatively titled, “Mossad and the Art of Assassination.”

Israel has long used assassination against its enemies, "hoping that by taking out individuals, they can alter, change the course of history," says Ronen Bergman, an Israeli commentator and author of "Israel’s Secret War with Iran" and an upcoming book tentatively titled "Mossad and the Art of Assassination."

Bergman said the attacks have three purposes, the most obvious being the removal of high-ranking scientists and their knowledge. The others: forcing Iran to increase security for its scientists and facilities and to spur “white defections.”

He explained the latter this way: “Scientists leaving the project, afraid that they are going to be next on the assassination list, and say, ‘We don’t want this. Indeed, we get good money, we are promoted, we are honored by everybody, but we might get killed. It isn’t worth it. Maybe we should go back to teach … in a university.’”

There are unconfirmed reports in the Israeli press and elsewhere that Israel and the MEK were involved in a Nov. 12 explosion that destroyed the Iranian missile research and development site at Bin Kaneh, 30 miles outside Tehran. Among those killed was Maj. Gen. Hassan Moghaddam, director of missile development for the Revolutionary Guard, and a dozen other researchers. So important was Moghaddam that Ayatollah Khamenei attended his funeral.

Unlike the assassinations, Iran claims the missile site explosion was an accident; the MEK, meanwhile, trumpeted it but denied any involvement.

Indeed, there may be other covert operations carried out either by Israel acting alone or in concert with others, according to Bergman.

“Two labs caught fire,” said Bergman, enumerating the attacks. “Scientists got blown up or disappeared. A missile base and the R&D base of the Revolutionary Guard exploded some time ago, with the director of the R&D division of the Revolutionary Guard being killed along with … his soldiers.”

Bergman added, “So, a long series of … something that was termed by an Israeli (Cabinet) minister … as ‘mysterious mishaps’ happening and rehappening to the project. Then the Iranians claim, ‘This is Israeli Mossad trying to sabotage our attempts to be a nuclear superpower.’”

Dr. Uzi Rabi, director of the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, said the supposed accidents could all be part of “psychological warfare” conducted against Iran. “It seems logical. It makes sense,” he said of possible MEK involvement, “and it’s been done before.”

Rabi, who regularly briefs Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, on Iran also said the ultimate goal of the range of covert operations being carried out by Israel is “to damage the politics of survivability … to send a message that could strike fear into the rulers of Iran.”

For the United States, the alleged role of the MEK is particularly troublesome. In 1997, the State Department designated it a terrorist group, justifying it with an unclassified 40-page summary of the organization’s activities going back more than 25 years. The paper, sent to Congress in 1998, was written by Wendy Sherman, now undersecretary of state for political affairs and then an aide to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

The report, which was obtained by NBC News, was unsparing in its assessment. “The Mujahedin (MEK) collaborated with Ayatollah Khomeini to overthrow the former shah of Iran,” it said. “As part of that struggle, they assassinated at least six American citizens, supported the takeover of the U.S. embassy, and opposed the release of the American hostages.” In each case, the paper noted, “Bombs were the Mujahedin’s weapon of choice, which they frequently employed against American targets.”

“In the post-revolutionary political chaos, however, the Mujahedin lost political power to Iran’s Islamic clergy. They then applied their dedication to armed struggle and the use of propaganda against the new Iranian government, launching a violent and polemical cycle of attack and reprisal."

U.S. officials have said publicly that the information contained in the report was limited to unclassified material, but that it also drew on classified material in making its determination to add the MEK to the U.S. list of terrorist organizations

Maryam Rajavi, president of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, greets several hundred Iranian expatriates who had gathered to welcome her at Tegel Airport in Berlin, Germany, on March 22, 2010

The MEK and its sister organizations have since the beginning been run by Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, a husband-wife team who have maintained tight control despite assassination threats and internal dissent. Massoud Rajavi, 63, founded the MEK, but since the U.S. invasion of Iraq has taken a backseat to his wife.

The State Department report describes the Rajavis as “fundamentally undemocratic” and “not a viable alternative to the current government of Iran.”

One reason for that is the MEK’s close relationship with Saddam Hussein, as demonstrated by this 1986 video showing the late Iraqi dictator meeting with Massoud Rajavi. Saddam recruited the MEK in much the same way the Israelis allegedly have, using them to fight Iranian forces during the Iran-Iraq War, a role they took on proudly. So proudly, they invited NBC News to one of their military camps outside Baghdad in 1993.

“The National Liberation Army (NLA), the military wing of the Mujahedin, conducted raids into Iran during the latter years of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War,” according to the State Department report. The NLA’s last major offensive reportedly was conducted against Iraqi Kurds in 1991, when it joined Saddam Hussein’s brutal repression of the Kurdish rebellion. In addition to occasional acts of sabotage, the Mujahedin are responsible for violent attacks in Iran that victimize civilians.”

“Internally, the Mujahedin run their organization autocratically, suppressing dissent and eschewing tolerance of differing viewpoints,” it said. “Rajavi, who heads the Mojahedin’s political and military wings, has fostered a cult of personality around himself.”

The U.S. suspicion of the MEK doesn’t end there. Law enforcement officials have told NBC News that in 1994, the MEK made a pact with terrorist Ramzi Yousef a year after he masterminded the first attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. According to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Yousef built an 11-pound bomb that MEK agents placed inside one of Shia Islam’s greatest shrines in Mashad, Iran, on June 20, 1994. At least 26 people, mostly women and children, were killed and 200 wounded in the attack.

That connection between Yousef, nephew of 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and the MEK was first reported in a book, “The New Jackals,” by Simon Reeve. NBC News confirmed that Yousef told U.S. law enforcement that he had worked with the MEK on the bombing.

In recent years, the MEK has said it has renounced violence, but Iranian officials say that is not true, that killings of Iranians continue. Still, through some deft lobbying, the group has been able to get the United Kingdom and the European Union to remove it from their lists of terrorist groups.

The alleged involvement of the MEK in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists provides the U.S. with a cloak of deniability regarding the clandestine killings. Because the U.S. has designated the MEK as a terrorist organization, neither military nor intelligence units of the U.S. government, can work with them. “We cannot deal with them, “ said one senior U.S. official. “We would not deal with them because of the designation.”

Iranian officials initially accused the Israelis and MEK of being behind the attacks, but they have since added the CIA to the list. Three days after the Jan. 11, 2012, bombing in Tehran that killed Roshan, the state news agency IRNA reported that Iran’s Foreign Ministry had sent a diplomatic letter to the U.S. claiming to have “evidence and reliable information” that the CIA provided “guidance, support and planning” to assassins directly involved in the attack.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton immediately denied any connection to the killings. “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” Clinton told reporters on the day of the attack.

But at least two GOP presidential candidates have no problem with the targeting of nuclear scientists. In a November debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich endorsed “taking out their scientists,” and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum called it, ”a wonderful thing.”

The MEK’s opposition to the Iranian government also has recently earned it both plaudits and support from an odd mix of political bedfellows.

A group of former Cabinet-level officials have joined together to support the MEK’s removal from the official U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organization list, even taking out a full-page ad last year in the New York Times calling for the removal of the MEK from the U.S. terrorist list. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton; former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former FBI Director Louis Freeh and former Rep. Patrick Kennedy were among those whose signatures were on the ad.

“There’s an extraordinary group of bipartisan or even apolitical leaders, military leaders, diplomats, the United States … the United Kingdom, the European Union, even a U.S. District Court in Washington, said that this group that was put on the foreign terrorist organization watch list in 1997 doesn’t deserve to be there,” Ridge said in November on “The Andrea Mitchell Show” on MSNBC TV.

U.S. politicians also have been pushing the U.S. government to protect the 3,400 MEK members and their families at Camp Ashraf in Iraq, about 35 miles north of Baghdad. With the departure of U.S. troops, the MEK feared that Iraqi forces, with encouragement from Iran, would attack the camp, leading to a bloodbath. At the last minute, however, agreement was brokered with the United Nations that would permit the MEK members’ departure for resettlement in unspecified democratic countries. As of this week, there’s been little movement on the planned resettlement.

Iranian fighters with the National Liberation Army, the military wing of the MEK, clean armored personnel carriers in 1997 after a field exercise near Camp Ashraf in Iraq

The Iranians see what’s happening as terrorism and hypocrisy by the United States. They have forwarded documents and other evidence to the United Nations – and directly to the United States, they say.

“I think this is very cynical plan. This is unacceptable,” said Larijani. “This is a bad trend in the world. Unprecedented. We should kill scientists … to block a scientific program? I mean this is disaster!”

Dan;iel Byman, a professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and also a senior fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said that if the accounts of the Israeli-MEK assassinations are accurate, the operation borders on terrorism.

“In theory, states cannot be terrorist, but if they hire locals to do assassinations, that would be state sponsorship,” said Byman, author of the recent book, “A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism.” “You could argue that they took action not to terrorize the public, the purpose of terrorism, but only the nuclear community. An argument could also be made that degrading the program means that you don’t have to take military action and thus, this is a lower level of violence and that really these are military targets, where normally terrorist targets are civilians.”

But ultimately, Byman said, there is a “spectrum of responsibility” and that Israel is ultimately responsible.

Ronen Bergman, while not speaking on behalf of the Israeli government, suggests that there is a justification, citing an oft-repeated but disputed quote in which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth.

“Meir Degan, the chief of Mossad, when he was in office, hung a photograph behind him, behind the chair of the chief of Mossad,” notes the Israeli commentator. “And in that photograph you see — an ultra-orthodox Jew — long beard, standing on his knees with his– hands up in the air, and two Gestapo soldiers standing — beside him with guns pointed at him. One of — one of them is smiling.

“And Degan used to say to his people and the people coming to visit him from CIA, NSA, et cetera, ‘Look at this guy in the picture. This is my grandfather just seconds before he was killed by the SS,’” Bergman said. “’… We are here to prevent this from happening again.’"

Richard Engel is NBC News’ chief foreign correspondent; Robert Windrem is a senior investigative producer.

Richard Engel and Robert Windrem NBC News

February 13, 2012 0 comments

Human Rights Abuse in the MEK

Open letter of Mr. Karim Gholami to Mr. Martin Kobler

Karim Gholami: Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult) is a cultic organization

Respectfully
I , as one of the former officials of pmoi( People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran) with 25 years Karim Gholami: Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult) is a cultic organization record of service and a wounded of pmoi military operations, would like to draw your attention to the conditions of the patients and the wounded in this organization. after passing almost one month of the new year , 2012, no one has left Ashraf camp to another place yet. This is the method and the function of the pmoi leadership which by putting obstacles and hurdles and creating different excuses ,disrupt the peaceful routine, but amid all problems the conditions of the patients and the wounded who are residing in Ashraf camp , is the worst , so I am urging you to have special attention to the wounded and patients in this camp and you should prioritize them in leaving the camp , in this regard I draw your attention to the following points:
1.Pmoi is a cultic organization which its members do not have any authority to make a decision . the Iranians who are captive in this cult , for years have been deprived of having any access to the Media . the pmoi members have been deprived of the preliminary facilities such as Radio, TV, Telephone, internet, and Newspaper , and the News which is given to the members of this cult is censored and chosen by the pmoi operatives. For this reason the members of this cult do not have any idea about their rights and international laws to make a decision freely and consciously .

2.The leaders of this cult by severe strangulation and suppression against their own members inside the organization and making false and fake accusations against all separated members of this cult , have created great concern and fear inside the organization and as a result of that the members of this cult because of their fear of punishment do not dare to leave the cult. the members who want to separate from the cult will be facing harsh and cruel punishments such as forcible participation in brainwashing sessions which in these sessions they will be beaten up and in continuation they will be facing imprisonment accompanied by inhuman tortures and in some cases even the dissidents got executed and disappeared .

3.This cult by different ways and methods brainwashes its own members and during many years of nonstop brainwashing, it has filled the head of its own members with many lies, for instance if someone separates from the cult will be indicted by Iranian and Iraqi intelligence service and they will be imprisoned , tortured and finally executed by them , so the members of this cult because of their fear of being caught and executed , do not dare to leave this cult whatsoever.

4.From 2003 to 2009 the Ashraf camp had been under the supervision and control of the US army and during those years , they had been receiving many facilities such as medication and medicine, medical facilities , fuel and food but non of those stuffs had never reached to the hands of the cult members and instead those items were sold in Iraq black markets or they were used by the leaders and operatives of this cult. For instance I programmed a database for the pharmacy in Ashraf camp and to complete this programming I was going to this pharmacy consecutively for one year . I had seen many times that very big size boxes of medicine by the dimensions of 2 cubic meters were given to that pharmacy by the US army but during those years I had never seen even one of those medicines in the hands of the cult members whatsoever, and instead the leaders of this cult were saying to their patients that the Iraqi government does not allow the medical facilities to enter to the camp and we do not have any medicine .

5.The death of the patients and the wounded of this cult as a result of the lack of treatment : I would like to draw your attention to the health situation of the two of my friends , the first one Mr. Abbas Haj Husseini who in one of the cult military operations in 1988 got wounded by a bullet in his Cervical Spinal Cord and he got paralyzed , Abbas always wanted to go to Europe to be treated and cured but the leaders of this cult not only did not pay attention to his request , but also as I saw twice he was threatened by Massoud Rajavi , the leader of this cult , to be handed over to the Iranian government. The first time was in 1995 and the second time was in 2002 , but unfortunately as a result of the lack of attention and treatment , he died and was buried in pmoi cemetery called Ghatayeh Morvarid( The Pearl) in Ashraf Camp.

My second friend , Mr. Farhad……… who in one of the pmoi military operations in 1986 got wounded by a bullet in his Lumbar Spinal Cord and he got paralyzed . Farhad always wanted to leave this cult but the leaders of this cult rejected his request all the time and finally in 2008 as a result of the foot bone fracture and the lack of treatment ,his foot got infected and he died.

6.The leaders of this cult have been always endeavoring and struggling to cover up and conceal the situation of their patients and wounded so no international organizations be able to have access to these patients and wounded because the leaders of this cult do not want to be accountable and responsive for their death .

According to the facts mentioned above , I am urging you to pay special attention to those patients and wounded and their juridical situation be prioritized so they can be able to have access to the doctor and medicine as soon as possible to prevent the death of many more. I had been in this cult till 2009, till then the number of the wounded , paralyzed and mutilation , was 50 and after 2009 during two conflicts which occurred in there , the number of injured has increased.

To help these people , first you should take them out of the cult perimeter so they can meet their medical needs and get familiar with their rights to make a decision for their future and life freely and consciously . in this regard I am ready to cooperate with you voluntarily and even, if it is necessary to go to Iraq to help those people , I will do it.

Respectfully
Karim Gholami, Iran Fanous, Germany

February 9, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization

Former U.S. base opened to MEK terrorist group

Camp Liberty, which housed U.S. troops in Iraq up until a few months ago, is now open to house members of the State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization known as the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK). But MEK leaders haven’t decided they’re ready to move in just yet.

"The U.S. has and continues to welcome and support the peaceful temporary relocation and eventual permanent resettlement of the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq," said Ambassador Dan Fried, the State Department’s special advisor on Camp Ashraf, currently home to several thousand MEK members. "Our purpose is humanitarian. We welcomed the signing of the [Memorandum of Understanding] last Christmas Day between the Iraqi government and the U.N. This MOU charts a peaceful way forward."

The document set into writing the Iraqi government’s decision to delay the closure of Camp Ashraf, where up to 3,200 members of the MEK have been living for years. The Iraqi government had promised to close Camp Ashraf in December but agreed to push back that date for six months.

Baghdad also agreed to ensure the safe treatment of the MEK members, who fear and distrust the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"At this new location, the U.N. High Commission for Refugees will be able to conduct refugee status determinations for the residents of Ashraf — a necessary first step toward resettlement to third countries," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Dec. 25. "We are encouraged by the Iraqi government’s willingness to commit to this plan, and expect it to fulfill all its responsibilities, especially the elements of the MOU that provide for the safety and security of Ashraf’s residents."

The facility has now been officially renamed Camp Hurriya (Arabic for "freedom") and the first MEK members can now go there, Fried said. The United Nations announced on Jan. 31 that the facilities at Camp Liberty now meet international humanitarian standards and are ready to receive Camp Ashraf’s residents.

"In any move of this kind and in the early days, once people are settling into Hurriya, problems may arise, of course," he said. "Patience, goodwill, and willingness to resolve logistical issues in a practical way will be critical."

But no members of the MEK have yet made the move, despite the extensive efforts of the United States and the United Nations to get their new home ready and to convince the Iraqi government to support the move.

"The residents of Camp Ashraf must make the decision to start this relocation process. Camp Ashraf is no longer a viable home for them. They have no secure future there," said Fried.

The Marxist-Islamist group, which was formed in 1965, was used by deposed Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein to attack the Iranian government during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, and has been implicated in the deaths of U.S. military personnel and civilians.

The new Iraqi government has been trying to evict them from Camp Ashraf since the United States toppled Saddam in 2003. The U.S. military guarded the outside of the camp until handing over external security to the Iraqis in 2009. The Iraqi Army has since tried twice to enter Camp Ashraf, resulting in bloody clashes with the MEK.

Camp Hurriya is only meant to be a temporary home for the MEK. From there, its members could elect to go back to Iran or move on to a third country, if they have residency there. The United States will help certain MEK members apply for refugee status on a case by case basis.

Fried urged the MEK to make the decision to move to Camp Hurriya, and he asked the group’s many supporters in Washington to convey that message directly to the MEK.

The MEK’s list of advocates, most who have admitted being paid, includes Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former Sen. Robert Torricelli, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, former CIA Deputy Director of Clandestine Operations John Sano, former National Security Advisor James Jones, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers, former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, Gen. Wesley Clark, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, former CIA Director Porter Goss, senior advisor to the Romney campaign Mitchell Reiss, Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, former Sen. Evan Bayh, and many others.

"All those who wish the residents of Ashraf a peaceful future outside of Iraq can help by encouraging the MEK to make the decision it needs to make," Fried said. "The responsibility for the next decision rests with the MEK… A peaceful solution is at hand, but they’ve got to take it."

February 9, 2012 0 comments

USA

Mujahedin-e Khalq in the new List of Terrorist Organizations

State Department: It is unlawful to provide support to Listed Terrorists!!

Foreign Terrorist Organizations State Department: It is unlawful to provide support to Listed Terrorists!!
Bureau of Counterterrorism
January 27, 2012

Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business.

Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Identification
The Bureau of Counterterrorism in the State Department (S/CT) continually monitors the activities of terrorist groups active around the world to identify potential targets for designation. When reviewing potential targets, S/CT looks not only at the actual terrorist attacks that a group has carried out, but also at whether the group has engaged in planning and preparations for possible future acts of terrorism or retains the capability and intent to carry out such acts.

Designation
Once a target is identified, S/CT prepares a detailed”administrative record,”which is a compilation of information, typically including both classified and open sources information, demonstrating that the statutory criteria for designation have been satisfied. If the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, decides to make the designation, Congress is notified of the Secretary’s intent to designate the organization and given seven days to review the designation, as the INA requires. Upon the expiration of the seven-day waiting period and in the absence of Congressional action to block the designation, notice of the designation is published in the Federal Register, at which point the designation takes effect. By law an organization designated as an FTO may seek judicial review of the designation in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit not later than 30 days after the designation is published in the Federal Register.

Until recently the INA provided that FTOs must be redesignated every 2 years or the designation would lapse. Under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA), however, the redesignation requirement was replaced by certain review and revocation procedures. IRTPA provides that an FTO may file a petition for revocation 2 years after its designation date (or in the case of redesignated FTOs, its most recent redesignation date) or 2 years after the determination date on its most recent petition for revocation. In order to provide a basis for revocation, the petitioning FTO must provide evidence that the circumstances forming the basis for the designation are sufficiently different as to warrant revocation. If no such review has been conducted during a 5 year period with respect to a designation, then the Secretary of State is required to review the designation to determine whether revocation would be appropriate. In addition, the Secretary of State may at any time revoke a designation upon a finding that the circumstances forming the basis for the designation have changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation, or that the national security of the United States warrants a revocation. The same procedural requirements apply to revocations made by the Secretary of State as apply to designations. A designation may be revoked by an Act of Congress, or set aside by a Court order.

Legal Criteria for Designation under Section 219 of the INA as amended

1. It must be a foreign organization.
2. The organization must engage in terrorist activity, as defined in section 212 (a)(3)(B) of the INA (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)),* or terrorism, as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2)),** or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
3. The organization’s terrorist activity or terrorism must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security (national defense, foreign relations, or the economic interests) of the United States.

Legal Ramifications of Designation

1. It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide”material support or resources”to a designated FTO. (The term”material support or resources”is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(1) as”any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who maybe or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(2) provides that for these purposes “the term ‘training’ means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge.” 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b)(3) further provides that for these purposes the term ‘expert advice or assistance’ means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.’’
2. Representatives and members of a designated FTO, if they are aliens, are inadmissible to and, in certain circumstances, removable from the United States (see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (a)(3)(B)(i)(IV)-(V), 1227 (a)(1)(A)).
3. Any U.S. financial institution that becomes aware that it has possession of or control over funds in which a designated FTO or its agent has an interest must retain possession of or control over the funds and report the funds to the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Other Effects of Designation

1. Supports our efforts to curb terrorism financing and to encourage other nations to do the same.
2. Stigmatizes and isolates designated terrorist organizations internationally.
3. Deters donations or contributions to and economic transactions with named organizations.
4. Heightens public awareness and knowledge of terrorist organizations.
5. Signals to other governments our concern about named organizations.

February 8, 2012 0 comments

MEK Camp Ashraf

Briefing on recent developments at Camp Ashraf

Special Briefing
Ambassador Daniel Fried Ambassador Daniel Fried, US Special Advisor for Camp Ashraf
Via Teleconference
Washington, DC
February 7, 2012

On Tuesday, Ambassador Daniel Fried, US Special Advisor for Camp Ashraf, gave an update via teleconference on the recent developments at Camp Ashraf in Iraq.

MR. TONER: Thank you, and thanks to everyone for joining us on such relatively short notice. Appreciate it. Very happy to have here with us this morning Ambassador Dan Fried, who, as you know, has taken on the additional responsibility of being our special advisor on Camp Ashraf. And he’s here today to update us on the status of the situation at Camp Ashraf as well as some details regarding the UN’s January 31st announcement that the facilities at former Camp Liberty now meet international humanitarian standards and are ready to receive the residents of Camp Ashraf.

Just a reminder before I hand the mike to Dan, this is an on-the-record call and Dan will say a few words, and then we’ll open it up to your questions. So without further ado, Ambassador Fried.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Thanks, everyone, for joining. The U.S. has – welcomed – the U.S. has and continues to welcome and support the peaceful temporary relocation and eventual permanent resettlement of the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq. This was the heart of Secretary Clinton’s statement on December 25th last year. Our purpose is humanitarian. We welcomed the signing of the MOU last Christmas Day between the Iraqi Government and the UN. This MOU charts a peaceful way forward.

Since the signing of that MOU, the Iraqi Government has worked to prepare a portion of former Camp Liberty, now called Camp Hurriya, to receive the first residents on a temporary basis, working in regular and close touch with the UN and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. That work has made enough progress that the UN last week confirmed that the facilities and infrastructure at Hurriya are in accordance with international humanitarian standards.

The UN recommended that the Government of Iraq and the Ashraf residents discuss details of the first move to Hurriya. Yesterday, an Iraqi representative met with the leadership of Camp Ashraf to discuss these details. The UN was present as facilitator. These discussions, according to all of our information, were businesslike and productive.

The United States welcomes this progress, and we look forward to the first residents moving from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya in the immediate future. In any move of this kind and in the early days, once people are settling into Hurriya, problems may arise, of course. Patience, goodwill, and willingness to resolve logistical issues in a practical way will be critical. The United States, through its Embassy in Baghdad and my office, will continue to support the reasonable, prompt resolution of issues that arise, cooperating with the UN and the Iraqi Government and in contact with the residents at former Camp Ashraf and, of course, Hurriya.

The residents of Camp Ashraf must make the decision to start this relocation process. Camp Ashraf is no longer a viable home for them. They have no secure future there. On the other hand, the Government of Iraq has committed itself to the security of the people at Camp Hurriya and is aware that the United States expects it to fulfill its responsibilities.

The UN has committed itself to stationing monitors at Camp Hurriya on a round-the-clock basis. In addition, as Secretary Clinton made clear in her statement, the U.S. will visit Hurriya on a regular and frequent basis. Camp Hurriya is intended as a temporary transit facility to support the safe departure of former Camp Ashraf residents from Iraq. In this regard, while the UN and the UNHCR are doing and will continue to do their part, governments in Europe and beyond and the United States must do our part as this process unfolds.

Once at Camp Hurriya, some people may decide to return to Iran, but on a voluntary basis only. Several hundred already have in the past. Others may have citizenship or valid residency status in third countries and should be able to return to their homes promptly. Still others may qualify for refugee status under UNHCR’s mandate. The residents who relocate to Camp Hurriya will need to be considered individually. To make our own determination about any specific individual, the United States needs to know more about them, and such information can be obtained only after they move to Hurriya and participate in the UNHCR’s status determination process.

In short, it is time for the MEK to make the decision to start the move out of Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty-Hurriya from where they can begin new lives outside of Iraq. A peaceful solution, no matter what the circumstances, is the only acceptable solution, but it is time to move forward.

Now, with that, I’ll take your questions. And – oh, I should add that the UN head of mission in Iraq Martin Kobler and I were in Europe late last week discussing all of these issues with the European Union, with European parliamentarians, and I met separately with the French Government to discuss the way ahead. So this is an issue very much in motion.

So I’ll now take your questions.

MR. TONER: Great. Thanks, Dan. And, Operator, you can go ahead and tee up the first question.

OPERATOR: Yes, thank you. If you would like to ask a question, press *1. To withdraw your request, press *2. One moment for the first question.

The first question comes from Matthew Lee of AP. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hey, Dan. Can I ask you what is prompting you to make this call today to tell the MEK that it’s now time? Has there been some new development where they’ve indicated they’re stalling again?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: I wouldn’t say that there’s a new development indicating stalling, but the reason I’m emphasizing this is because yesterday’s – last week’s determination by the UN that Camp Liberty was ready and yesterday’s practical discussions of the way ahead means that the time is now for the MEK to make its decision. It’s got to move forward. And it’s – all those who wish the residents of Ashraf a peaceful future outside of Iraq can help by encouraging the MEK to make the decision it needs to make.

QUESTION: Okay. But I thought – didn’t a limited number already move?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: No.

QUESTION: Or was that just an offer, that they said that some would —

AMBASSADOR FRIED: That was an offer.

QUESTION: It was an offer.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: No one has moved from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty because Camp Liberty was not yet ready to receive.

QUESTION: Oh, okay.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: So this was not a case of stalling. It was a case of the Iraqis having to get Camp Liberty up to speed. It now is. And that movement needs to start taking place.

QUESTION: All right. And who determined that it was okay, that it was habitable now? The U.S.?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: The UN. Not —

QUESTION: Not the envoy?

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Now, the U.S. has looked at it also, but the determination was made by technical experts from the UNHCR. The UN issued a statement last week, which is readily available, making clear that the infrastructure and facilities are now up to speed.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Sure.

MR. TONER: Next question.

OPERATOR: And I show no further questions at this time.

MR. TONER: All right. We’ll give it a couple of seconds, but – for you to weigh in if you’ve got any additional questions.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: Well, I’ll take that as a sign that my presentation was comprehensive and answered all possible questions.

MR. TONER: Very good. Operator, last chance for our contestants.

OPERATOR: We have a question from Ian Duncan*. Go ahead.

MR. TONER: Right.

QUESTION: Hi, there. I’m calling from the LA Times. I just wondered to what extent the FTO designation hinders the U.S. role in the process and if there are any plans to change that designation.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: My office is not part of the FTO designation process. Obviously, I’m aware that that is a decision which the Secretary will make. We are – our interest in a humanitarian solution for the people at Camp Ashraf is quite independent of that decision. And we are able to move forward even now without that decision having been made.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks very much.

OPERATOR: Thank you. Next question comes from Andrew Quinn with Reuters. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. I have a couple of quick questions. One was: I was wondering if there has been any agreement on the process of moving people. I understand that there was some dispute over whether or not they’d be able to take their own vehicles, how they would get from Ashraf to Liberty. Do you know if that has actually been resolved and how they would get from A to B?

And the second question is: Earlier – last month, actually – and Mrs. Rajavi gave a speech in Paris where she said that the United States would hold full responsibility for all Ashraf members – for the safety of Ashraf members while they’re in Iraq. Is that a responsibility that the United States is now willing to accept, given the status of Camp Liberty? Thank you.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: First, the issue of the organization of the convoys was, I understand, discussed yesterday in some detail between the Iraqi Government representative and the Camp Ashraf leadership. I also understand that some good progress was made. And that – we welcome that. We welcome that.

With respect to the U.S. responsibility, Iraq is a sovereign country. Iraq has the responsibility for the exercise of that sovereignty, and they know that a peaceful solution is the only acceptable one. The U.S. is not the sovereign in Iraq. We are doing our best, and we are committed to trying to support a peaceful relocation of the people at Ashraf over to Camp – old Camp Liberty, and then support the UNHR efforts to get them out of Camp Liberty and out of Iraq. We’re going to try our best.

The responsibility for the next decision rests with the MEK. They need – the Iraqi Government has done, so far, what it committed to do; that is, it’s got Camp Liberty up to speed. The MEK and the residents of Ashraf, for their part, held a constructive set of discussions yesterday, and we welcome that. And now the decision has to be theirs to start this process and to work with all of us so that the shared objective, shared by all the sides in this – the UN, the Iraqi Government, the people at Camp Ashraf – for a peaceful solution. And the departure of these people from Iraq is up to them. A peaceful solution is at hand, but they’ve got to take it.

MR. TONER: Great. Any more questions?

OPERATOR: There are no further questions at this time.

MR. TONER: Okay. Well, we’ll take that for a sign that you’re all fully briefed on this. Anyway, thank you very much, all of you, for joining us today. And thanks to Ambassador Fried for also taking time.

AMBASSADOR FRIED: All right. Well, thanks a lot, everybody. And I’ll keep – I’ll – we can do this again when the news justifies it.

MR. TONER: Great. Thanks, all.

February 8, 2012 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts