Open Letter to President Nicolas Sarkozy To President Nicolas Sarkozy Dear Mr. President The Global war on terrorism calls for prompt action against terrorist moves wherever they might threaten people’s peace and tranquillity. For long a blacklisted terrorist group, Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), has taken safe haven in your country. Recently, the EU has maintained MKO on its terror list, but simultaneously the group organized a rally in the vicinity of Paris as a show of objection to the decision and demanded to be removed from the list. It is so paradoxical that a banned terrorist group is at the liberty to gather a claimed number of 50,000 supporters at Park De Expositions Villepinte, north of Paris. In spite of the fact that MKO continues to be on the EU list, its activities have neither been restricred nor barred. Such negligence is expected to be legally investigated in your government. Legally adopted countermeasures like that of freezing assets hardly seem to be productive against a terrorist cult that none of its financial sources is legal. Has the coalition forces’ control of MKO Camp Ashraf proved to have contributed to group’s ceasing suspicious terrorist moves and interfering in Iraq’s domestic affairs? In fact, MKO’s unpredictable and circumstantial solution findings to confront a crisis make it a hard task to counteract it by the means of conventional precautionary measures. It is a typical tactic exploited by MKO to take advantage of the escalated political discordances between parties and factions in Western countries to advance its political ambitions. It takes position in the front of any party that it has an iota of hope to advocate the group’s stances whether it considers any political or ideological affinity with the party or not. An evident example can be traced during French presidential campaign when the group enthusiastically campaigned in the favour of the Socialist Party. But now the group has changed position seeing your rival’s defeat. Once more it takes a chance, being disappointed in the past, to provoke your government against Iran to take a hostile position, to halt the process of the June 17th dossier accusing it of terrorist allegations, to demand removal of its name from the French list of terror and consequently, and to unfreeze its assets in France. MKO has proved that it has the potentiality to take advantage of a variety of terrorist leverages and cult-like moves to accomplish its ends. A clear example of such moves is a wave of self-immolations committed by the group’s members in 17 June 2003 following the detention of Maryam Rajavi. Indeed, similar moves can challenge your government as in her 30 June speech Rajavi states that her group’s uses all “means and resources to force the Council to accept the Court ruling and remove the PMOI from the list”. Not paying the least respect for democracy and democratic approaches, MKO takes shelter behind the democratic potentialities practiced in your country as a granted strategy to move on. In fact, it is an organizationally adopted strategy to hypocritically adapt to the political, cultural and social milieu of the country the group chooses to situate a bastion. Once its leaders shook hands with the ousted Saddam and colluded with him against the Iraqi people but now it organizes shows of solidarity with those same victimized people utilized as tools to survive in Iraqi soil. It seems to be for the first time that a globally proscribed terrorist group defiantly challenges the world and impudently engages in political manoeuvres not only in the Western countries but in a country that is located in a region enflamed in turmoil for decades. It is hard to believe that the West can give any justification for the remiss and negligence that might be a result of disregarding to abide by internationally adopted resolutions to combat terrorism. At the present, MKO insidiously attempts in three fronts of Iraq, Europe and America to muster advocates. In the US, in spite of being re-designated as a terrorist group, MKO is creeping into the inconsequential rifts between the Neocons, the Pentagon and the State Department, in the Europe, in spite of being maintained on the EU list of terror, is misleading a number of former political activists or opposition parliamentarians, and in Iraq, despite the Iraqi government decision to expel the group from the country, it colludes with dissident and insurgent groups and factions against the Iraqi legitimate government to intensify the tension in the region so as to secure its stay in Iraq. To what extend MKO achieves success depends on the amount of the cost the West has to sustain. There are evidences that the world never consents to another terrorist phenomenon similar to al-Qaeda, but can the West’s double-dealing concerning MKO can in any way minimize the threat of emerging another al-Qaeda? The cost, for sure, would be much greater for the West to sustain. Currently, MKO’s strategy is aimed at a vast media and propaganda blitz in Iraq and the Europe to provoke the democratic capacities of these countries to show inevitable reactions that ensue from a loose of tolerating the group’s blasphemies. That can be defined as the zero-point where MKO can justifiably apply violent means to defend what it believes to be its democratic rights. The strategy is explicitly put into practice when Maryam Rajavie in her speech flagrantly uses a disrespectful tone whenever addressing the EU Council of Ministers calling them with many names, as it always does when referring to its opponents and critics, and accusing them that their just decision is the outcome of an attempt to appease the Iranian regime. Moreover, she blatantly makes a mockery of the EU’s decision when saying “Nevertheless, the mountains finally labored and they have given birth to a mouse”. Mr. President, It seems that at this juncture a close monitoring of MKO’s run media deem necessary to develop an exactly calculated judgment of MKO’s positions and its long-term objectives concerning your government. The daily publicized maladroitly political positions against Western countries in general, and your government in particular, bear between the lines the existential threats of the organization. Recurrently expressed in MKO leaders’ speech and messages, the group poses an “existential threat” to Iran. It can be considered as a warning posed to whoever sides in a front against MKO and, of course, nobody sides with terrorists. Consequently, a close watch of the group to counteract its terrorist threats before they are put into practice is the least counter-terrorist move your government can conduct to make sure that a prompt decision was made before it was too late Mojahedin.ws – July 8, 2007
An Iraqi official unveils close cooperation between members of Mujahideen Khalq Organization, Al-Qaeda and elements of Iraq’s Baath Party.
Ouad Nejm al-Rabiee, a member of Dayali National Salvation Council, also disclosed that MKO renders financial assistance to some Iraqi opposition groups, according to Iran’s Fars news agency.
He pointed out that a large number of elements affiliated to former Iraq’s Baathist regime in Jialeh, El-Kebishat and Abou Nakhl villages that are near to MKO headquarters receive large amount of cash for carrying out terrorist attacks in all provinces of Iraq.
He called on Iraqi government and parliament to take measures for deporting MKO members from Iraq.
In early 2007, the Iraqi government announced that MKO interferes in Iraq’s internal affairs and ordered them to leave the Arab country.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi government spokesman said that MKO can choose between returning to Iran or go to another country.
Ali al-Dabbagh stressed that Iraqi Constitution does not allow granting asylum to any terrorist organization. ‘We warn MKO to respect Iraq’s laws and regulations while leaving Iraq,’ he added
‘Congressional Weekly’ wrote that the US Pentagon is planning to train MKO elements against Iran. The US has always opposed to banning MKO’s activities in Iraq.
Hundreds of MKO members are stationed in Ashraf Military Camp in Al-Azim region, 70 km North of Baghdad.
Press TV
An open letter to the British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith
A communiqué was issued on June 07, 2007 by the Mojahedin Khalq Organisation (MKO)’s cult leader Massoud Rajavi, who has been a fugitive since the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
In the communiqué, Rajavi names three people, including myself, who are witnesses in the on-going investigation against the cult by the French Judiciary, and specifically describes them as "the agents of the Iranian secret services". For those familiar with the MKO cult, this is clearly understood to be Rajavi’s method of issuing a death sentence to be carried out by his followers.
On June 17, 2007 over 50 people associated with the MKO cult lay in wait to attack a public meeting in Paris at which the three persons mentioned above were among the invitees. It was later revealed that the attack had been orchestrated from the MKO cult HQ in Auvers-sur-Oise. According to French police, the assailants in this violent attack had been transferred to France from other European countries. None had French documents, some had false documents. The attackers also filmed their activities at the scene. This was reminiscent of the series of orchestrated self-immolations following the arrest of the cult leader’s wife Maryam Rajavi in June 2003, which were also filmed by the cult’s activists.
There is evidence that at least some part of the military-style operation on June 17 had targeted the three individuals named in Massoud Rajavi’s recent communiqué in an assassination attempt. The incident is currently being investigated by French police.
There is clear evidence that some of those involved in the violent attack were MKO militants trained by Saddam Hussein in Iraq who had been sent directly from Camp Ashraf to European countries in the past few months. Camp Ashraf is of course guarded by the American Army in Iraq. Following the capture of Camp Ashraf terrorist base in 2003, US officials – both military and civil – processed all the captured combatants, taking DNA and fingerprint evidence and issuing them with ID cards. Several of these people have been recently seen in the UK, Germany, France and Netherlands participating in MKO activities in the EU.
It is clear that responsibility for the lives of people attacked by a terrorist organisation which is apparently favoured by some Israeli lobbies and neo-conservative circles to be used to carry out terrorist acts against Iranians, Iraqis and others, cannot be laid at the door of the cult itself, but must rest with the people who have been maintaining them as a terrorist force whether in Iraq or in Europe and North America. Those who have refused to dismantle the MKO’s infrastructure and continue to support them financially as well as loosening their leashes in western countries will be held accountable for any harm which comes to those either directly named and threatened by Massoud Rajavi or to any others who are harmed by implication.
Yours Sincerely,
Anne Singleton.
cc
Mrs Michele Alliot-Marie, French Interior Minister
Dr Wolfgang Schauble, German Interior Minister
Ms Dr Guusje Ter Horst, Netherlands Interior Minister
Dr Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, USA
Anne Singleton, June 09, 2007
Update issues on Iran
Mujahedin Khalq (MKO) in the name of an Iranian Opposition group. They were based in Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein and cooperated with the dictator closely. Now that they have to leave that country, they are trying to settle down in Oslo.
Ibrahim Khodabandeh talks about the group disappointedly. . Maryam Rajavi, the Cult leader was recently received in Norwegian parliament. (we should inform the readers that Ibrahim Khodabande was arrested while he was taking two million dollars out of Iraq, he is accused of working with an Iranian dissident group)
Ibrahim was arrested with two million dollars in Iraq- Syria border; Iraq without Saddam Hussein was not safe for MKO and the money had to be transferred to a safe place; at first he was detained in Syrian prison, ‘’the situation there was really bad” he says, before he was transferred to Evin Prison where “is not so bad” and he was allowed to read books on religious cults and cultures. During his research he found out that MKO is also a religious cult.
“MKO as a Religious Cult”
“In high ranks of MKO only the women can be leaders” Khodabande says. It is also said that because the women have always been under pressure now MKO wants to compensate. But in fact the reason is that Masud Rajavi, the real leader and Maryam’s husband, is afraid of making rivals; he thinks that women do not try to compete there fore their growth is allowed. He has forbidden the authority for male rivals and created the women hegemony. Masud Rajavi considers it as a part of ideological revolution.
Maryam was before the wife of one of the MKO leaders [ Mehdi Abrishamchi] he was imposed to declare his great happiness since he could help the “ ideological alliance” between his wife and Masud Rajavi.
In Ibrahim’s opinion it is one of the characteristics of a religious cult that the leader is able to marry the wife of another leader of the organization.
Another aspect of MKO, as a religious cult is that the members have always to obey and follow the leaders.( he says) the leader is everything and everyone has to follow his needs. Maryam Rajavi says:”you can doubt about God but not about Masud, because you can doubt what you don’t see but not what you see.” Nobody in the organization is allowed to doubt about Masud.
“Leader and Objective” are above every thing, Ibrahim says. “Your family and children prevent you from them”. So Masud decided to send the MKO members’ children to other countries where they could be adopted or trained. the members are not allowed to contact their children . The slogan was:” everything for the leader”.
We ask:” what happened to the children?”
Nobody wants to talk about it. Some members were affected by mental problems. Some returned to Iraq to join MKO. The total number is about 1000.
“In Iran you can easily be an opponent to regime.” He says. He himself doesn’t support the Islamic Republic regime but he thinks that he was deceived by MKO cult.
“MKO enjoys the whole criteria of a religious cult. It has a self-proclaimed leader. It enjoys an absolute monarchy structure. The leader has complete control over members’ lives.
Salt Journal – May2007
One can’t find a city called "Ashraf" in all geographical or political maps of Iraq.
Iraqi students wouldn’t be able to answer your questions, if asked about Ashraf. It’s there, and meanwhile it’s not.
In the view of Saleh Mulaq and other Iraqis who have taken part in MKO’s carnivals for nearly three decades, such city exists and is considered as a center for heroic resistance!
Saleh Mutlaq, member of Iraqi parliament, has even been appointed as the honorary chief of MKO’s recent carnival and it’s amazing that he criticized Iraqi government in MKO’s Camp instead of Iraqi parliament.
In his speech, he even criticized the US, forgetting that he was speaking in the camp of an organization that is fully supported by the US, exchanges intelligence on Iranian nuclear program with it. This move shocked political analysts, who believe that all claims by Mutlaq on Iraq’s sovereignty are phony.
There is no city called Ashraf on Iraqi map; it was built as a camp for Iranian terrorists. As Iraq invaded Iran, a state-of-the-art camp was constructed. The group was equipped and the camp has now become a center for social-political activities of Iraqis who are part of the government but at the same time criticize it.
This so-called city witnesses strange relationship between the leaders of Mojahedin-e Khalq and Iraqi (and non-Iraqi) terrorist groups, including the "Islamic Government of Iraq" that assassinates Iraqis and seeks unrest in Iraq.
There are still light and heavy weapons in Ashraf, arms that were given to the group by Saddam Hussein. Some Iraqi terrorist groups have recently received weapons.
After distancing itself from Iran and resorting to violent armed movement against Iranians, and after seeking shelter in Iraq, the MKO turned into a bargaining chip in the international political scene.
In order to decrease the pressure of war on its ally, the group sought shelter in Saddam’s Iraq and stood next to Baathists right at the peak of Iran-Iraq war. Saddam, on his part, provided the organization will all kinds of blessings when Iraqi people were in poverty and desperation; he armed the group and provided them comfort.
From the beginning, the MKO played the role of mercenary for Saddam Hussein’s security and military services. One who escaped the trap says that apart from logistical assistance, the organization received 75 million dollars monthly from the Iraqi government. Each member received 500 dollars monthly from the government. Those involved in military activities got 2000 dollars plus to their salary.
MKO had surrendered tens of its internal opponents and critics to Iraqi security organizations. Iraq kept them in Al-Rezvanieh prison or exchanged them with Iraqi prisoners in Iran.
Therefore, the MKO turned into a tool in the hands of Iraqi regime and its espionage services to suppress all opposing voices. This cooperation’s peak was the suppression of 1991’s uprising of Iraqis in Kikuk and central parts of Iraq. The MKO had become an inseparable part of Saddam’s security services and after the ouster of Saddam, it was changed to a center for boosting the morale of remnants of Saddam and a base for spreading instability and unrest in the country.
In return for US’s agreement on group’s stay in Iraq, the group is ready to perform all kinds of services for Americans.
This is an unfair game. The resumption of this group’s presence of in Iraq would have irrecoverable damages to Iraq. It’s regrettable that the issue of MKO had not been discussed by the council of representatives until recently.
The parliament should make a decision about and condemn the US’s support for terrorists. The US is using the MKO against Iran. This is not helpful for Iraqis and on the contrary, it brings instability and destruction to the country.
Adel Habe, Sotaliraq
The presence of MKO in Iraq for the accomplishment of joint strategic objectives in line with local and regional transitions expanded MKO-Saddam coalition far beyond a simple collaboration that ended in an ideological unity. The extent of their cooperation covers a broad range of issues, but here the focus is on the role of Mojahedin in the bloody suppression of Iraqi Kurds in a conducted operation called Morvarid (pearl) that again turned into a cause for the separation of many insiders.
Explicitly referring to the role of MKO in this crackdown, the recently published State Department’s report quotes Maryam Rajavi encouraging MKO combatants to "take the Kurds under your tanks". Also, there is a TV documentary picturing Kurds mainly based on evidences presented by the eye-witnesses, victims, and even the former MKO members who took part in the operation. Despite all such authentic documents, Mojahedin claim they have not been responsible for Kurds repression and put the blame on the Iranian government as well as the former MKO members. However, Bijan Niyabati’s A Different Look at Mojahedin’s Internal Revolution refers to the key role played by Mojahedin in Kurds repression in Iraq. He points to the fact tat Mojahedin took part in this operation as a token of their gratitude to the regime of Saddam Hussein and also in order to win his absolute trust. According to Bijan Niabati:
The Operation Morvarid may be considered as a remarkable military and political victory for Mojahedin as well. Morvarid stabilizes MKO’s stance in Iraqi soil. Both Iraqi regime, somehow owing its survival to the presence and resistance of Mojahedin, and Mojahedin, for the first time associating with a regional and strategic ally tolerating one of the rare revolutionary and radical organizations that is a remnant of the cold war era and bears to pay the regional as well as international costs of such an alliance, see in each other the features of a strategic ally. Mojahedin proved to be not only a trustful ally but also can be accounted as a parameter of power in regional fluctuations. 108
An analysis of these statements may reveal the motives behind and the dimension of MKO-Saddam joint collaboration in suppression of Iraqi Kurds:
1. The Operation Morvarid stabilizes MKO’s presence in Iraqi soil.
2. Iraqi regime owes its survival in Iraq to the presence and resistance of MKO.
3. It is for the first time that Mojahedin have found a regional and strategic ally.
4. Each sees in the other the features of a strategic ally.
5. Mojahedin proved to be not only a trustful ally but also accounted as a parameter of power in regional fluctuations.
The above factors summarize different dimensions of the alliance from both a political and strategic viewpoint far from any attempt to confirm or deny the role of Mojahedin in repression of the Kurds.
Quoting Rajavi, To be Judged by the History openly refers to other ideological and political factors that tie the two sides; it is a tie of brotherhood and destinies, and the assertion of cult-like features shared by MKO and Iraqi Ba’th party. The Operation Pearl totally represents the orientation of MKO toward Saddam’s regime and its opponents during and after Saddam’s downfall. Furthermore, the case Anfal, dealing with Saddam regime’s suppression of Kurds, is open before the court and it is much likely that the role of Mojahedin in this case be investigated. In this regard, a great number of former MKO members have made requests for giving testimony in the court. Also, the U.S. State Department report confirms MKO’s participation in the crackdown. Finally, it has to be noted that the book written by Niyabati elaborates on the relationship between MKO and Iraqi regime from different angles which will be discussed later
Bahar Irani – Mojahedin.ws – July 5, 2007
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. News has emerged that US Vice President Dick Cheney is subject to impeachment. Part of the accusation against him involves links with the terrorist Mojahedin Khalq cult as highlighted in article 3 below: (3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:
(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization. Press Release US House Resolution 333 Dennis Kucinich 4 July 2007 04:15 110th CONGRESS 1st Session H. RES. 333 Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 24, 2007 Mr. KUCINICH submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
RESOLUTION
Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:
(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:
(A) `We know they have biological and chemical weapons.’ March 17, 2002, Press Conference by Vice President Dick Cheney and His Highness Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, Crown Prince of Bahrain at Shaikh Hamad Palace.
(B) `. . . and we know they are pursuing nuclear weapons.’ March 19, 2002, Press Briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem.
(C) `And he is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time . . .’ March 24, 2002, CNN Late Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `We know he’s got chemicals and biological and we know he’s working on nuclear.’ May 19, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) `But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons . . . Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.’ August 26, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention.
(F) `Based on intelligence that’s becoming available, some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons, that he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon, that there are efforts under way inside Iraq to significantly expand his capability.’ September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(G) `He is, in fact, actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.’ September 8, 2002, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) `And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.’ March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Vice President pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and Congress of the United States.
(A) Vice President Cheney and his Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, made multiple trips to the CIA in 2002 to question analysts studying Iraq’s weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration’s policy objectives accounts.
(B) Vice President Cheney sought out unverified and ultimately inaccurate raw intelligence to prove his preconceived beliefs. This strategy of cherry picking was employed to influence the interpretation of the intelligence.
(3) The Vice President’s actions corrupted or attempted to corrupt the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, an intelligence document issued on October 1, 2002, and carefully considered by Congress prior to the October 10, 2002, vote to authorize the use of force. The Vice President’s actions prevented the necessary reconciliation of facts for the National Intelligence Estimate which resulted in a high number of dissenting opinions from technical experts in two Federal agencies.
(A) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate stated `Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute it’s nuclear weapons program INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening. As a result INR is unable to predict that Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.’.
(B) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate also stated that `Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.’.
(C) The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissenting view in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate references a Department of Energy opinion by stating that `INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.’.
The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article II
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security interests, to wit:
(1) Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Vice President actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda:
(A) `His regime has had high-level contacts with Al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to Al Qaeda terrorists.’ December 2, 2002, Speech of Vice President Cheney at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference.
(B) `His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us.’ January 30, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to 30th Political Action Conference in Arlington, Virginia.
(C) `We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the Al Qaeda organization.’ March 16, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons . . .’ September 14, 2003, NBC Meet the Press interview with Vice President Cheney.
(E) `Al Qaeda had a base of operation there up in Northeastern Iraq where they ran a large poisons factory for attacks against Europeans and U.S. forces.’ October 3, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney at Bush-Cheney ’04 Fundraiser in Iowa.
(F) `He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda providing training to Al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases, and conventional bombs.’ October 10, 2003, Speech of Vice President Cheney to the Heritage Foundation.
(G) `Al Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence services have worked together on a number of occasions.’ January 9, 2004, Rocky Mountain News interview with Vice President Cheney.
(H) `I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government.’ January 22, 2004, NPR: Morning Edition interview with Vice President Cheney.
(I) `First of all, on the question of–of whether or not there was any kind of relationship, there clearly was a relationship. It’s been testified to; the evidence is overwhelming.’ June 17, 2004, CNBC: Capital Report interview with Vice President Cheney.
(2) Preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq the Vice President was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents, including:
(A) A classified Presidential Daily Briefing ten days after the September 11, 2001, attacks indicating that the United States intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was `scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda’.
(B) Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02, issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency, which challenged the credibility of information gleaned from captured al Qaeda leader al-Libi. The DIA report also cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy: `Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.’.
(C) A January 2003 British intelligence classified report on Iraq that concluded that `there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network’.
The Vice President subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United States service members; the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed Services due to overextension, lack of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
Article III
In his conduct while Vice President of the United States, Richard B. Cheney, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of Vice President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran absent any real threat to the United States, and done so with the United States proven capability to carry out such threats, thus undermining the national security of the United States, to wit:
(1) Despite no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States and despite the turmoil created by United States invasion of Iraq, the Vice President has openly threatened aggression against Iran as evidenced by the following:
(A) `For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.’ March 7, 2006, Speech of Vice President Cheney to American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2006 Policy Conference.
(B) `But we’ve also made it clear that all options are on the table.’ January 24, 2007, CNN Situation Room interview with Vice President Cheney.
(C) `When we–as the President did, for example, recently–deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the Gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.’ January 29, 2007, Newsweek interview with Vice President Cheney.
(D) `But I’ve also made the point and the President has made the point that all options are still on the table.’ February 24, 2007, Vice President Cheney at Press Briefing with Australian Prime Minister in Sydney, Australia.
(2) The Vice President, who repeatedly and falsely claimed to have had specific, detailed knowledge of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities, is no doubt fully aware of evidence that demonstrates Iran poses no real threat to the United States as evidenced by the following:
(A) `I know that what we see in Iran right now is not the industrial capacity you can [use to develop a] bomb.’ Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
(B) Iran indicated its `full readiness and willingness to negotiate on the modality for the resolution of the outstanding issues with the IAEA, subject to the assurances for dealing with the issues in the framework of the Agency, without the interference of the United Nations Security Council’. IAEA Board Report, February 22, 2007.
(C) `. . . so whatever they have, what we have seen today, is not the kind of capacity that would enable them to make bombs.’ Mohamed El Baradei, Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency, February 19, 2007.
(3) The Vice President is fully aware of the actions taken by the United States towards Iran that are further destabilizing the world as evidenced by the following:
(A) The United States has refused to engage in meaningful diplomatic relations with Iran since 2002, rebuffing both bilateral and multilateral offers to dialogue.
(B) The United States is currently engaged in a military buildup in the Middle East that includes the increased presence of the United States Navy in the waters near Iran, significant United States Armed Forces in two nations neighboring to Iran, and the installation of anti-missile technology in the region.
(C) News accounts have indicated that military planners have considered the B61-11, a tactical nuclear weapon, as one of the options to strike underground bunkers in Iran.
(D) The United States has been linked to anti-Iranian organizations that are attempting to destabilize the Iranian government, in particular the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), even though the state department has branded it a terrorist organization.
(E) News accounts indicate that United States troops have been ordered into Iran to collect data and establish contact with anti-government groups.
(4) In the last three years the Vice President has repeatedly threatened Iran. However, the Vice President is legally bound by the U.S. Constitution’s adherence to international law that prohibits threats of use of force.
(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution states, `This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.’ Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States.
(B) The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states, `All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’ The threat of force is illegal.
(C) Article 51 lays out the only exception, `Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.’ Iran has not attacked the United States; therefore any threat against Iran by the United States is illegal.
The Vice President’s deception upon the citizens and Congress of the United States that enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq forcibly altered the rules of diplomacy such that the Vice President’s recent belligerent actions towards Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States.
In all of this, Vice President Richard B. Cheney has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as Vice President, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
Iran says US call to use MKO "giant leap in wrong direction" Iran’s mission to the UN here Wednesday said a call made by two US representatives to take more political advantage of the terrorist Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization against Iran was a "giant leap in wrong direction".
The mission made the statement in response to an article written by Rep Tom Tancredo and Bob Filner published by `Washington Times’ on June 15. The two Republican representatives called on the Bush administrator to make more use of the MKO against Iran.
In its response letter published in Washington Times on Wednesday, the mission expressed regret over a false approach towards the terrorist group and a recommendation to use it in line with illegitimate goals of the US foreign policy.
"The Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization is a known terrorist group that has committed atrocities in Iran and in the region for more than four decades. "It has a dark history of aligning itself with the Baathist regime of (former Iraqi president) Saddam Hussein which used it as a mercenary army against the Kurds and to invade Iran from its bases in Iraq," the letter said.
It added, "Even prior to September 11, the MKO was in the initial stages of aligning itself with the Taliban and Al Qaeda but its plans to set up bases in Afghanistan vanished with the developments in Kabul."
"The authors have not done a proper scrutiny of the MKO’s violent record which includes the assassination of a president, a prime minister and 80 lawmakers as well as thousands of innocent Iranian civilians," it said.
"Despite claims by the authors, the terrorist cult gave up its weapons only after US troops attacked its base in Iraq, at which point it began a process of adaptation to a post-September 11 era where there is no tolerance for terrorism in any country. It now claims for democratic values."
The mission described as "a definite misnomer" the appellation "democratic" for the MKO terrorist group, saying, "The MKO has an eclectic ideology that blends Stalinist Marxism and militant leftism with ossified interpretations of Islam (like Al Qaeda), espousing the idea of urban guerrilla warfare."
The letter called on the authors to pay attention that "it is not only the US government but also the European Union which have branded the MKO as terrorist, based on an anti-democratic cult of leadership who systematically purge and even torture their internal critics per a recent report by the Human Rights Watch".
In response to a part of the article which claimed that Iran’s severe reaction to the terrorist group showed its importance, the mission said, "Severe efforts against a terrorist group are not a sign of its size or significance, rather they reflect the
seriousness of terrorism danger as the main problem to the international peace and security. "This is what the international community should refuse in consensus and to avoid double standards."
The mission slammed the two representatives outlook on making use of the group against Iran, stressing, "The proud Iranian nation will never embrace such armed cliques supported by alien powers, a group whose leaders have repeatedly showed their terrorist face."
"It is also a contradiction to refer to the MKO as a relatively small group based largely in the Iranian diaspora which has proved a reliable source of intelligence and a useful tool to deal with Iran and on the other as a viable Iranian democratic opposition group."
"At a time when the Iraqi government has demanded the expulsion of the MKO terrorists from their territory, the authors’ call for the use of the group as a political tool against a democratic, elected government is a giant leap in the wrong direction," the letter further stated."
06/07/2007, IRNA
Liability and Unity within cults..!
Large numbers of newspapers purchase stories from the Associated Press (AP) and publish those stories as if the content possessed any value or accuracy. While many newspapers require their reporters to double check facts for the articles they write, the same newspapers publish Associated Press (AP) stories as is.
For example, the International Herald Tribune was one of the newspapers publishing
1. It is standard procedure for the Rajavi Cult (MEK, MKO, PMOI, NCRI, Pol Pot of Iran) to exaggerate the number of supporters attending demonstrations. Masoud Banisadr, a former Rajavi Cult member, has written a book, Masoud, including explanations of the lies about demonstrations. The Associated Press (AP) reported 50,000 demonstrators in the streets but only 10,000 demonstrators going to a hall.
2. It is standard procedure for the Rajavi Cult to pay its supporters to attend the demonstrations. Masoud Banisadr wrote that the Rajavi Cult spent $500,000 on major demonstrations. In the past, Saddam Hussein provided millions of dollars of financing for the Rajavi Cult. Why has the Associated Press (AP) failed to disclose who financed this latest demonstration?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/traitorsusa/message/3228
3. The Associated Press (AP) has a long history of promoting communists and of attacking anti-communists (especially former communists). See, for example, how the Associated Press defended Alger Hiss and attacked Whittaker Chambers for decades.
Hiss Obituaries Prove Network Laziness
by L. Brent Bozell III
November 21, 1996
How is it that all these reports not only declare Hiss an innocent victim, but echo one another in tone? I offer as an answer a 334-word Associated Press dispatched labeled “Urgent” put out at 5:11 the night of November 15 with the headline “Alger Hiss, Nixon Nemesis, Dead at 92.” It read: “Alger Hiss, the patrician public servant who fell from grace in a Communist spy scandal that propelled Richard Nixon to higher office, died Friday afternoon…Hiss’ life can be neatly broken into two parts. The first was a stellar rise to a brilliant academic career…But on Aug. 3, 1948, a rumpled, overweight magazine editor named Whittaker Chambers alleged that 10 years earlier, Hiss had given him State Department secrets….For the rest of his life, he worked for vindication….He proclaimed that it had come finally in 1992, at age 87, when a Russian general in charge of Soviet intelligence archives declared that Hiss had never been a spy, but rather a victim of Cold War hysteria and the McCarthy Red-hunting era.”
http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/1996/col19961121.asp
4-16-07
Hiss Was Guilty
By John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr
John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr are the authors, most recently, of Early Cold War Spies: The Espionage Trials That Shaped American Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
“For nearly sixty years, Alger Hiss’s defenders have mounted one campaign after another to discredit the mountain of evidence that proves he spied for the Soviet Union.”
http://hnn.us/articles/3745
Paul Sheldon Foote
http://360.yahoo.com/paulsheldonfoote
July 2, 2007