Articles

Should Carl Benstein go to prison for supporting terrorist MEK?

ProPublica’s Justin Elliott reports that "Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein" got $12,000 for a speech he gave at the Waldorf Astoria in Manhattan last February in support of removing the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) from the State Department’s list of "foreign terrorist organizations." Although it is unclear what ethical rule Bernstein, who writes for Newsweek and Vanity Fair, is supposed to have broken, Elliott treats this speaking engagement as vaguely scandalous, noting that Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page was rebuked by his employer for giving a similar speech in Paris last June without getting prior approval. But Elliott buries the real scandal: Such advocacy can be not only a professional faux pas but a federal crime, depending on the details and the government’s interpretation of a statute banning "material support" for terrorism.

Does ProPublica Think Carl Bernstein Should Go to Prison for Giving a Speech?

The MEK, blamed for killing Americans in the 1970s and for a string of attacks on Iranian targets that ended in 2001, claims to have renounced violence and has filed a federal lawsuit asking to be reclassified. Judging from Elliott’s penultimate paragraph, it has a pretty strong case:

A federal appeals court in June ordered that [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton must decide on the MEK’s status by Oct. 1. If she fails to take action, the court said it would delist the MEK itself. The order also criticized Clinton for putting off a decision on the MEK, calling the delay "egregious."

The MEK’s cause has attracted support not only from Bernstein and Page but from prominent political figures such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), and former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. All of them arguably committed felonies by speaking "for the benefit" of a terrorist organization, a kind of "service" that qualifies as "material support."

In its June 2010 decision upholding this broad ban on material support, the Supreme Court said "independently advocating for a cause is different from providing a service to a group that is advocating for that cause." Although the statute does not say so, the Court suggested that advocacy should be considered material support only when it is "performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization." But it is still not clear how much coordination is required to transform constitutionally protected speech into a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

If the MEK had contacted Bernstein or any of the other speakers directly, even if it did not pay them, that presumably would count as impermissible coordination. As it is, Elliott notes (but not until the 17th paragraph), the Treasury Department is investigating whether any MEK front groups helped cover the speaking fees. "The MEK is a designated terrorist group," a department spokesman explains. "Therefore U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with or providing services to this group." As if to assist the government’s inquisition, Elliott does some digging of his own:

Who paid for the Waldorf Astoria event?

Bruce McColm, president of the Global Initiative for Democracy [formerly executive director of Freedom House], told ProPublica in an email: "Resources for the event were provided by the Iranian-American community in New Jersey, New York, Northern California and Texas."

McColm added that "[t]he financial arrangements for speakers were handled by the Iranian-American Community. For the legal at heart, there were no funds provided by NCRI/MEK or any other so-called front groups." NCRI stands for National Council of Resistance of Iran and is recognized by the State Department as an alias for the MEK….

The Global Initiative for Democracy was incorporated in Virginia last November. The Alexandria-based group’s mission statement says it "engages in wide ranging activities nationwide to promote the cause of democracy, human rights, religious tolerance, and cultural and artistic diversity in Iran as well as to ensure the safety and security of political refugees and asylum-seekers."

But much like other groups that have organized pro-MEK events, the Global Initiative for Democracy appears to be primarily focused on the MEK. The only other event detailed on the group’s website was a pro-MEK event held at a Washington hotel in May and featuring former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton and former State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, among others. News stories featured on the group’s website mostly involve the MEK.

Elliott appears to be insinuating that McColm’s organization is another MEK front group, which if true could expose Bernstein, Bolton, and Crowley to criminal charges based on their words of support. In this context, Bernstein, who tells Elliott his speech was "largely about using the designation of terrorist and subversive organizations as a smokescreen for other things," does not seem to be exaggerating much when he calls stories like this one "journalistic McCarthyism."

Jacob Sullum, Reason.com

September 6, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Can a designated terrorist group purchase the support of notable Americans

Can a designated Iranian terrorist group (MEK) purchase the support of notable Americans to champion their cause?

It has been often said that everything in Washington is for sale and that which is not for sale can be leased …

What do the following individuals have in common?

•Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey
•Former Congressman Patrick Kennedy (Rhode Island)
•Noted Author Carl Bernstein;
•Former Governor Howard Dean (Vermont)
•Former Governor Ed Rendell (Pennsylvania)
•Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Illinois)
•Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani (New York)
•Retired General Henry Shelton
•Retired General George Casey
•Retired Lieutenant General David Deptula
•Former FBI director Louis Freeh

It appears that they are all attempting to informally lobby government officials by “questioning the listing of an obscure Iranian group called the Mujahadin-e Khalq (MEK) on the U.S. government list of officially designated foreign terrorist organizations.” Some of these people I formerly respected as incorruptible or patriotic. Now I can see they are money-grubbing whores who are willing to challenge the intelligence agencies of the United States for their personal benefit and profit. I am thoroughly disgusted by the democrats and the republicans on this list. As for the journalists who purport to be unbiased, it is just another sign of the loss of journalistic ethics and the support of a cause that is alien to the American dream.

How is it that any Americans want to assist any Iranian group?

At least according to Bernstein: “The speech, before a crowd an organizer put at 1,500, made Bernstein one of the few journalists who has appeared at events in a years-long campaign by MEK supporters to free the group from the official terrorist label and the legal sanctions that come with it. He told ProPublica that he was paid $12,000 for the appearance but that, ‘I was not there as an advocate.’”

Then: “Bernstein told the crowd that, ‘I come here as an advocate of the best obtainable version of the truth’ and as ‘someone who believes in basic human rights and their inalienable status.’ He also challenged the State Department, saying that if the agency ‘has evidence that the MEK is a terrorist organization, have a show-cause hearing in court, let them prove it.’”

Bernstein’s speech, reprinted on the website of another pro-MEK group under the title "The Kafkaesque Nature of Things," compared the presence of the MEK on the terrorist list to his parents’ experience belonging to a group that was on a U.S. government list of subversive organizations during the McCarthy era.

“So I know, like you, what it means to be designated a certain way and your cause and your purpose misunderstood, twisted, and turned into something that it is not," he said. "When, in fact, the evil, the terrorism, the real terrorism, is in the heart of Tehran, not in this room."

In an interview, Bernstein told ProPublica that the pro-MEK events are “obviously … part of a lobbying campaign” but his speech was “largely about using the designation of terrorist and subversive organizations as a smokescreen for other things.” He said that stories focusing on speakers at pro-MEK events rather than on “the substance of what the controversy is” amounted to “journalistic McCarthyism.”

Was it for the money or because liberals are soft on national defense and constitutionally (pun) and prone to serve as useful idiots for foreign sovereign causes?

For example, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, received $160,000 for appearing at seven pro-MEK rallies and conferences, his office confirmed to NBC in March. Each event typically involves five to 10 former officials who speak in favor of removing the group from the terrorist list. The typical fee for a speaker at one of the events has been in the $20,000 range, according to news reports. Pro-MEK groups are thought to have spent millions of dollars on the events in recent years.

What happened to one working journalist is a cautionary tale of how America may be subverted from within …

ProPublica reported in July that syndicated columnist Clarence Page had spoken at a large rally in Paris featuring MEK leader Maryam Rajavi; after we reached out to Page, he said he would reimburse his $20,000 speaker’s fee, and the Chicago Tribune reprimanded him for violating the company ethics code.

Here is a person who can slant stories and spin the truth … and he is being paid a great sum of money to advocate for a group that is listed by the United States government as a terrorist group. Why wasn’t he sanctioned by the government for providing aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States? Or is the liberal dominated Justice Department, headed by Eric Holder, too busy killing all of the pesky state legislation that protects the Constitution and the sovereignty of the United States?

Is Iran our enemy?

In the past few years, pro-MEK groups have marshaled considerable financial resources to bring high-profile speakers to an unending stream of rallies and other events in the U.S. and Europe. The pro-MEK campaign has taken on new prominence against the backdrop of the nuclear standoff involving the U.S., Israel and Iran, whose government is a sworn enemy of the MEK.

The group, sometimes described as cult-like by critics, is blamed by the State Department for killing Americans in several attacks in Iran in the 1970s and in attacking Iranian targets through the early 2000s. The MEK now says it has renounced violence and has sued to be removed from the terrorist list.

The public push in the U.S. is notable both because it has brought together a large bipartisan group of former top military officials and veteran politicians from both parties and also because of the large sums of money paid for those appearances.

My question …

Is this MEK group spinning themselves as an anti-Iran freedom fighting group to allow them to be removed from the terrorist watch list and the sanctions which would keep them from purchasing “dual use” technology or other materials that would bring aid and comfort to Iran? It would not be the first time that a front group did whatever was necessary for their cause.

Bottom line …

It is obvious, even to the casual observer that something evil is happening to our country. Pro-Marxist/Communist groups have subverted the political process, mostly involving the democrat party, and that rampant political corruption is going unchecked. Prominent politicians and others are openly espousing causes which, only a few decades ago, would have been regarded as enemies and such advocacy tantamount to sedition and/or treason.

We see major United States Corporations using foreign subsidiaries to “fullfill long existing contracts” with our enemies.[..]

We need to reform our government and the way our multi-national corporations do business. We cannot impose sanctions against an enemy and have them violated by a foreign subsidiary of any American company. Perhaps why so many companies are now incorporated in the Bahamas. Switzerland and elsewhere.

And we need to start right now in 2012 by removing President Obama and his fellow travelers from power in the Presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives. We need to shut the revolving door between government and law firms known to be lobbyists for foreign powers. We need to put country over compromise, manhood over money.

It is time to take action at the voting booths. Before America is simply purchased and discarded by those who do not wish America well.

Steve ,One Citizen Speaking.com

September 6, 2012 0 comments

The MEK to launch Armed Struggle

Terror In The Name Of Democracy

Terror In The Name Of Democracy: The Outset of a Phase of Violence

As the bankrupts of democracy, MKO began casting shadows of terrorism over Iran

“Patriots always talk of dying for their country but never of killing for their country.” (Bertrand Russell)

The number of the word’s presidents and prime ministers assassinated since the mid-twentieth century reaches just about 50. Out of them, those assassinated by the use of the most violent and horrific methods, suicide or bomb blast, hardly outnumber a hand’s fingers. But the concurrent assassination of a president and his prime minister in a terrorist strike has a single record in its kind. And the untold about the event that may never repeat in the history is the key role of an ousted president as an accomplice to erase his successor. And the bare but shocking truth about the event is that almost all people being a high authority to investigate the complicated case or initiate prosecution for the terrorist offense turned to become the target and the victims of terrorism themselves. And it was just one of many shadows of terror that terrorists cast over Iran.

On August 30, 1981, a bomb explosion at a meeting of the National Security Council held at the Prime Minister’s office led to three immediate deaths: Mohammad Ali Rajai, the Iranian President, Mohammad Javad Bahonar, the Prime Minister, and Abdolhussein Daftarian, the prime ministry’s authority. Hushang Dastjerdi, the head of the national police, the fourth victim, passed away 6 days later as a result of the injuries. The terrorist plot, although incomparable with the preceding June 28 explosion quantitatively, the explosion in the Islamic Republic Party IRP killing at least 74 high-profile personalities, has its record as a bloody chapter in Iranian post-revolution history, a mysterious and complicated plot with many aspects still remaining ambiguous and many questions unanswered.

No doubt, the perpetrators of such ruthless, violent plots fail to provide the slightest justification for proven terrorist acts that are tantamount to a declaration of war against a nation. The responsible group, Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK/PMOI/NCR), after tolerating ultimate failures in winning public trust in two preceding presidential and parliament elections, had already started inventing pretexts to declare its war. In its military communiqué that implied a blatant declaration of a violent warfare against the Islamic Republic and was documented as a clear vindication of the group’s perpetrated terrorist crimes, MKO complained of misbehavior and “illegal and unlawful” undertaking against the still in office president, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, whose conspiratorial collaboration with some opposition groups made the Iranian parliament to hold a debate on his presidency competence that finally led to his impeachment.

Sparks of Animosity

The president Bani-Sadr’s close connection and sympathy with a wide range of opposition groups, particularly his direct and strong support of MKO and giving the group a free hand in social and political affairs, as well as his incompetent function as the commander of the armed forces to confront the invaliding Saddam’s army made Ayatollah Khomeini to reclaim the power of Commander-in-Chief on 10 June 1981. Just 10 days later, Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the Parliament Speaker at the time, apprised Ayatollah Khomeini of deputies’ decision about stripping Bani-Sadr of his presidential power. The response was clear; as the leader with the constitutional authority, Ayatollah Khomeini signed dismissal of Bani-Sadr.

In its first political-military issued communique No. 25 dated 17 June 1981, just three days prior to the first violent moves, MKO made references to events that motivated the organization to make a blatant decision to wage an armed warfare against the Islamic Republic:

“… At the same time, we are witnessing illegal arrests of the members of the presidential office whose names and the news of their arrests are not announced in some instances. Of course, they [the regime] are preparing a comprehensive plan of arresting progressive-seeking characters and antagonists of monopoly in the country. Mojahedin Khalq Organization, while protesting such unlawful and counterrevolutionary actions, thereby obtains permission from the hero Iranian people, and by the help of God, to adopt the most decisive revolutionary resistance through any possible means for the preservation of its members, especially those central cadres of the organization that are in fact considered a pivotal part of the people and revolution.”

On the evening of 20 June 1981, when the Parliament resumed its impeachment debate, MKO orchestrated a series of mass demonstrations that shook Tehran and some other Iranian provincial towns. Rioters had orders to carry small arms and cold weapons and soon the demonstrations turned into street battles that lasted more than three hours. The battles reportedly left heavy casualties and MKO rioters overturned buses and set the parked cars and motorcycles on fire. Although MKO’s plot to cause a widespread civil disturbance to lead the country into a serious civil war faced a total failure, the group adopted a different violent tactic since the day after.

To be continued

September 5, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Dividing the World into Terrorists and the Rest

The common American tendency to view the outside world in starkly divided Manichean terms between friends, allies and good guys on one side and adversaries and evil-doers on the other side arises in many circumstances but seems especially marked in discussions of terrorism. The tendency is most visible in how the lists that have become mainstays of counterterrorist policy are widely perceived. The U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations had an almost mundane purpose when it was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. One of the principal features of that legislation was to criminalize the provision of material support to any foreign terrorist organization. This made necessary clear definitions not only of material support but also of foreign terrorist organizations. Hence the creation of the list, entries on which are determined by the secretary of state with the participation of other executive departments and according to criteria specified in the statute.

Notwithstanding this purpose—support to the enforcement of a criminal law—the list of foreign terrorist organizations gets regarded as if it were a more general act of condemnation that embodies what overall U.S. policy toward a given group is or ought to be. It is taken as a declaration of who is in the bad guys’ camp and who is not. Listing or delisting of a particular group gets promoted by those with an agenda that has nothing to do with enforcement of a criminal statute. This has been seen most obviously with the well-financed campaign to delist the Iranian cult-cum-terrorist group the Mujahedin-e Khalq. Or pushing for a particular group’s listing is a way of making a statement, as has most recently been the case with the question of whether to list the Haqqani group of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This way of looking at the list has several disadvantages. It constitutes pressure to politicize what is supposed to be an administrative and legal decision. It increases the potential negative consequences of listing a group because non-Americans follow the American lead in looking at listing as a general act of condemnation. Listing of the Haqqani group, however much it may be legally warranted under the terms of the relevant statute, might complicate not only U.S. relations with Pakistan but also any future efforts to negotiate an Afghan peace with the Taliban.

Sharply dividing groups into ones that get the terrorist label and thus are to be condemned and those that are not so labeled and condemned does not correspond to the messy reality of what groups do and don’t do. Lebanese Hezbollah is perhaps the foremost example of a group that is known (and listed) in the United States as a terrorist group but is also much more than that. Instead of exploring different options in intelligently dealing with this multifaceted group, more attention gets devoted in a simplistic way to U.S.-European differences on whether Hezbollah “is” a terrorist group—i.e., is officially listed and branded as such.

A related problem is how putting a group on the bad side of the good guys/bad guys divide reduces one’s policy flexibility because this one act of branding tends to preclude any engagement with the group, no matter how much such engagement would make sense. Probably the premier example is Hamas. The International Crisis Group recently observed that the ostracism of Hamas may entail yet another costly missed opportunity in the Middle East.

The rigid perceptual division of friends and enemies and the tendency to associate bad behavior such as terrorism only with the enemies does not correspond to actual behavioral patterns. It means, for example, overlooking in the Middle East Jewish terrorism until it occurs frequently enough to make it impossible to overlook entirely. In the United States it means a tendency to consider all terrorism worth worrying about to be Islamist and to discourage attention to other varieties that, based on what has been happening inside the United States, are worth worrying about at least as much.

We would be better advised to remember that terrorism is a tactic, not a fixed set of protagonists who are the only ones ever to use it. We should also remember that good and evil are pretty widely distributed in the world and not just confined to different parts of it.

Paul R. Pillar ,National Interest.org

September 5, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

John Bolton Shockingly Denies Being a ‘Terrorist Supporter’

The American Conservative’s Jordon Bloom ran into a befuddled John Bolton at the Republican National Convention yesterday and had a timely question for him:
John Bolton Shockingly Denies Being a ‘Terrorist Supporter’
He was on his way in to observe the speeches, and I knew he wouldn’t have much time to answer more than a question or two in passing. So I asked the most important one: given the definition laid out in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, was he at all concerned that his advocacy on behalf of the Iranian dissident group the MEK could be defined as material support for terrorism under the PATRIOT Act?

Bolton, visibly flustered at the suggestion that he is a terrorist supporter, disputed the premise before cutting me off:

“I don’t know what you’re up to, but you’re flatly wrong, and I’m busy, so if you’ll excuse me.”

He is indeed a busy man, but if he ever cares to take some time out of his day to explain why I’m wrong, my email is jbloom[at]theamericanconservative.com. Or he could take it up with Glenn Greenwald or Larison.

Oh, how I’d love such an inquiry from Bolton. Perhaps Jordan could also ask why Bolton’s former employer, George W. Bush, included Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorists like MEK in his propaganda justifying the invasion of Iraq in 2003. “Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization,” reads a document in the archives of the White House’s website, “which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.” Is Bolton proud of this point of commonality between him and Saddam?

John Glaser

September 4, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Why do the western media whitewash MEK terrorists?

Once again, western newspapers are carrying water for recalcitrant Mujahedin-e Khalq terrorists by whitewashing their disobedience towards the Iraqi government.

These days the government of Iraq is involved with the transfer of the sixth convoy of terrorist anti-Iran MEK from their long-hold base in Diyala province to a former U.S. military base in Baghdad which has been stalled for more than three months over the group’s complaints regarding the conditions of their new temporary home.

According to the reports, some of the Ashraf residents attacked Iraqi police in a bid to prevent them from inspecting their belongings.

But the story does not end here! The terrorist group issued a statement condemning Iraq for beating and injuring its members. The story reverberated around the western news media that “a statement by the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran said its members were beaten with sticks, metal bars, stones and other objects, leaving 20 people wounded.”

Ironically, the U.S. Department of State made no reference to such horrible (!) events in its press statement released Wednesday August 29, 2012. Instead, the Department’s spokesperson appreciated the government of Iraq since it “has made considerable efforts to achieve a peaceful and secure resolution for the residents of Camp Ashraf.”

On another occasion on Tuesday August 28, 2012, Victoria Nuland who leads the Daily Press Briefing at the State Department reiterated, “We commend the fact that the Iraqis are working well to help move these individuals.”

The question is here that why the mainstream media give cold shoulder to these statements as well as the remarks of an Iraqi official when he says “we found military equipment in the group’s stuff.”

You can see the statement of a terrorist group published in many news agencies, but you will not see the remarks of Diyala province police commander when he says that a number of body armors, combat boots and night vision cameras have been discovered inside the suitcases of some female members of the group.

Jamil al-Shamri added that the attack was due to the inspection of their stuff.

The United Nations has said frequently that it “monitors the relocation process,” but the terrorist group also accused UN special representative for Iraq of lying and misrepresenting conditions at Camp Liberty.

Is the true nature of this group hidden to them? Didn’t they notice the frequent insubordinations of the terrorist group towards the government of Iraq and United Nations? How about the late-July U.S. State Department’s statement in which Victoria Nuland praised positive measures of the Iraqi Government, such as “transporting the cargo convoy of 300 additional air conditioners, several large water tanks, additional generators, and three specially-equipped vehicles for residents with disabilities” from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty and its commitment to a “peaceful resolution” of the stalemate?

She added that the time is now for the leadership of the Ashraf residents to “take a similarly constructive step and immediately resume the relocation of residents” from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty.

Is there anyone out there who is not familiar with the bloody history of MEK and its cooperation with Saddam Hussein?

The terrorist group was founded in 1965 to oppose the U.S. backed Pahlavi regime and adopted Marxism as its ideology.

After the victory of Islamic Revolution in 1979, the group supported the take-over of the U.S. embassy but soon turned against the Islamic Republic and waged an armed conflict against the Islamic government and ordinary people.

During the Iraqi imposed war on Iran, MEK members took sides with the Iraqi dictator and betrayed their own motherland.

Iraqi executed dictator, Saddam Hussein provided MEK with military support and financial assistance. From then on, MEK members have been housed in a paramilitary camp in Diyala Province, Camp Ashraf.

Iraq considers MEK a threat to its national security, and urges the closure of their long-hold paramilitary base in this country and removal of its members from Iraqi soil. They have pledged to close down the Camp by December 31, 2011; however, in early December, United Nations urged the government of Iraq to extend the year-end deadline for shutting down the camp.

Finally in December 25, 2011, an agreement signed between Iraq and the United Nations to relocate residents of Camp Ashraf to a temporary transit location where the UN High Commissioner for Refugees will start a process of refugee status determination, “a necessary first step for their resettlement outside Iraq.”

Iraq started relocating members of the terrorist anti-Iran group, and the group’s ringleaders started voicing complaints about the conditions at Camp Liberty, which was once house of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, and furthermore its “humanitarian standards” have been approved by the U.S. and the U.N. officials who have visited it.

MEK has always shown that its true nature is always there and never changes.

September 3, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Terrorists Propagate by Doing Violence

MKO’s terrorist deeds approves a fact that it could never distinguish justification from legitimacy

Truth can never be propagated by doing violence. Those who believe in the justice of their cause have need to possess boundless patience, and those alone are fit to offer civil disobedience who are above committing criminal disobedience or doing violence. (Mahatma Gandhi)

On 30 August 1981, Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO/MEK/PMOI) set off a bomb in Iranian Prime Minister’s Office at 3 pm where the National Security Council was holding a meeting. The blast killed the new Iranian President, Muhammad-Ali Rajai, and his recently named Prime Minister, Mohammed Javad Bahonar. Now nearly three decades after the terrorist perpetration, it can be studied from different aspects.

The terrorist act, one of the most outrageous and blamable form of terrorism in the world history, was somehow endorsed by the West when they deliberately preferred to remain silent on the act that would trigger a global tension if it happened in a Western country. At the same time, none of the Western countries approved use of terrorism as a means of implacable determination to achieve undemocratic and ambitious ends. Oddly enough, it was committed at a time when MKO was plotting its terrorist plans in its Paris safe-haven under French protection.

Bombings perpetrated by MKO not only arouse outrage and anger among the nation, but also were condemned by a global consensus on the issue. That is true that some countries for certain political motives and interests, including that of seeking a degree of political autonomy or invading other countries, hardly respect the principles of combating the truculent phenomena of terrorism, the global consensus to combat terrorism in no way justifies use of terrorism in any form.

An analysis of any terrorist deed with the cost and impact imposed on the society among whom it has been committed illuminates dark aspects of the reason behind the deed. In fact, any terrorist act carries indirect messages from its perpetrators to the target societies. In other words, it can be said that any terrorist act is an abrupt undemocratic reaction against democratic and legal practices within a society. MKO’s terrorist deeds that plagued Iran following its defeat in both political and social fronts after its nationwide uprising of 20 June 1981 each carry coded messages which MKO’s terrorist campaign aims to convey. The prime target of the August 30th blast, Muhammad-Ali Rajai, won a landslide presidentialt election to replace the ousted Bani-Sadr. His prime minister, Mohammad Javad Bahonar, won a unanimous vote of the parliament as the head of the cabinet. In fact, MKO’s terrorist act did not aimed two leading figures of the regime but directly targeted the vote of people and their representatives.

MKO issued no immediate announcement to accept the responsibility of the operation and took no clear position. However, in a telephone interview reflected in some Western newspapers at the time, Massoud Rajavi said that the fatal bombing at the prime minister’s office was carried out “by the legitimate resistance movement”. But his further explanation made it explicit who he meant by the ‘resistance movement’: “I am not informed at this time exactly who planted the bomb, but it was the resistance movement and I do not deny that the Mujahedeen make up the majority of that movement”.

MKO claimed to have committed the crime as a legitimate resistance on behalf of the nation, but there is no record of when and where people voted to recognize the legitimacy of a self-proclaimed resistance that possessed no patience to fit social disobedience. Moreover, MKO’s candidates, especially its leader Massoud Rajavi, had failed in the two earlier elections of the parliament and the Assembly of Experts which indicates they won no considerable publicity in spite of their hot campaigns claiming to be revolutionary avant-gardes. It is common in most democratic countries that struggle for power is conducted through free, democratic elections and no loser engages in aggressive, violent activities to revenge his defeat. Being great losers in political scene, MKO’s terrorist, violent deeds imply that the group in no way respected the democratic principles exercised by people.

The message Agust 30th blast conveys is that MKO never stands for any legitimacy; if MKO were to receive no political recognition to assume power, then, neither could the legitimacy of any election be recognized nor the votes of the very same people whose legitimate right decides for the legitimacy of any power structure. Actually playing no decisive role in Iranian revolution, MKO later came to arrogate the right of the leadership. The flight of Rajavi and Bani-Sadr to France, from where they conducted the terrorist operation of blasting the prime minister’s office in Tehran, approves a fact that they could never distinguish justification from legitimacy, that “truth can never be propagated by doing violence.”

September 1, 2012 0 comments

The MEK Expulsion from Iraq

Why do not Mutlaq ask Saudi Arabia to host Mojahedin Khalq?

The strange relationship between Saleh al-Mutlaq and Khalq organization is a relationship that makes question marks accompanied by doubts that rose around; especially that he represents a bloc not the government.

This organization had disgraceful positions against the Iraqi people and it had been brought in Iraq at the time of the tyrant for political considerations with Iran and such a thing is done by most of the countries in the world. As for Baghdad, it hosted Khalq because Iran hosted the Supreme Council, but was the work of this organization with Iran exclusively over years? There are evidences of eyewitnesses for the criminality of this organization against the Iraqi people. It had the authority at the time of the tyrant to arrest any Iraqi or even fire the citizens which had happened in front of my eyes in Baghdad. They had a place in which they could arrest and torture in Karrada not to mention the participation of their confrontational troops in annihilation of the uprising. Away from all these actions, for which they must be punished, different things have changed and Iraq had become in good relationship with Iran and the remaining of this organization on the land of Iraq has become a controversial. However, Iraq worked according to its origin and it has not handed over this organization to Iran despite the fact that there are similar organizations in the international community in terms of practicing terrorism striving to maintain the entity of this organization to be used in the interests of certain political future acts.

Saleh al-Mutlaq is desperate in defending of this organization, and it was strange that he was chosen as a president of one of the annual conferences. So what is his relationship with a Conference annually held by this organization? He was the most naysayers to send out Khalq from Iraq. He may have tense positions with Iran. Such organization makes tense positions between the Iraqi government and people with Iran if it remains on the land of Iraq. Al-Mutlaq now calls America to remove this organization from the list of terrorist organizations. He says this organization has a friendly relationship with Diayala citizens and he says, “The people of Diayala as far as I know have good relations with this organization and they wish the organization would continue in the same manners and ideals by which it treated their brothers in Iraq and join together to lift grievances from Iraq and the Iraqis. Their role remains positive in the defense of their brothers in Iraq and in support of their brothers in Iraq and stand against any force trying to offend the relationship between the two peoples of Iraq and Iran.”

What treatment with the Iraqis does Mutlaq mean? We met the people of Diayala who have been displaced to other provinces. They stressed that terrorist acts were launched from Ashraf Camp and this is not excluded. It is curious that the Iraqi government is careless in uncovering the facts about the role of this terrorist Organization against the Iraqi people. Anyway our last proposal to Mutlaq is: Why does not he demand Saudi Arabia to have the organization’s headquarters in the Kingdom? Especially the position of the Saudi Arabia towards Iraq and Iran is known.

Sami Jawad Kadhim, Shafagh News

August 29, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

Mujahedin, Running out of excuses

Another date has come and gone after Massoud Rajavi – through his wife Maryam – agreed that the next group of MEK members would transfer to Camp Liberty on 23 August. Of course, Mujahedin, Running out of excuses welcome as such statements of intent are, there are many considerations which need to be taken into account before such a move can be undertaken. Not least of which is that there exists an accountable, humanitarian process for transferring these people which needs to be in place before they can be moved. This process is reliant on the scrupulously proper procedures detailed by the UN working in conjunction with the Iraqi authorities. Certainly there will be nothing to prevent the movement once these procedures are in place. It will only depend then on the MEK leaders being true to their word and allowing the individuals to be moved. The arrest of MEK spokesman Mohammad Eqbal for deliberately obstructing this process must send a clear message to the MEK leader Massoud Rajavi that he must comply the with legal requirement to allow these people to leave Camp Ashraf.

Alas, so far the MEK continues to mire the process with unwarranted prevarication as the MEK leader persists in making his unreasonable demands; demands designed to cause confusion and frustration and to attempt to provoke disagreements and recriminations between the Iraqis, the UN and international observers.

The MEK leader says two things must happen before anyone else moves.

His first demand is a delaying tactic. Rajavi says that conditions in Camp Liberty must be improved – in spite of it being judged to meet internationally agreed standards. A Washington Times report quoting Mr Tahar Boumedra, the former human rights chief at the U.N. mission in Baghdad who resigned his post in May accused Martin Kobler the UN Special Representative for Iraq of deliberately covering up ‘prison like conditions’ at the camp.

Jared Kotler, New York-based spokesman for the U.N. Department of Political Affairs, which oversees the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq said, “It is regrettable that such a distorted picture is being presented of the efforts of the United Nations in Iraq to resolve peacefully the situation of Camp Ashraf”. Mr. Kotler said the U.N. mission under Mr. Kobler’s leadership had worked “diligently and impartially to facilitate a peaceful solution that respects the rights and concerns of both the residents and the government of Iraq.”

“These efforts are one of the main reasons why this very tense situation has not already spilled over into further violence,” he added.

Tahar Boumedra was a well known character in Iraq during his tenure there. He enjoyed friendly relations with the MEK and was one of very few outsiders who were allowed inside Camp Ashraf. After leaving his post in Iraq, flights and accommodation have reportedly been paid by MEK supporter, R.Bruce McColm, President of Global Initiative for Democracy, as part of a campaign to advocate for the MEK.

The second of Rajavi’s demands is that the MEK must come off the US terrorism list. There are a host of reasons behind this demand. The most important of which is that Rajavi believes this to be key to the continued longevity of his group.

Rajavi’s worst fear is the inevitable dissolution of his cult. This long term problem is still ongoing partly in the form of natural attrition of forces. As residents of Camp Ashraf have been moved to Camp Liberty, they are offered a glimpse of the normality of the outside world. Several have taken advantage of this and voluntarily walked away from the group to take refuge with the Iraqi authorities. A major problem for Rajavi is that during the UNHCR refugee determination interviews in which the residents of the camps are being assessed for refugee status, it is made clear that in order to qualify for refugee status the individual must renounce membership of the MEK. Rajavi is being advised wrongly if he believes that delisting the MEK as a terrorist entity will allow individuals to maintain membership of a political group and qualify for refugee status. He needs to ask for clarification of the legal requirements for assigning refugee status. Certainly delisting in the US will not affect the situation of individuals in Iraq.

More importantly however Iraq citizens demonstrated recently against the continued presence of the MEK in their country. The Iraqi government has reiterated their demand – the MEK cannot be regarded as anything except a terrorist organisation and they must all leave Iraq. Iraqis claim that the delays and game playing are all aimed at eventually taking the group off the US list and that this will lead to pressure on the Government of Iraq to keep the group there. The Iraqis argue that any such move would be irrelevant and that Iraq will always regard the MEK as terrorists because of its past history and its current behaviour. The MEK’s current behaviour is a clear case of interference in the internal affairs of Iraq should not be tolerated by mediators like the UN or US or EU.

The Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said however that delisting the MEK in other countries would allow these countries to receive the former members as refugees.

Anne Singleton, Middle East Strategy Consultants

Author of the books "The Life of Camp Ashraf (Mojahedin-e Khalq – Victims of Many Masters)" and "Saddam’s Private Army".

August 26, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Close an MEK terror camp & worry Washington: Syria/Iran

You may recall the mention of MEK terrorists being present in Syria?

It was reported a day or so ago that Syria had arrested the MEK (brand name) terrorists in Syria.
You can read all about it here.

But first, read this!

Iraq’s threat to close MeK camp worries White House

Iraq’s threat to close a camp for terrorists worries the White House? Sorry, "dissidents" You can’t make this stuff up!

The Obama administration is worried about a threat from the Iraqi government to forcibly shut down a camp for Iranian dissidents(dissidents?) north of Baghdad.

Saddam Hussein allowed the dissidents to establish their paramilitary base in Iraq;( of course he did, they were attacking Iran and so was Iraq as a US proxy) however, the group has fallen out of favor with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government, which is close to Iran. (Additional reasoning may be they (MEK) are continuing to launch terror attacks on Iran and Syria and likely in Iraq)

Falih al-Fayadh, Iraq’s national security adviser, on Tuesday said the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MeK) must move out of Camp Ashraf immediately or be forced to leave.

The State Department urged the Iraqi government to remain “patient and flexible” and seek a voluntary arrangement for relocating the former rebels, who were disarmed by U.S. troops after the overthrow of Saddam in 2003. (We need our MEK brand terrorists to ruin Syria, you can’t ask them to leave your own country)
“The United States is concerned by the government of Iraq’s reference on July 31 to the possible closure of Camp Ashraf by involuntary relocation of its residents,” Patrick Ventrell, the State Department’s acting deputy spokesman, said in a statement on Wednesday.
The MeK, also known as the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI), was designated by the State Department as a foreign terrorist organization in 1997 when former President Bill Clinton was trying to open talks with the Iranian government.

A U.S. federal court in June ordered Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to decide within four months on removing the MeK from the U.S. terrorist list or they will do it. (The judges will remove the MEK from the terror list. Clinton, that is Hillary in this case, will simply wait for the judges to remove the terrorists then she will appear to have clean hands)

And of course, there is a connection to France-

The Camp Ashraf leadership is not to blame for the situation, said Shahin Gobadi, a Paris-based spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a political coalition that includes the MEK.

Considering the fact that in order to sell a war in Syria the NATO/Israel/GCC nations had to employ every brand of mercenary necessary from generic “rebel” to FSA why not MEK. All terrorists. All terrorizing the Syrian people. And speaking of terrorizing the people of Syria…….

Recall these are the "freedom fighters"?

One last piece-The Irish Times – Monday, August 13, 2012

Media coverage of Syrian violence partial and untrue, says nun

A NUN who has been superior at a Syrian monastery for the past 18 years has warned that media coverage of ongoing violence in that country has been “partial and untrue”. It is “a fake”, Mother Agnes Mariam said, which “hides atrocities committed in the name of liberty and democracy”.

Superior of the Melkite Greek Catholic monastery of St James the Mutilated in Qara, in Syria’s diocese of Homs, which is in full communion with Rome, she left Ireland yesterday after a three-day visit during which she met representatives of the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Maynooth.

She told The Irish Times she was in Ireland “not to advocate for the (Assad) regime but for the facts”. Most news reports from Syria were “forged, with only one side emphasised”, she said. This also applied to the UN, whose reports were “one-sided and not worthy of that organisation”.
UN observers in Syria had been “moderate with the rebels and covered for them in taking back positions after the withdrawal of heavy equipment, as seen so tragically in Homs”, she said.
The reason the media was being denied easy access to Syria currently was because in the Libyan conflict journalists placed electronic devices for Nato in rooms used at press conferences in that country, she said. “So Syria didn’t want journalists,” she said.

Read the rest at the link above Journalists as spies. Marie Colvin?Paul Conroy? Nothing new under the sun.

Pennyforyourthoughts2

August 23, 2012 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts