Mujahedin Khalq in the List of terrorist Organizations

MEK to lobby the US Congress directly

US court demands decision on MEK’s ‘terror’ listing

A US appeals court has ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to decide within four months whether a dissident Iranian group should be removed from the US terror blacklist.

Removing the MEK from the terror blacklist would allow it to lobby the US Congress directly

The long delays in acting on the group’s petition to be removed were "egregious", the court said.

The Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) had asked the court to give Mrs Clinton just 30 days to decide.

It says its presence on the list puts members living in Iraq under threat.

The MEK, also known as the People’s Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (PMOI) led a guerrilla campaign against the US-backed Shah of Iran during the 1970s and also opposed Iran’s clerical leaders who replaced the Shah.

It was given refuge in Iraq by Saddam Hussein but has fallen out of favour with Iraq’s new Shia-dominated leadership.

Members of the group have been based at a refugee camp in Iraq but Baghdad is taking steps to expel them.

In Friday’s ruling, the US Court of Appeals in Washington said the PMOI had been left in "administrative limbo" by Mrs Clinton, reported AFP news agency.

Mrs Clinton had not ruled on its petition to be removed from the terror list in 600 days, despite being given only 180 days to do so by the US Congress.

The court gave Mrs Clinton four months to rule or it would issue a so-called writ of mandamus order and remove the group from the list itself.

But the court refused to take that step immediately, citing "national security and foreign policy concerns".

Expensive campaign

In a written response, state department spokesman Mark Toner said it intended to comply with the ruling, reported Reuters news agency.

The ruling was welcomed by PMOI leader Maryam Rajavi as a "triumph of justice", AFP reported. She said maintaining the terrorist designation would be "illegitimate and unlawful".

Those backing the MEK have staged a very expensive campaign to call for the group to be removed – a move that would enable the MEK itself officially to lobby Congress, the BBC’s Bahman Kalbasi has previously reported.

But detractors say the government should not bow to the group, saying ample evidence remains to justify keeping them on the terror list.

June 5, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Nonsense date given by US for fixing Mojahedin status

The US decision on whether to remove the Mojahedin-e Khalq from the US terrorism list Nonsense date given by US for fixing Mojahedin status continues to be dragged out and will continue to be dragged for at least three more months, if not much longer.

The Wall Street Journal drew a lot of attention last week with a report that headlined that the State Department was “moving to remove” the group from the list of Foreign Terrorist organizations.

However, the explanation deep in the story did not day that at all. The article said that US officials had told the Journal Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will “make her final decision on the MeK’s status no less than 60 days after the last MeK member is relocated from Camp Ashraf” to the new site at Camp Hurriya near Baghdad.

That was a very odd formulation. Normally officials say they will make a decision no more than so many days or weeks in the future. The announcement that she will make the decision after no less than 60 days means the decision could be made in 100 days or 1,000 days or more. It means there is no deadline for a decision.

Clinton made a surprise announcement in February that she would take the Mojahedin’s willingness to cooperate in moving all their personnel from Ashraf to Hurriya into consideration when she decided whether to keep the Mojahedin on the terrorism list.

That was an odd posture since the only legal basis for keeping a group on the terrorism list is that it is terrorist. If the Mojahedin-e Khalq meets that threshold, it should be kept on the list regardless of whether it moves its people to Hurriya. And if it is not a terrorist organization, then it ought to be removed from the list even if it is fully cooperative in making the move.

Clinton said the group’s “cooperation in the successful and peaceful close of Camp Ashraf Ö will be a key factor in any decision” regarding its status as a terrorist organization. She didn’t say it would be the conclusive factor in the decision, just “a key factor.”

Combining that vague statement with the “no less than 60 days” time frame means there is really nothing there—no hint of what decision may be taken or when.

Back in July 2010, a federal appeals court ruled that the Mojahedin-e Khalq had not been treated fairly by the State Department when it was listed as a terrorist organization.

The court did not, however, order the Mojahedin-e Khalq de-listed. It simply said that the State Department had to go through the review process all over again and give the organization the full opportunity to defend itself.

The Mojahedin were first declared to be a terrorist group in 1997 and it has been re-designated as terrorist three times since then. Each time, the Mojahedin-e Khalq went to court and each time the courts said the State Department failed to recognize the group’s rights under the law. Each time the courts ordered the State Department to go through the review procedure again. And each time, at least up until now, the State Department has once again certified the Mojahedin as terrorist. It is that third review process that is now underway—and that has been underway for almost two years now.

The US Circuit Court of Appeals based in the District of Columbia declined to review the substance of the State Department listing in 2010. It simply dealt with process and ruled that the State Department “failed to accord the [Mojahedin] the due process protections outlined in our previous decisions.” It said the Mojahedin-e Khalq should remain listed as a terrorist group unless and until the State Department changed its position after reviewing the case file.

The basic issue that concerned the court was that the State Department notified the Mojahedin of its latest listing only after making its final decision. But the three judges unanimously ruled that the State Department had to notify the Mojahedin of the unclassified evidence it was using to list the group as terrorist and give the group a chance to rebut the evidence before it could publish a final ruling. “This did not happen,” the court said. “That deprived [the Mojahedin] of the of the due process protections detailed in our previous decisions.”

The Mojahedin had argued that its designation should be revoked because everything had changed in 2003 when it turned its weapons over to the US Army and all its members at Camp Ashraf in Iraq signed a document rejecting violence and terror.

The court decision carried a long footnote listing some of the damaging information the State Department said it had gathered about the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) in recent years: “The MEK trained females at Camp Ashraf in Iraq to perform suicide attacks in Karbala;” “the MEK solicits money under the false pretext of humanitarian aid to the Iranian people;” “an August 2008 US Intelligence Community Terrorist Threat Assessment clearly states that the MEK retains a limited capability to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism;” the MEK “publicly renounced violence in 2001, but limited intelligence reporting indicates that the group has not ended military operations, repudiated violence, or completely or voluntarily disarmed;” the intelligence community “assesses that although there has not been a confirmed terrorist attack by the MEK since the organization surrendered to Coalition Forces in 2003, the MEK retains a limited capability and the intent to use violence to achieve its political goals;” and “UN inspectors say that much of the information provided to the UN by the MEK about Iran’s nuclear program has a political purpose and has been wrong.”

The court said that when the State Department reports to the court on the latest review, it must say what allegations it considers credible and is relying on for its designation of the Mojahedin as terrorist.

New reports in 2009 said that the State Department’s top counter-terrorism official at the time, Dell Dailey, had wanted to drop the Mojahedin from the terrorism list but was overruled by superiors.

By Warren L. Nelson

May 29, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MEK and the USA: It’s Complicated

Since 1997, the Iranian opposition group known as the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) has been designated by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization. Yet prominent U.S. officials from Howard Dean to Rudy Giuliani have come out in support of the MEK, arguing that the group has turned its back on violence and should have its terrorist designation revoked. For this vocal body of American supporters, the MEK’s commitment to secular, democratic government could help turn the tide against Islamic rule in Iran.

The issue, however, is muddied by MEK’s decidedly violent and even anti-American past. Originally an Islamic group, in the 1970s the MEK evolved into a Marxist organization dedicated to violent struggle against the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran. Responsible for at least six assassinations of American diplomats, the MEK enthusiastically supported the Iran Revolution in 1979, yet afterwards resisted the new Islamic rule and began a campaign of bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations targeting Iranian officials. The group fled to Iraq in 1986, allying with Saddam Hussein until the 2003 American invasion, after which it sought accommodation with U.S. forces.

Clearly, the MEK’s amenability to U.S. interests reflects only the group’s latest incarnation. Nonetheless, opponents of the MEK’s terrorist designation are willing to overlook prior transgressions if it means gaining a supposedly non-violent ally in the battle to undermine Iran.

There are several problems with this line of thinking, however. For one, withdrawing the MEK’s terror designation would undeniably exacerbate tensions with Iran. Though last month’s nuclear talks went relatively well, this situation could nosedive quickly with tacit American support for the MEK. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was himself a victim of an attempted assassination by the MEK in 1981. Iraq too is hostile towards the MEK, considering that for years the organization was supported by Saddam Hussein and may have participated in state repression.

It’s also not apparent that the MEK could achieve much in Iran, at least not as a legitimate political force. The MEK is widely despised by the Iranian people, including Iran’s reformist Green Movement, not least because of allegations that the MEK fought alongside Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War. It’s preposterous to think that an organization with so little public support could actually foster democratic government. American support for the MEK would only harm the encouragingly positive relations between the U.S. and the people of Iran.

Regardless of the political ramifications, the MEK may still actually qualify as a terrorist organization. The State Department states that the group still has the capability and intent to engage in terrorist acts. Indeed, there are allegations that the recent assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists betray a Mossad-MEK alliance of sorts. Though some MEK members in Iraq have relinquished their weapons to American troops, the organization still has a global network of trained operatives and bomb-makers who have not reliably demonstrated a commitment to non-violence.

Though the United States and the Mujahedeen-e Khalq may share a common enemy, this is hardly a sufficient reason for the U.S. to remove the MEK’s terrorist designation. The Iranian people have tellingly disavowed the MEK, a group that incidentally has never been brought to justice for assassinating American citizens or its role in the Iran Hostage Crisis. Thus for both political and ethical reasons, it’s clear that the MEK should remain a designated terrorist organization.

by Sean Feely – Diplomacist

May 15, 2012 0 comments

USA

U.S. not ready to remove MEK from terror list

An Iranian dissident group on the U.S. government’s list of terrorist organizations is showing signs of cooperation, but the United States has not decided whether to remove it from the list, a Department of Justice attorney told a federal appeals court panel Tuesday.

An attorney for Mujahedin-e Khalq urged a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to issue a writ of mandamus, essentially an order compelling the State Department to comply with a previous order, and to make a decision on delistment in a timely manner.

MEK is seeking the enforcement of a 2010 ruling by the same court ordering the State Department to review the group’s status on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list. In its ruling, the District Court gave the State Department 180 days to review the request from MEK to be removed from the terror list.

Robert Loeb, who argued the case on behalf of the administration, said the lack of total unfettered access to the MEK’s base inside Iraq demands more deliberation and time be given to the decision. Loeb argued questions still remain whether "hard core" elements of the group harbor weapons inside the base and thus retain the "capacity" to launch attacks.

Once the base is completely emptied, a decision on MEK’s status could be made within 60 days, the U.S. government has said. In court, Loeb stipulated that 60-day period could be subject to extension based on anything learned within that period.

The group has been on the terror list since 1997 because of the deaths of Americans during the 1970s. The group was granted refuge in Iraq by Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. The MEK supports the overthrow of the Iranian theocracy.

The Obama administration has argued it needs to assess the MEK’s move from its previous base of operations at Camp Ashraf in Iraq to a processing center at a former U.S. base in Iraq before making its decision. The move is being conducted under U.N. auspices after the Iraqi government ordered the camp closed at the end of 2011.

Mark Toner, deputy State Department spokesman, released a statement this past weekend praising the "continued cooperation" of Camp Ashraf residents. Over half of the approximately 3,000 residents of Camp Ashraf have been relocated to Camp Hurriya, Toner said, with the goal of eventually settling in countries outside Iraq.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a Senate panel last year that the way the transfer was carried out would influence the eventual decision on removing the group from the terror list.

Loeb said the administration understands the "duty" to make a timely decision on MEK’s status, but said the administration also has a duty to the public to "get it right."

The group is also known as the People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran.

Viet Dinh, a former Justice Department lawyer representing the MEK, said the group no longer poses a military threat because the U.S. Army peacefully disarmed the group after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The U.S. government treated MEK members as protected people under international law until the U.S. turned over responsibility to the Iraqi government.

Dinh told the court the State Department’s delay in making a decision is a violation of MEK’s due process rights, and liberties granted under the U.S. Constitution.

"The secretary has recognized (MEK’s) renunciation of violence and is legally bound to delist the organization," Dinh wrote in a filing in February." She cannot pocket veto (MEK’s) application for revocation of its terrorist status."

Col. Wes Martin, who served as base commander of Camp Ashraf in 2006 and was present for Tuesday’s proceedings, called Loeb’s argument "nonsense." Martin, who supports MEK’s removal from the terror list, told CNN he was certain Camp Ashraf has been completely disarmed.

The MEK enjoys the support of prominent high-ranking officials from past Democratic and Republican administrations who speak out against the group’s continued presence on the terror list.

By Jamie Crawford

May 13, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

The US never conducted a comprehensive search of Camp Ashraf

Research by RAND confirms that not all spots in Camp Ashraf were fully inspected

The remarks by the attorney for the U.S. Department of State, Robert Loeb, have provoked backlashes from MKO. During a May 8 hearing before the US Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia, Mr. Loeb stipulated that a decision on MKO’s status could be made within 60 days after the group’s main base, Camp Ashraf, is completely evacuated. He said that said the lack of total unfettered access to the MKO’s base inside Iraq demands more deliberation and time be given to the decision. Loeb argued questions still remain whether “hard core” elements of the group harbor weapons inside the base and thus retain the “capacity” to launch attacks.

Reported by the U.S. Committee for Camp Ashraf Residents (USCCAR), MKO-run active committees in the US, Mr. Loeb’s remarks are “absurd”: “Allegations by the State Department lawyer on lack of access to, and suspicion of existence of weapons and ammunition at Camp Ashraf, are absurd and insult the professionalism and integrity of U.S. troops who served at Camp Ashraf”.

Mr. Loeb in the court remarked that the U.S. military had “never been able to inspect it [Camp Ashraf].” He also stated that the residents of Camp Ashraf did not permit the U.S. military to inspect the camp. “The MEK did not permit it at that time, and the military was unable at the time” to inspect Camp Ashraf, and “the MEK did not permit an inspection. . . . They did not permit a sort of door-to-door inspection of looking for [caches] of weapons or to actually disarm them door-to-door.” He also claimed that the U.S. military had been unable to verify that the MEK had disarmed.

Quoting some US military commanders, MKO disputes the claims by the State Department lawyer by saying that “Having served at Ashraf during several tours of duty in Iraq, we repeatedly inspected the entire camp without any hindrance and found no sign of weapons or ammunition, nor any plans or intentions to acquire weapons or use violence. These inspections were undertaken impromptu and without prior notice. At all times and during every inspection, the leaders and residents of Ashraf cooperated fully with the U.S. commanders and forces”.

But the research already done by RAND Corporation is much more reliable to decide which party is on a right path of the facts. In a part of RAND’s A Policy Conundrum it is well confirmed that there are still spots and buildings in Camp Ashraf never fully inspected by the US forces in contrast to the group’s claims.

Lack of manpower has also meant that MNF-I has never conducted a comprehensive search of Camp Ashraf. The MeK would not allow it, and MNF-I was unwilling to divert manpower at FOB Grizzly from regular regional security missions to force a search upon the group. As a result, there are buildings at Camp Ashraf that no American has ever searched. Former JIATF staff believe that weapons, personnel files, and possibly even MeK members detained by the leadership would likely be discovered in some of these buildings. At the very least, on the basis of rumors that the MeK were storing WMD for Saddam, the Iraq Survey Group, an international team organized by the Pentagon and the CIA to hunt for Iraq’s alleged WMD stockpiles, should have secured access to every building.

May 13, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

State Dept to court: Don’t meddle with terror list decisions

The State Department is asking a U.S. appeals court to deny a suit that would force Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to decide, within 30 days, whether to remove an Iranian opposition group from the U.S. list of foreign terror organizations. State Dept to court: Don't meddle with terror list decisions

The group, the Mujahadin-e Khalq, was placed on the terror list in 1997 because of the deaths of Americans during attacks in the 1970s against the U.S.-backed shah of Iran. The U.S. says the M.E.K. engaged for years in terrorist activities in Iran launched from bases in Iraq, including assassinations of high-level Iranian officials and attacks in Iran with heavy weaponry. In the 1980s, the M.E.K. supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. Later, it vowed to disarm. Since 2003 the group has been living under U.S. protection on a former U.S. military base in northern Iraq, Camp Ashraf.

The Iraqi government is in the process of moving the residents from Camp Ashraf to another location in Iraq. Clinton has said the way that transfer is carried out could influence whether the group is removed from the terror list. A number of residents have objected to the move.

In its statement to the court, the State Department said the review of the M.E.K. requires "close analysis of highly classified information … expert judgments about the continuing capabilities and intentions of a currently designated foreign terrorist organization … extremely sensitive national security judgments and difficult decisions concerning the best way to avoid possible serious human rights violations."

The secretary of state, it said, has to "direct her full attention to emergencies of the highest magnitude, involving the United States and its allies throughout the globe."

"Any interference by a court with the Secretary’s ability to carry out these absolutely critical duties would set a seriously troubling precedent."

The terrorist designation prohibits Americans from providing material support to the organization, but a number of high-profile former U.S. officials have taken up the cause of the M.E.K. and called for it to be delisted. Some of them have received speaking fees for that support. The Treasury Department currently is issuing subpoenas to some speakers’ bureaus for information on the source of those funds.

By Jill Dougherty

March 28, 2012 0 comments

USA

U.S. urges court to stay out of decision on MEK

The Obama administration on Monday urged a U.S. appeals court not to interfere with its review and decision-making process over whether to remove the Iranian dissident group Mujahadin-e U.S. urges court to stay out of decision on MEK Khalq from a U.S. terrorism blacklist.

The group asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to order the State Department to either remove it from the list or require action within a specified period on its request to delist the group.

The State Department urged the court to stay out of the matter, saying it was continuing to evaluate the matter, consulting with the intelligence community and other government agencies and that it had met with representatives of the Mujahadin-e Khalq.

Further, in its reply to the appeals court, the department repeated what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last month to U.S. lawmakers: that they were closely watching the group’s cooperation in closing its Camp Ashraf base in Iraq.

The group, which calls for the overthrow of Iran’s Islamist government, has been based in Iraq. It was supported by former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but is no longer welcome in Iraq under the Shi’ite-led government that came to power following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and Saddam’s downfall.

The Iraqi government plans to expel the residents of Camp Ashraf and is in the process of moving them to a processing center at a former U.S. military base in Baghdad.

Camp residents, who numbered about 3,000 and had been under the protection of the U.S. forces since 2003, agreed to be moved last month. U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq in December.

Also known as the People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran, the group led a guerilla campaign against the U.S.-backed Shah of Iran during the 1970s that included attacks on U.S. targets.

As a result, the United States placed it on its list of foreign terrorist organizations. The group has said that it has renounced violence.

BAN ON FINANCIAL SUPPORT

Americans are banned from providing financial and other support to any group included on the so-called "Foreign Terrorist Organization" list, and its members or representatives are banned from entering the United States.

Representatives for the group, which has also received support from several former senior U.S. government officials, had urged the court to intervene and force the administration to act or take the step itself of removing the group from the list.

"Such relief would – despite the PMOI’s long history of terrorism – remove an important barrier to the PMOI’s ability to operate freely in the United States, and is clearly unwarranted here," the State Department told the court.

"Moreover, an order directing the Secretary to act by a particular date is also inappropriate given the highly complex and delicate overall nature of the matter pending before her," it said.

The State Department also warned that court action "would seriously interfere" with its efforts to resolve the Camp Ashraf situation.

A lawyer for Iranian opposition group, Viet Dinh, said that they would respond by the April 2 deadline set by the court.

"The important thing to recognize from the brief is that the Secretary recognizes her responsibility to delist the PMOI if it does not meet the statutory criteria, and she does not have any discretion to keep the group on the list simply out of national security concerns," he told Reuters.

The appeals court has deferred a decision on whether it will hear oral arguments in the matter.

The case is In re: People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 12-1118.

Jeremy Pelofsky
(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

March 27, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Secretary Clinton trapped by a false dichotomy

In November 2011 a large group of interested people met in Baghdad to discuss the seemingly intractable problem of how to dismantle the Mohjahedin-e Khalq foreign terrorist group and remove the members from the country. At the behest of families of the individuals trapped inside Camp Ashraf, the GOI agreed to proceed in a way that would avoid violent confrontation. Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari announced later, “We will refuse them the satisfaction of becoming martyrs on our soil”. The Governor of Diyala, the military head of Diyala province and other authorities all went the extra mile to prevent the MEK from killing more hostages and blaming the Iraqis for it.
Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UN which would allow more time and give oversight of the eviction process to the UN and to representatives of the EU and US.
The Iraqis have kept their side of bargain – the deadline for the MEK’s departure was extended and negotiations were facilitated to persuade the MEK to cooperate in a move from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty where the UNHCR would be able to assess each individual for refugee status. (Remember that no external body, including the GOI, has been able to freely access the inside of Camp Ashraf since the fall of Saddam Hussein.) The first 800 individuals have now moved and another 800 are lined up to move over the next few days in two groups of 400. The MEK leader has not been able to exploit the situation and kill any hostages. The GOI has control of the situation.
UNAMI has been rigorous in its supervision of the move and, by enforcing its own rules and regulations has not allowed propaganda to overshadow activities at either camp. Facilities at the new camp were approved by UN inspectors, the ICRC has been involved and behind the scene EU and US special advisors have been keeping a watchful eye on events. The MEK has ‘character assassinated’ UNAMI and its officials, and others, in the media but UNAMI has not been diverted by the efforts of the MEK and their backers.
But one pernicious factor which has actively impeded proper progress in this task has been the support given to the MEK by Israelis and US Neoconservatives whose clear intent is to politicise what is essentially a humanitarian situation. The MEK is a well-honed tool in the hands of these ideologues and is used to incite hatred against Iran and Iraq among ignorant and lazy political communities. The MEK is far too valuable for them to allow it to disappear. Most recently, the MEK has been used by Mossad to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.
This being so will make it even more difficult for UNAMI to transfer them to third countries. This ruthless use of the MEK as a mercenary terrorist force has a direct impact on the situation of the hostages trapped in the camp; their future becomes all the more uncertain.
But then, it has been all along, the clear intention of the MEK’s paymasters to keep the MEK intact as a terrorist entity in Iraq, in total disregard for the human beings involved.
If it wasn’t because of the backing of Israel and the Neoconservatives, Rajavi would have had no choice but to open the doors of his closed totalitarian group and allow the individuals trapped inside to walk free. That is the aim of everyone on the ground working to resolve the situation in Iraq. In this respect it is no less the responsibility of the US Government to work with the international community to dismantle this terrorist group and rescue the hostages.
But while the rest of the world is genuinely working toward a peaceful end to the camp and the release and resettlement of the hostages, it appears Secretary of State Clinton is somewhat ambiguous in her dealing with the situation.
Based on a legal ruling, Clinton must make a decision by the end of March whether the State Department remove the MEK from its terrorism list or not. Presenting this as leverage she has introduced a unilateral condition to the MEK’s removal from Iraq; if the MEK cooperate with UNAMI and the Government of Iraq, she has indicated, we will remove them from the US terrorism list. But cooperation with UNAMI is a legal obligation rather than an optional choice for the MEK. So what is really behind this position?
On the surface this would appear as though the USG is prepared to do a political deal to get the MEK to leave Iraq (and in doing so gain credit with the Iraqi government). It is as though the MEK were a far distant uncontrollable threat to US security which needs careful handling to bring it under control before dismantling it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everything that the MEK’s western owners can do is being done to help the MEK’s leader keep the doors to the camp closed, to keep the hostages inside and to deny them contact with their families – even though this is against all humanitarian, moral or indeed criminal law.
By talking about the terrorism list rather than talking about what is happening in Iraq Clinton is bowing to this pressure. Certainly if UNAMI is allowed to do its job properly – with the support of all the international community – there will not be an organisation left to be listed or not listed. By invoking the US terrorism list, the actual script appears to be whether the MEK can be more useful listed as terrorists or if they are not regarded as terrorists. This false choice disguises the real intent of its proponents which is to keep the group intact as a terrorist group so it can be rearmed and used.
Secretary Clinton, indeed the whole government of America, needs to unhitch the politically charged consideration of the MEK’s inclusion in the US terrorism list from the very real humanitarian situation in Iraq. If the USG’s intention is really to deal properly with this terrorist group, it should reassert the humanitarian focus of American policy toward the MEK and unequivocally support the dismantlement process in Iraq.

March 24, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

MeK Status on US Terror List Hinges on Relocation

Clinton says if anti-Tehran terrorist group can’t find someplace to go after being evicted from Iraq, they may get de-listed.

If the terrorist Iranian dissident group Mujahadin-e Khalq (MeK) can’t find someplace to go after being evicted from its base in Iraq, the United States may remove the group from the State Department’s terrorist list.

The MEK has a long history of terrorist activity going back to the 1970′s and it remains on America’s official list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and has the goal of overthrowing the Iranian government. Because of this goal, there has been a big money push by many influential people in Washington to get the group removed from the State Department’s terrorist list, presumably to make it eligible for U.S. funding and harm Iran.

MeK’s former ally, the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, had allowed the group to settle at Camp Ashraf, 40 miles from Baghdad. But now Iraq’s Shi’ite majority has forged closer ties with its Shi’ite neighbor Iran, and the MeK is no longer welcome at Ashraf.

Despite still being officially considered a terrorist group, the U.S. has sort of taken MeK under its wing, opening up a former U.S. base in Iraq for the 3,000 MeK members in Ashraf to resettle to, and trying to find a third country that might welcome them, since both Iraq and Iran will not.

But they can’t stay at the U.S. base in Iraq permanently. And if a new home can’t be found for them, the U.S. may de-list them, and possibly even welcome them on U.S. soil.

“Given the ongoing efforts to relocate the residents, MeK cooperation in the successful and peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, the MeK’s main paramilitary base, will be a key factor in any decision regarding the MEK’s FTO status,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently told U.S. lawmakers.

This is a despicable and hypocritical approach on the part of Washington. U.S. officials recently told NBC News that Israel has financed, trained, and armed MeK terrorists to carry out unprovoked attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists inside Iran. To help MeK find refuge or even de-list them would clearly be U.S. support for terrorists. Of course, when terrorists target the United States or its allies, they are detained without charge or trial, tortured, or even executed. But if terrorists target an adversary of the U.S., like Iran, suddenly they’re worthy of Washington’s help.

by John Glaser,

March 1, 2012 0 comments

USA

Mujahedin-e Khalq in the new List of Terrorist Organizations

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

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

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

Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Ramifications of Designation

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

Other Effects of Designation

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

February 8, 2012 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts