Paid advocacy for MKO

Are MEK Politicos Taking Saddam Hussein’s Blood Money?

There are many misconceptions about the MEK so I checked in with several Iranian born experts on Iran. All of them are distressed that American politicians are advocating for the MEK. They also Laura Goldman doubt that the money paid to the politicos comes from the Iranian Diaspora because most expatriate Iranians do no support the MEK.

Raisool Nafisi, a Washington political consultant, said, "The MEK is a terrorist group. It is a cult of religious automatons. MEK is a terrible dictatorship, whose culture requires complete worship of its leaders, Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. The Rajavis require complete subservience and strictly control the thinking, activities and dress of MEK members. Members are punished if they try to leave."

Reports from Rand and Human Rights Watch corroborate that the MEK abuses its own members.
Are MEK Politicos Taking Saddam Hussein's Blood Money?
He continued, "MEK, a leftist theocracy, would be worse than the present regime. Americans that are supporting MEK because of their antipathy towards the current regime and their rumored involvement with the Israelis are being extremely short sighted. If they gained control of Iran, they would create anti-democratic regime."

Rendell may actually be taking blood money from Saddam Hussein.

Nafisi said, "When the head of the Iraqi Secret Police was interrogated, he confessed that Saddam Hussein was giving the MEK $30 million a month, more than $350 million in total."
Nafisi steered me to the previous New York Times reporting on the MEK. "The New York Times accurately described the conditions in the camp and the treatment of women."

That New York Times reporter, Elizabeth Rubin, who toured the camps and wrote an extensive magazine article on the MEK, has condemned in recent days the recent outpouring of support for the group.

Trita Parisi, who wrote “Treacherous Alliance-The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States” and “A Single Roll of the Dice-Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran," said, "US officials recently confirmed to NBC News that the MEK is carrying out assassinations against Iranian scientists, directly contradicting the MEK’s claims to have forgone terrorism and violence. The report also cites law enforcement who say ‘in 1994, the MEK made a pact with terrorist Ramzi Yousef a year after he masterminded the first attack on the World Trade Center in New York City.’ According to officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity,Yousef built an 11-pound bomb that MEK agents placed inside one of Shia Islam’s greatest shrines in Mashad Iran on June 20, 1994. At least 26 people, mostly women and children, were killed and 200 wounded in the attack."

Laura Goldman, Naked Philadelphian

March 15, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Washington’s high-powered terrorist supporters

We now have an extraordinary situation that reveals the impunity with which political elites commit the most egregious crimes, as well as the special privileges to which they explicitly believe they — and they alone — are entitled. That a large bipartisan cast of Washington officials got caught being paid substantial sums of money by an Iranian dissident group that is legally designated by the U.S. Government as a Terrorist organization, and then meeting with and advocating on behalf of that Terrorist group, is very significant for several reasons. New developments over the last week make it all the more telling. Just behold the truly amazing set of facts that have arisen:

In June, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law. In that case, the Court upheld the Obama DOJ’s very broad interpretation of the statute that criminalizes the providing of “material support” to groups formally designated by the State Department as Terrorist organizations. The five-judge conservative bloc (along with Justice Stevens) held that pure political speech could be permissibly criminalized as “material support for Terrorism” consistent with the First Amendment if the “advocacy [is] performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization” (emphasis added). In other words, pure political advocacy in support of a designated Terrorist group could be prosecuted as a felony — punishable with 15 years in prison — if the advocacy is coordinated with that group.

This ruling was one of the most severe erosions of free speech rights in decades because, as Justice Breyer (joined by Ginsberg and Sotomayor) pointed out in dissent, “all the activities” at issue, which the DOJ’s interpretation would criminalize, “involve the communication and advocacy of political ideas and lawful means of achieving political ends.” The dissent added that the DOJ’s broad interpretation of the statute “gravely and without adequate justification injure[s] interests of the kind the First Amendment protects.” As Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, who represented the plaintiffs, explained, this was literally “the first time ever” that “the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment permits the criminalization of pure speech advocating lawful, nonviolent activity.” Thus, “the court rule[d] that speech advocating only lawful, nonviolent activity can be made a crime, and that any coordination with a blacklisted group can land a citizen in prison for 15 years.” Then-Solicitor-General Elena Kagan argued the winning Obama DOJ position before the Court.

Whatever one’s views are on this ruling, it is now binding law. To advocate on behalf of a designated Terrorist group constitutes the felony of “providing material support” if that advocacy is coordinated with the group.

Like most assaults on the Constitution in the name of Terrorism during the Obama presidency, criticism of that Court decision was rare in establishment circles (that’s because Republicans consistently support such assaults while Democrats are reluctant to criticize them under Obama). On the day the Humanitarian Law decision was released, CNN‘s Wolf Blitzer interviewed Fran Townsend, George Bush’s Homeland Security Advisor and now-CNN analyst, and Townsend hailed the decision as “a tremendous win for not only the United States but for the current administration.” Here’s how that discussion went:

BLITZER: There is a related case involved that the Supreme Court came out with today and I want to talk to you about this. The Supreme Court ruling today in the fight against terrorism . . . .The 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court, the justices rejecting the arguments that the law threatens the constitutional right of free speech. You read the decision, 6-3, only three of the Democratic appointed justices decided they didn’t like this. They were the minority. But the majority was pretty firm in saying that if you go ahead and express what is called material support for a known terrorist group, you could go to jail for that.

TOWNSEND: This is a tremendous win for not only the United States but for the current administration. It’s interesting, Wolf, Elena Kagan the current Supreme Court nominee argued in favor of upholding this law. This is an important tool the government uses to convict those, to charge and convict, potentially convict those who provide money, recruits, propaganda, to terrorist organizations, but are not what we call people who actually blow things up or pull the trigger.

BLITZER: So it’s a major decision, a 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court. If you’re thinking about even voicing support for a terrorist group, don’t do it because the government can come down hard on you and the Supreme Court said the government has every right to do so.

TOWNSEND: It is more than just voicing support, Wolf. It is actually the notion of providing material support, significant material support.

BLITZER: But they’re saying that if material support, they’re defining as expressing support or giving advice or whatever to that organization.

TOWNSEND: That’s right. But it could be technical advice, bomb-building advice, fundraising.

So Fran Townsend lavishly praised this decision — one that, as Blitzer put it, means that “If you’re thinking about even voicing support for a terrorist group, don’t do it because the government can come down hard on you.” And while Townsend was right that the decision requires “more than just voicing support” for the Terrorist group, the Court was crystal clear that such voicing of support, standing alone, can be prosecuted if it is done in coordination with the group (“the term ’service’ [] cover[s] advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization“).

But look at what is happening now to Fran Townsend and many of her fellow political elites. In August of last year, The Christian Science Monitor‘s Scott Peterson published a detailed exposé about “a high-powered array of former top American officials” who have received “tens of thousands of dollars” from a designated Terrorist organization – the Iranian dissident group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) — and then met with its leaders, attended its meetings, and/or publicly advocated on its behalf. That group includes Rudy Giuliani, Howard Dean, Michael Mukasey, Ed Rendell, Andy Card, Lee Hamilton, Tom Ridge, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Michael Hayden, John Bolton, Louis Freeh — and Fran Townsend. This is how it works:

Former US officials taking part in MEK-linked events told the Monitor or confirmed publicly that they received substantial fees, paid by local Iranian-American groups to speaker bureaus that handle their public appearances.

The State Dept. official, who is familiar with the speech contracts, explains the mechanism: “Your speech agent calls, and says you get $20,000 to speak for 20 minutes. They will send a private jet, you get $25,000 more when you are done, and they will send a team to brief you on what to say.”

As but one example, Rendell, the former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania and current MSNBC contributor, was paid $20,000 for a 10- minute speech before a MEK gathering, and has been a stalwart advocate of the group ever since.

Even for official Washington, where elite crimes are tolerated as a matter of course, this level of what appears to be overt criminality — taking large amounts of money from a designated Terrorist group, appearing before its meetings, meeting with its leaders, then advocating on its behalf — is too much to completely overlook. The Washington Times reported on Friday that the Treasury Department’s counter-Terrorism division is investigating speaking fees paid to former Gov. Rendell, who, the article notes, has “become among [MEK’s] most vocal advocates.” According to Rendell, “investigators have subpoenaed records related to payments he has accepted for public speaking engagements” for MEK. As the article put it, ”some observers have raised questions about the legality of accepting payment in exchange for providing assistance or services to a listed terrorist group.” Beyond the “material support” crime, engaging in such transactions with designated Terrorist groups is independently prohibited by federal law:

David Cole, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, noted that “any group that’s on the list is also, by definition, on the Treasury Department’s list for specially designated global terrorists.”

“Anyone in the United States is prohibited from engaging in any transaction with such an entity,” he said.

While Mr. Cole stressed his personal belief that individuals have a “First Amendment right to speak out freely” for an organization like the MEK, he said that “it is a crime to engage in any transaction, which would certainly include getting paid to do public relations for them.“

Rendell has a lot of company in the commission of what very well may be these serious crimes — including the very same Fran Townsend who cheered the Humanitarian Law decision that could be her undoing. After someone on Twitter wrote to her this weekend to say that she should be prosecuted (and “put in GITMO indefinitely”) for her “material support” of MEK, this is how — with the waving American flag as her chosen background — she defended herself in reply:

How reprehensible is the conduct of Fran Townsend here? Just two years ago, she went on CNN to celebrate a Supreme Court decision that rejected First Amendment claims of free speech and free association in order to rule that anyone — most often Muslims — can be prosecuted under the “material support” statute simply for advocacy for a Terrorist group that is coordinated with the group. And yet, the minute Fran Townsend gets caught doing exactly that — not just out of conviction but also because she’s being paid by that Terrorist group — she suddenly invokes the very same Constitutional rights whose erosions she cheered when it came to the prosecution of others. Now that her own liberty is at stake by virtue of getting caught being on the dole from a Terrorist group, she suddenly insists that the First Amendment allows her to engage in this behavior: exactly the argument that Humanitarian Law rejected, with her gushing approval on CNN (“a tremendous win for not only the United States but for the current administration“; This is an important tool the government uses to convict those . . . who provide [] propaganda, to terrorist organizations”).”

What is particularly repellent about all of this is not the supreme hypocrisy and self-interested provincialism of Fran Townsend. That’s all just par for the course. What’s infuriating is that there are large numbers of people — almost always Muslims — who have been prosecuted and are now in prison for providing “material support” to Terrorist groups for doing far less than Fran Townsend and her fellow cast of bipartisan ex-officials have done with and on behalf of MEK. In fact, the U.S. Government has been (under the administration in which Townsend worked) and still is (under the administration Rendell supports) continuously prosecuting Muslims for providing “material support” for Terrorist groups based on their pure speech, all while Fran Townsend, Ed Rendell and company have said nothing or, worse, supported the legal interpretations that justified these prosecutions.

The last time I wrote about these individuals’ material support for MEK, I highlighted just a few of those cases:

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

Yet we have the most well-connected national security and military officials in Washington doing far more than all of that right out in the open — they’re receiving large payments from a Terrorist group, meeting with its leaders, attending their meetings, and then advocating for them in very public forums; Howard Dean, after getting paid by the group, actually called for MEK’s leader to be recognized as the legitimate President of Iran – and so far none have been prosecuted or even indicted. The Treasury Department investigation must at least scare them. Thus, like most authoritarians, Fran Townsend suddenly discovers the importance of the very political liberties she’s helped assault now that those Constitutional protections are necessary to protect herself from prosecution. It reminds me quite a bit of how former Democratic Rep. Jane Harman — one of the most reliable advocates for Bush’s illegal spying program — suddenly started sounding like a life-long, outraged ACLU member as soon as it was revealed that her own private communications were legally surveilled by the U.S. Government.

One can reasonably debate whether MEK actually belongs on the list of Terrorist organizations (the same is true for several other groups on that list). But as a criminal matter, that debate is irrelevant. The law criminalizes the providing of material support to any group on that list, and it is not a defense to argue after one gets caught that the group should be removed.

Moreover, the argument that MEK does not belong on the Terrorist list — always a dubious claim — has suffered a serious blow in the last couple of months. An NBC News report from Richard Engel and Robert Windrem in February claimed that it was MEK which perpetrated the string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, and that the Terrorist group “is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service” (MEK denied the report). If true, it means that MEK continues to perpetrate definitive acts of Terrorism: using bombs and guns to kill civilian scientists and severely injure their wives. Yet Townsend, Rendell, Dean, Giuliani and other well-paid friends continue to be outspoken advocates of the group. Even the dissenters in Humanitarian Law argued that the First Amendment would allow “material support” prosecution “when the defendant knows or intends that those activities will assist the organization’s unlawful terrorist actions.” A reasonable argument could certainly be advanced that, in light of these recent reports about MEK’s Terrorism, one who takes money from the group and then advocates for its removal from the Terrorist list “knows or intends that those activities will assist the organization’s unlawful terrorist actions”: a prosecutable offense even under the dissent’s far more limited view of the statute.

But whatever else is true, the activities of Townsend, Rendell, Dean, Giuliani and the rest of MEK’s paid shills are providing more than enough “material support” to be prosecuted under the Humanitarian Law decision and other statutes. They’re providing more substantial “material support” to this Terrorist group than many people — usually vulnerable, powerless Muslims — who are currently imprisoned for that crime. It’s nice that Fran Townsend suddenly discovered the virtues of free speech and free association guarantees, but under the laws she and so many others like her have helped implement and defend, there is a very strong case to make that her conduct and those of these other well-connected advocates for this Terrorist group is squarely within the realm of serious criminal behavior.

Glenn Greenwald,

March 13, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The Folly of American Pro-MEK Advocates

Josh Rogin reports on the latest development in the MEK story:

However, according to an Obama administration official who works on the issue, it’s actually the MEK that is trashing Camp Liberty — literally. According to this official, the U.N. has reported that MEK members at Camp Liberty have been sabotaging the camp, littering garbage and manipulating the utilities to make things look worse than they really are. While there are some legitimate problems at the camp, the official admitted, the U.N. has been monitoring Camp Liberty’s water, sewage, and food systems on a daily basis and the conditions are better than the MEK is portraying.

It doesn’t exactly come as a shock that the MEK is misrepresenting the facts about the conditions at Camp Liberty, since the group misrepresents itself on a regular basis. Pro-MEK advocates in the U.S. and Europe worked diligently for years to blur the differences between the welfare of the civilians at Camp Ashraf and the issue of the MEK’s listing as a foreign terrorist organization. The goal of this was to exploit the plight of Ashraf residents (or, more accurately, prisoners of the group’s leadership) to build support for removing the group from the FTO list. Now that the legitimate humanitarian concerns about conditions at Ashraf are being addressed, these same advocates are portraying Camp Liberty as a prison or “concentration camp.” The reason for this is not to improve conditions for the people at Camp Liberty, but to continue using humanitarian appeals to make itself seem more sympathetic as an organization that it is.

The pro-MEK advocates are complicating a difficult situation, and they are actually undermining the prospects for a peaceful resolution to the MEK’s presence in Iraq. Then again, this is what one would expect from paid stooges:

“The Americans who ought to know better and claim to be on the side of good solutions are really damaging it. Either they are too lazy or too arrogant to actually do their homework. They don’t spend the time to learn facts, they just pop off. They accept the MEK line without question and then they posture,” the official said. “We have a plan that has a chance to work and the Iraqis want it to work. The MEK … it’s not clear. And in this situation they are being badly advised by the people whose names appear in these ads.”

“Whether the MEK wants a resolution or wants a confrontation is something we’re still debating. It’s that bad,” the official said.

By Daniel Larison

March 13, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Ed Rendell, Investigated In MEK Speaker Fees, Backs ‘Terrorist’ Group

WASHINGTON — Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell acknowledged this week that the Treasury Department is investigating payments he accepted to speak in support of an Iranian exile group on the U.S. government’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Groups in the U.S. related to Iran’s Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) have spent millions on highly paid American speakers, including Rendell, as part of a lobbying campaign to remove the group from the foreign terrorist organizations list. It’s illegal for U.S. citizens to accept payment from foreign terrorist organizations.

Rendell, a Democrat, defended his acceptance of payments from MEK-related groups, even after the Washington Times reported that federal agents subpeonaed financial records last month from his agent, William Morris Endeavor.

Rendell said his support of the MEK was an issue of conscience, not simply a chance for him to make easy money. "I did my research extensively on this issue before I ever agreed to speak on it," he told the Washington Times. "And I am 100 percent convinced that the MEK shouldn’t be on the foreign terrorist organization list." Rendell left office in January 2011 after two terms as Pennsylvania governor. He has since joined a number of investment groups and appears regularly on MSNBC. Before he was elected governor, he was chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He couldn’t be reached Monday by The Huffington Post.

Rendell’s "extensive research" claim appears to contradict what he told the audience at his very first MEK-related speaking engagement — a July 16 conference at the Willard Hotel in Washington attended by this reporter. There, on a bipartisan panel of former administration officials, all receiving at least $20,000 for their appearances, Rendell said he had received the speaking invitation only five days before. Typically, top-tier speakers like Rendell are booked months in advance.

When he first read the offer, Rendell said he told his representative to turn it down because, as he said, "I don’t know hardly anything about this subject." Rendell said he instructed his agent to send the message, "I would have loved to come, but I don’t think I’m qualified to come."

To Rendell’s surprise, sponsors of the MEK conference weren’t concerned with his lack of knowledge. Rendell said he was "compelled and interested by the level" of the other panelists, including Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, and Anita McBride, the former chief of staff to Laura Bush. This, Rendell said, was why "I decided to come down" to Washington.

In the four days between Rendell’s acceptance of the engagement and his appearance, he told the audience he had received information from at least four sources. "Firstly, from your representatives over the phone," he said. "Secondly, from the materials you sent me. Thirdly from a discussion [Howard Dean and I] had with some of your representatives earlier this morning. And fourthly, from listening to these panelists."

Since July, Rendell has received payment for at least six pro-MEK speeches in the U.S. and Europe — money he said comes from "citizens, both American citizens here and Iranian expats in Europe who believe in the cause.”

The MEK was founded in Iran in 1963, loosely based on Marxist principles. The group carried out bombings in Iran in the 1970s and 1980s, killing some Americans and prompting its inclusion on the U.S. foreign terrorist organizations list when it was first released in 1997.

Asked recently about the origins of the large payments the pro-MEK groups make for high-ranking former officials including himself, Rendell told the Washington Times he doesn’t actually know where the money originates, except that "there’s a very significant group of American citizens" who support the MEK. "How they pledge their money and send it in and aggregate it to pay us, I don’t know,” he told the newspaper.

Christina Wilkie

March 13, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Bill Richardson speaker fees linked to known terror group MEK

When former Gov. Bill Richardson left office he told New Mexicans he was looking forward to visiting baseball parks across the United States.

Instead, the former pitcher has been traveling around the world earning speaking fees.

Eyewitness News has learned some of Richardson’s fees were paid by an Iranian dissident group listed on the U.S. State Department’s list of known terrorist groups.

In addition to paying the former governor, the Mojahedin-e Khalq, also named MEK, has been spending millions to have Richardson and other diplomats, politicians and even former U.S. military generals use their influence to help them get de-listed.

In December 2011, Richardson, the former U.N. Ambassador, told the National Resistance Council in Paris, France that there is increasing international and bipartisan support for the group.

KOB found the video from Richardson’s speech in Paris on YouTube.

At least 33 high-ranking former U.S. officials have given speeches to MEK-friendly audiences since December of last year as part of more than 22 events in Washington, Brussels, London, Paris and Berlin.

While not every speaker accepted payment, MEK-affiliated groups have spent millions of dollars on speaking fees, according to interviews with the former officials, organizers.

Richardon is represented by the Washington Speakers’ Bureau and reportedly earns between $25,000 and $50,000 a speech.

Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, the MEK agreed to give up its weapons arsenal in exchange for protection from the U.S. military.

But following a review in 2007, the U.S. State Department maintained the organization’s classification as a Foreign Terrorist Organization when it ruled the group still possessed the "capacity and will" to commit terrorist acts.

Exiled in Iraq, members of the MEK are suspected of assassinating nuclear scientists working for Iran’s nuclear development program.

Earlier this month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated she has not made a decision to de-list MEK.

She said they must voluntarily relocate from their current camp to another location inside of Iraq first.

By: Peter St. Cyr, KOB Eyewitness News 4

March 12, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Dershowitz: from Israel Firster to MEK Firster for the Right Price

Alan Dershowitz and his 1% hedge fund manager friends at the Emergency Committee of Israel recently declared war on the Center for American Progress and Media Matters because M.J. Rosenberg has called some of Israel’s American Jewish supporters, “Israel Firsters.” Phil Weiss already pointed out the egregious historical error they’ve made in presuming the term was coined by anti-Semites seeking to highlight Jews’ less than robust commitment to their native country.
Richard Silvestein
In fact, the term was first used by Prof. Abram Sachar in a debate with David Ben Gurion, whose views were that Jews around the world owed their primary allegiance to Israel, rather than their home countries.

On the strength of this historical nonsense, Dershowitz has announced it will be his life’s work to get M.J. fired and to get the Obama administration to renounce these think tanks who have the temerity to take an independent view of U.S. policy toward Israel.

I’ve introduced this post with the above story in order to more strongly highlight Dershowitz’s hypocrisy. He recently signed on to the Mujahadeen al Khalq gravy train, where he joins other “needy” Republican and Democrat leaders who are willing to sell their souls for a mess of terrorist porridge.

You see, if you’re a terrorist on behalf of Israel, as MEK is, then you’re kosher as far as Dershowitz is concerned. And your money is golden.[..]

How much money is the MEK dropping on Dershowitz? I’d be shocked if he’d sell himself any cheaper than $50K a pop. If anyone has actual figures on this please get in touch. Where does the money come from? Possibly from the Iran assassinations the MEK performs on Mossad’s behalf, which undoubtedly pay well. Then there’s the possibility that the $400-million Bush allocated for destabilizing Iran in 2007 has found its way either to the MEK or Mossad (or both).

Listen in the YouTube video above to his feigned moral outrage at the alleged “concentration camp” (Rudy Giuliani’s description) that is Camp Liberty(TTL), where 400 MEK terrorists are housed in Iraq. Then read Josh Rogin’s factual account (and this excellent follow-up) of the same story and, as they used to say in grade school, compare and contrast. After doing so you’ll understand that Dershowitz is a fabulist. He’s like that old country song that says put a quarter in the jukebox and I’ll sing that hurtin’ song again. Except that times have changed and Harvard lawyers are a lot harder to buy than old country singers. A quarter doesn’t go very far these days.

In his piece, Rogin notes that the same Camp Liberty [Temporary Transit Location] used to house hundreds of GIs during the Iraq war, and we never heard a peep from any of them (or Giuliani or Dershowitz) about it being a concentration camp. He also notes that it if anything it’s the MEK residents of the Camp who are rendering it uninhabitable:

…According to an Obama administration official who works on the issue, it’s actually the MEK that is trashing Camp Liberty[TTL] — literally. According to this official, the U.N. has reported that MEK members at Camp Liberty[TTL] have been sabotaging the camp, littering garbage and manipulating the utilities to make things look worse than they really are. While there are some legitimate problems at the camp, the official admitted, the U.N. has been monitoring Camp Liberty’s [TTL]water, sewage, and food systems on a daily basis and the conditions are better than the MEK is portraying.

Dersh spoke at a February 26th DC conference sponsored by MEK. There was an earlier December conference in Paris at which Tom Ridge, Howard Dean and a host of other luminary mercenaries spoke. They took advantage of the group’s largesse to get an all-expenses-paid trip

Rudy Giuliani yukking it up with MEK cult queen, Maryam Rajavi

to the City of Light in return for mouthing platitudes about the eternal virtues of Maryam Rajavi, the queen-bee empress of the movement.

So the next time Dershowitz shoots off his mouth about M.J. Rosenberg, Media Matters or Center for American Progress, remember what you read and heard here. When it comes to bearing moral witness Dershowitz is about as impeachable as they come.

I do so love it when shady violent thugs like the MEK tout Dersh’s so-called street cred as a “human rights advocate:”

…One of the most prominent advocates of individual rights and the most well-known lawyer in criminal cases in the world…

The only human right he cares about is Israel’s “right” to do whatever the hell it wants to the Palestinians. As far as the rights of others go, he could give a crap. Unless of course, it serves Israel’s interests. Though I haven’t specifically heard him sounding off on this subject, you can be damn sure he’s morally outraged at what’s going on in Syria and demanding western intervention to topple Assad. Though I suppose it’s possible he may be concerned about whoever follows Assad being more hostile toward Israeli interests.

The conference at which Dershowitz spoke was hosted by the Global Initiative for Democracy. One thing you’ve got to say about MEK, they’re excellent co-opters of slogans designed to win the hearts of U.S. politicians and civic leaders. They touch all the bases and use all the appropriate buzzwords like “liberty” and “democracy.” If anyone who’s taking MEK cash thinks these people advocate democracy for Iran, let them take a look at the people they assassinated before they were run out of the country after the 1979 Revolution, or the Americans they murdered afterward. These are radical extremists (they’ve also been called a “political cult”) willing to use any and all means to gain their objectives. When it was convenient for them to kill Americans, they did so. Now that it’s more convenient and remunerative to kill Iranian scientists, they do so.

March 12, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Are the MEK’s U.S. friends its worst enemies?

For years, a slew of advocates – many of whom have been paid for their services — have flooded U.S. airwaves on behalf of the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (MEK), a State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization opposed to the Iranian regime.

After months of difficult negotiations, the MEK has finally begun moving out of its secretive Iraqi home near the Iranian border, called Camp Ashraf. But the group’s American advocates have now become a major obstacle in the international effort to move the MEK to a new home in Iraq and avoid a bloody clash with the Iraqi military, officials say.

U.N. special representative in Iraq Martin Kobler, with help from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and the State Department, has organized efforts to relocate the MEK to Camp Liberty, a former U.S. military base near the Baghdad airport. The first convoy of about 400 MEK members arrived there last month. The second convoy of about 400 MEK members arrived Thursday at Camp Liberty, Reuters reported.

The United Nations and the U.S. government have worked tirelessly in recent months to avoid a violent clash between the MEK and the Shiite-led Iraqi government, which is determined to oust the MEK from Camp Ashraf, where more than 3,000 members of the group, many of them suspected to be armed, have lived for years. Two previous attempts by the Iraqi government to enter the camp resulted in bloody confrontations.

But the U.N. and the State Department’s efforts have been made exponentially more difficult due to the MEK’s surprisingly strong base of support in Washington. In recent weeks, retired U.S. officials and politicians — many of whom admit to being paid by the MEK or one of its many affiliates — have mounted a sophisticated media campaign accusing the U.N. and the U.S. government of forcing the group to live in subhuman conditions against its will at Camp Liberty[Temporary Transit Location] , an accusation U.S. officials say is as inaccurate as it is unhelpful.

"This is tough enough without paid advocates making it worse," one official told The Cable.

"Camp Liberty: A Prison For Iranian Dissidents in Iraq," reads a March 3 full-page ad in the New York Times, leveling the surprising accusation that the former U.S. military base is unfit for human occupation. The ad quotes former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani calling Camp Liberty[Temporary Transit Location] "a concentration camp" — a charge Giuliani made at an MEK-sponsored conference late last month in Paris. The ad also quotes former Democratic National Committee chairman and Vermont Governor Howard Dean, former Homeland Security secretary and Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz trashing Camp Liberty[Temporary Transit Location].

However, according to an Obama administration official who works on the issue, it’s actually the MEK that is trashing Camp Liberty [TTL] — literally. According to this official, the U.N. has reported that MEK members at Camp Liberty[TTL] have been sabotaging the camp, littering garbage and manipulating the utilities to make things look worse than they really are. While there are some legitimate problems at the camp, the official admitted, the U.N. has been monitoring Camp Liberty’s[TTL] water, sewage, and food systems on a daily basis and the conditions are better than the MEK is portraying.

The New York Times ad is only the latest in a years-long, multi-million dollar campaign by the MEK and its supporters to enlist famous U.S. politicians and policymakers in their efforts to get the group removed from the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations and resist Iraqi attempts to close Camp Ashraf, which the new government sees as a militarized cult compound on its sovereign territory.

The campaign has included huge rallies outside the State Department, massive sit-ins at congressional hearings, and an ongoing vigil outside the State Department’s C Street entrance. MEK supporters there tout the support of a long list of officials, including Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, former Sen. Robert Torricelli, former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, former National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers, former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, former CIA Director Porter Goss, senior advisor to the Romney campaign Mitchell Reiss, retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, and former Sen. Evan Bayh.

The administration official told The Cable that, as delicate negotiations between the U.N., the United States, the Iraqis, and the MEK continue, the role of these often paid advocates is becoming even more unhelpful and potentially dangerous.

"The Americans who ought to know better and claim to be on the side of good solutions are really damaging it. Either they are too lazy or too arrogant to actually do their homework. They don’t spend the time to learn facts, they just pop off. They accept the MEK line without question and then they posture," the official said. "We have a plan that has a chance to work and the Iraqis want it to work. The MEK … it’s not clear. And in this situation they are being badly advised by the people whose names appear in these ads."

"Whether the MEK wants a resolution or wants a confrontation is something we’re still debating. It’s that bad," the official said.

The relationship between the American advocates and the MEK leadership, led by the Paris-based Maryam Rajavi, has led both to pursue strategies that neglect the dire risks of sabotaging the move from Camp Liberty[TTL] to Camp Ashraf, the official said. Rajavi is said to have created a cult of personality around herself and to rule the MEK as a unchallenged monarch.

"The not-too-stable Queen [Rajavi] hired a bunch of court flatterers to tell her that she’s great, which is fine, except that she has now forgotten that these are hired court flatterers. She thinks they are actual advisors," the official said. "Meanwhile her wise counselors are being marginalized by those who are saying ‘Oh Queen, your magnificence will cause your enemies to fall on their knees.’ And she’s beginning to believe them."

"By enabling Rajavi to indulge her worst instincts and encouraging her to think she has more power and leverage she does, they may precipitate a crisis, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid," the official said.

Another example of the American advisors’ unhelpfulness was the MEK’s recent public call to be relocated en masse to Jordan, an idea the U.S. official said came from the group’s American friends. There was just one problem: Nobody had asked the Jordanians.

"To announce it publicly as a demand without checking with the Jordanians is the sort of thing you do to destroy it," the official said. "Why the hell should the Jordanians buy trouble like this by giving these people an autonomous militarized camp?"

U.N. and U.S. officials had been hoping to keep discussions open with Jordan about the possibility of hosting some MEK members in the event of an emergency, such as a renewed outbreak of violence. But U.S. officials now think that the MEK’s actions have made that much more difficult.

"Whoever advised them has done actual demonstrable damage to a possible humanitarian solution. They’re not helping. It’s remarkable," the official said.

The arrival at Camp Liberty Thursday of the second convoy may signal that the MEK is coming around to the realization that the Iraqi government will never allow it to stay at Camp Ashraf. But the U.S. official warned that the group may have more tricks up its sleeve.

"The MEK will delay, confuse, deny, and spin until faced with an imminent disaster, and then they give only enough to avoid that disaster," the official said. "And the problem is: If you play chicken enough, eventually you will get into a head-on collision."

Foreign Policy

March 11, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization's Propaganda System

What’s Up With All the MEK Ads?

The Prospect takes on the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq ads playing nonstop during campaign coverage.

If you’ve been watching cable news lately, there’s a good chance that you’ve noticed some out-of-the-ordinary adverts. Namely, a 30-second spot done in the grainy style of a spy-thriller flashback calling for the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian dissident group, to be taken off the official U.S. terrorist watch list. It’s a conspicuous outsider in the typical ad roster filled with car commercials and cholesterol meds, which might have led some viewers to wonder, “What’s up with that?”

Ask and ye shall receive.

What does the MEK purport to be?

As tabloid editors who traffic in celebrity divorces and teen-idol feuds well know, there are two sides to every juicy story. In the words of the commercial mentioned above, the “MEK is Iran’s democratic opposition working for a nuclear-free Iran founded on human rights.” The ad employs cinematically ominous music and a narrator whose vocal stylings are more stress-inducing than a pelvic exam, all to great effect. It closes with pictures of U.S. politicians and officials who have publicly supported the group, along with the imperative, “Secretary Clinton, for democracy and freedom in Iran, delist MEK.”

This sentiment is well in line with how supporters of the MEK portray the group—as a political movement with freedom-fighting roots going back to the overthrow of the shah. The MEK didn’t mesh well with Iran’s new Islamic government, however, (Marxist leanings appear to terrify powerful imams just as much as they do senators from Wisconsin), and its members were booted from the country in 1981.

Most MEK loyalists moved into a camp on the Iran/Iraq border and were materially supported by Saddam Hussein until his ouster. Over the course of the last three decades, they have been linked to attacks on Iranian embassies abroad, along with assassinations within Iran itself.

How does the U.S. government characterize the MEK?

As a Foreign Terrorist Organization, the official bad-guy label that the group earned from the State Department in 1997, the U.S.’s feelings about MEK are pretty clear. According to the official State Department report listing the MEK as a terrorist organization, which was obtained recently by NBC news, the group’s actions during the Iranian revolution were anti-American: “As part of that struggle, they assassinated at least six American citizens, supported the takeover of the U.S. embassy, and opposed the release of the American hostages.”

Most recently, the MEK has been accused of coordinating with Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, in the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist in January in the midst of busy downtown Tehran traffic.

Why is there talk of delisting?

In July 2010, a federal appeals court in D.C. ordered the State Department to reconsider the MEK’s place on the terrorist watch list. The court ordered the State Department to revise the MEK’s delineation as a terrorist group on the grounds that it was categorized without proper evidence brought by the government. The ruling mandated that Secretary Clinton come back with sufficient evidence and a ruling on the MEK designation within 180 days. Two years later, no such announcement has been made. In 2009, the European Union removed the MEK from its watch list.

The MEK sounds sketchy! How’d it get support from all those politicians in the pro-delisting TV ads?

The short answer is, to quote the inimitable Coolio, because of the “power and the money.”

Basically, through its Paris-based political wing, The National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), the MEK has been on a PR blitz as of late. The poster girl for the movement is Maryam Rajavi, who, along with her husband Massoud (whereabouts unknown—how glam!) runs the MEK’s operations. The current TV ad features her wearing a matronly suit and a purple hijab, smiling winningly for the cameras.

The quest for legitimacy in recent years has consisted of paying prominent U.S. political figures thousands of dollars to appear at pro-MEK speaking engagements. Payments are made through speaking agents with money from pro-MEK Iranian community organizations. Videos of Howard Dean, Patrick Kennedy, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and former National Security Adviser Jim Jones promoting the delisting of the MEK can all be found in the multimedia section of the NCRI’s website. Other delisting proponents are retired General Wesley Clark, former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, and former Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson.

Mitchell Reiss, Mitt Romney’s special adviser on foreign policy is another Washington pol who has publicly advocated for the MEK over the years.

Should we be weirded out by this whole campaign?

Yes. Very much.

First of all, the MEK is not well liked by the majority of Iranians because of the numerous acts of violence it has committed within the country. This means that it’s not really a viable regime-change option—which is the reason Washington insiders have been lining up on behalf of the group.

More disturbing is the fact that the MEK is basically a cult. In a 2009 report on the group, the Rand Corporation characterizes the MEK’s practices as “cultic” and their recruitment tactics as “deceptive,” noting that the group practiced “near-religious devotion to the Rajavis…public self-deprecation sessions, mandatory divorce, celibacy, enforced separation from family and friends, and gender segregation.” It goes on to describe efforts to attract new members with false promises of employment and marriage, and the confiscation of passports once recruits reached the MEK stronghold.

In her 2011 opinion piece in The New York Times, Elizabeth Rubin, who spent an extended amount of time in Camp Ashraf, the MEK stronghold by the Iran/Iraq border, echoes these sentiments and expresses dismay at the support from U.S. officials. Her basis for concern came largely from the conditions she witnessed at the camp and the former MEK members with whom she talked: “Friendships and all emotional relationships are forbidden. From the time they are toddlers, boys and girls are not allowed to speak to each other. Each day at Camp Ashraf you had to report your dreams and thoughts.”

What do these commercials mean for primary-campaign season?

Combined with the machismo “bomb Iran” rhetoric that has been bandied back and forth in this year’s GOP race, the airing of the pro-MEK ad during marquee events like the GOP debates is part of a disturbing trend. There have been MEK advocates in Washington for years, namely the Iran Policy Committee led by Raymond Tantur, a Georgetown University professor and former staff member of the National Security Council, but the hawkish leanings of the group meant that it wasn’t really part of the mainstream discourse. The spate of appearances by high-profile, mainstream public officials from both sides of the aisle is a whole different story—it lends a loud microphone to the MEK and bestows legitimacy by osmosis; coasting off of the reputations and connections of their paid supporters in Washington is a shrewd move by the group, one that could very well pay dividends.

Ramped-up talk about Iran from GOP candidates, including Romney, who lacks any real foreign-policy experience (the Olympics don’t count), coupled with the clever pro-MEK ad campaign could mean a softening of ground when it comes to public opinion of the group. There’s nothing like good polling numbers to sway a candidate with an immature foreign policy. After all, if a picture’s worth a thousand words, a cable ad is sure to pack a punch.

By Clare Malone – American Prospect

March 11, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

Treasury probes Rendell over speeches for the MEK

The Treasury Department’s counterterrorism arm is investigating speaking fees paid to a long-time Democratic Party leader who is among the most vocal advocates of an Iranian Treasury probes Rendell over speeches for the MEK opposition group designated as a terrorist group by the State Department.

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell told The Washington Times that Treasury investigators last week subpoenaed records related to payments he has accepted in exchange for public speaking engagements.

Mr. Rendell is among a bipartisan group of prominent former officials – including Cabinet-level Republicans – who have accepted payment in exchange for speeches calling for the removal of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

The MEK, also known as the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has long called for the overthrow of the Islamic regime in Tehran. The group, which engaged in terror attacks on Iranian government targets in the 1980s, has been on the terrorist list since 1997, when President Bill Clinton put it there in an attempt to improve relations with Iran.

Mr. Rendell and others argue the MEK should be removed from the list because it has not engaged in violence in more than two decades and shares a common enemy with the United States.

While support for their position is widespread in Washington, some observers have raised questions about the legality of accepting payment in exchange for providing assistance or services to a listed terror group.

Mr. Rendell, who asserts that he has done nothing illegal, said that on Feb. 29 the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control issued a subpoena seeking “transactional records about what payments we received for speaking fees.”

The subpoena was sent to the office of Thomas McGuire, an attorney with the Los Angeles-based talent agency William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, which handles all of Mr. Rendell’s speaking engagements, including those in which he has advocated on behalf of the MEK.

Calls to Mr. McGuire on Friday were not immediately returned.

A Treasury Department spokesman on Friday refused to confirm or deny the subpoena’s issuance, saying the department “does not comment on possible investigations.”

“But the MEK is a designated terrorist group, therefore U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with or providing services to this group,” the spokesman said.

Designated terrorist groups are subject to sanctions and the spokesman, added that “the Treasury Department takes sanctions enforcement seriously and routinely investigates potential violations of sanctions laws.”

Mr. Rendell said the subpoena sent to his agent seeks information “about any emails, any letters, any communications involving payment that we’ve received or sent back.”

“We’re absolutely cooperating 100 percent,” he said. “I’ve instructed my agent not to hold back on any emails or any documents. There’s nothing to hide.”

Mr. Rendell, who once served as general chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is apparently the only person to be subpoenaed among a group of nearly two-dozen high-level political figures who have grown increasingly vocal in their calls for the MEK’s removal from the terrorist list.

The group includes Democrats such as former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and high-profile Republicans such as former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.

At issue is the fate of 3,400 Iranian dissidents said to be members of the MEK. They have been living in Iraq since the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s when they fought on the Iraqi side.

Since the U.S. occupation of Iraq in 2003, the MEK supporters lived under U.S. protection at a camp on the Iranian border. But now the Americans have left, the Iraqi government has said it will close the camp.

The supporters fear they will be departed to torture and death in Iran, but third countries are unwilling to take them because of the group’s designation on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list overseen by the State Department.

The group has sued the State Department in federal court to be taken off the list, but the case has dragged on for more than two years. Last week, a court ruled that the State Department must respond to the MEK petition by March 26.

The European Union removed the group from its terror list in 2009.

“Anyone in the United States is prohibited from engaging in any transaction with such an entity,” he said.

Mr. Rendell and Mr. Ridge acknowledged to The Times this week that they have accepted payment in exchange for making media appearances and speeches calling for the MEK’s removal from the terrorist list.

And both men defended their actions.

“I’ve been in politics 34 years, and I can tell you right now that I would not jeopardize my reputation for any amount of money,” said Mr. Rendell. “I did my research extensively on this issue before I ever agreed to speak on it, and I am 100 percent convinced that the MEK shouldn’t be on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list.”

As to the extent to which accepting payments for such advocacy may or may not be legal, Mr. Ridge said it is a “moot question.”

“Assuming there may be a question, and we don’t think there is, the bigger question is: Does the MEK belong on the list?” he said. “It’s kind of curious that those who don’t like our advocacy are suggesting that we might be doing something wrong.”

Neither man would specify how much he has been paid for his speeches, although Mr. Rendell, who has traveled to Paris and Geneva five times to attend conferences calling for the MEK’s removal from the terrorist list, said that in addition to receiving a “substantial speaking fee,” his expenses have been covered in full.

A source familiar with the payments said told The Times that a public figure of Mr. Rendell’s stature receives “in the ballpark” of $20,000 per speaking appearance.

But where the money actually comes from is unclear.

Mr. Rendell said payments for his speeches come from “money from citizens, both American citizens here and Iranian expats in Europe who believe in the cause.”

He stressed that he never directly accepts speaking fees, which are handled by his agent at William Morris.

Mr. Ridge, who has not been issued a subpoena from the Treasury Department, said he believes the money comes from legitimate sources but that he was not sure what they are.

“It is my understanding that there is a very large diaspora of Iranian Americans, and the diaspora is international obviously,” he said. “There’s a very significant group of American citizens and how they pledge their money and send it in and aggregate it to pay us, I don’t know.”

Trita Parsi, who heads the National Iranian America Council, argues that the money is connected to the MEK.

“Everyone on Capital Hill knows that, once on the terrorist list, the MEK could no longer lobby under their own name, so they created organizations with the same individuals and used those organizations, which are not on the terrorist list, to do the lobbying,” said Mr. Parsi.

“That includes giving money to U.S. officials to speak on their behalf and speak in support of the MEK while pretending that the money is not coming from the MEK.”

The website of the National Iranian American Council maintains a list of groups it claims are raising money for the MEK, and Mr. Parsi claims that officials from the State Department have privately told him that the MEK sets up “shell organizations” to raise money.

When asked about Mr. Parsi’s claim Friday, a State Department spokesman declined to comment.

By Guy Taylor
Shaun Waterman contributed to this report

March 11, 2012 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

The MEK’s Useful Idiots

If you are a Muslim American who is appalled by U.S. foreign policy, most specifically its Philip Giraldi penchant for invading Islamic countries in a bid to change their regimes, and you make the mistake of saying something to that effect on the phone or writing about your concerns in an email, there is a good chance that the FBI will come after you. You will in short order find yourself with a new friend who is a Muslim just like you and who shares your frustration with American foreign policy. At a certain point he will reveal his affiliation with a certain overseas group that is interested in obtaining revenge for all the Muslims who have been killed or injured by the United States. He will suggest that doing something about the problem would be neither sinful nor really wrong, and he will hint that he has access to the weapons or bombs that could be used for a revenge attack. You take the bait. The bomb or gun is a dud and the new friend turns out to be an FBI informant. Another “terrorist” is arrested and sent to jail for 20 years. End of story.
Americans who are not Muslim should be concerned by the repeated entrapment of so-called terrorists, first of all because the process reveals that our private communications are no longer very private. Second, the law enforcement use of a planted informant to encourage and enable someone to commit a crime used to be illegal. It is not so anymore.
Many of the terrorism cases are not related to actual terror but rather to what is described as material support. It is interesting to read what exactly the United States Code states. It is 18 USC § 2339A — Providing Material Support to Terrorists:
)a) Offense.— Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section [38 sections and acts are cited] or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.
)b) Definitions [my emphasis]: As used in this section—(1) the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials; … (3) the term “expert advice or assistance” means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.
To see how loose the definition of support can be, consider an actual case dating from September 2011. Pakistan-born Jubair Ahmad, 24, was accused of providing material support to the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which is designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization. Ahmad produced and posted a propaganda video for LeT “glorifying violent jihad” in 2010, some three years after he arrived in the United States with his parents and two younger brothers. “Terrorist organizations such as LeT … use the Internet and other media as part of well-orchestrated propaganda campaigns,” the FBI stated in its affidavit on Ahmad. Though the charge is not spelled out in any more detail, one would assume that Ahmad is considered to be guilty of providing “expert advice or assistance” to LeT.
Which brings me to the subject of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, better known as MEK. The MEK has been on the State Department roster of foreign terrorist organizations since the list was established in 1997. Its inclusion derives from its having killed six Americans in the 1970s and from its record of violence both inside and outside Iran since that time. The group was driven out of Iran, denied refuge in France, and eventually armed and given a military base by Saddam Hussein. Saddam used the group to carry out terrorist acts inside Iran. The MEK is widely regarded as a cult and is headed by spouses Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. Its members are required to be celibate, and there are reports that they are subjected to extensive brainwashing, physical torture, severe beatings even unto death, and prolonged solitary confinement if they question the leadership. One scholar who has studied them describes their beliefs as a “weird combination of Marxism and Islamic fundamentalism.” Like many other terrorist groups, the MEK has a political wing that operates openly, the National Council of Resistance, which is based in Paris, and another front organization called Executive Action, which operates in Washington.
The U.S. military and the CIA have in the past recruited MEK agents to enter Iran and report on nuclear facilities. Other MEK agents, recruited and trained by Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, have recently killed a number of Iranian nuclear scientists and officials. The group appears to have ample financial resources, and it is generally believed that at least some of the money comes from Mossad. The MEK is able to place full-page ads in major U.S. newspapers and is also known to pay hefty speaker’s fees to major political figures who are willing to speak publicly on its behalf. The group claims to want regime-change in Iran to restore democracy to the country, an odd assertion as it itself has no internal democracy.
Because the MEK is a resource being used by Israel in its clandestine war against Iran, it is perhaps inevitable that many friends of Israel in the United States are campaigning vigorously to have the group removed from the terrorism list. Indeed, neocons at their various think-tanks and publications as well as AIPAC all support delisting the group. At this moment, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, not surprisingly, appears to be inclined to give in to the pressure and delist the MEK once it completes its departure from Camp Ashraf in Iraq, where it has been based for the past 20 years. There might be some problem in arranging the move, as few countries want to take the MEK supporters, fearing that they would have to be deprogrammed from their brainwashing.
The MEK’s friends argue that the group has not killed anyone since 1999, though the recent assassinations employing MEK members belie that assertion, as do FBI reports revealing terrorist planning as late as 2004. Many speakers defending the MEK have also admitted that they do not know much about the group, most particularly in regard to its cult status, though they insist that their support is based on the fact that the organization is now not lethal (and, of course, the handsome speaking fees they have received).
The well-connected friends of the MEK include well-known neocons like John Bolton and James Woolsey. And there is also the paid supporting cast including former head of the Democratic Party Howard Dean; former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani; ex-CIA director Michael Hayden; former generals Anthony Zinni, Peter Pace, and Hugh Shelton; former congressman Lee Hamilton; ex–attorney general Michael Mukasey; former Homeland Security director Tom Ridge; former national security adviser Jim Jones; ex-senator Robert Torricelli; former FBI director Louis Freeh; and former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. Current representatives Dana Rohrabacher and Brad Sherman also openly support the MEK and joined 96 other congressmen in calling for the lifting of the terrorism label.
Lee Hamilton has praised the MEK for providing useful intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facility at Natanz, but some of the intelligence in question is believed to be fabricated by the Mossad. Hamilton subsequently admitted that he was paid a “substantial amount” to speak and conceded that he might have been fooled by the group’s democratic credentials. “You always can be misled,” he said. Ethically challenged former senator and current lobbyist Robert Torricelli is less flexible, stating that he is “personally offended” by the group being listed as terrorist, noting that it can be “used” against Iran.
In August 2011, Rep. Ted Poe of Texas struck a similar note, referring to the MEK as “freedom fighters,” the only “real” opposition to the government in Tehran. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney advocates delisting the group so it can undertake “provocative actions” against Iran, which he describes as killing Iranians if and when they kill Americans. So the objective for some MEK supporters clearly seems to be to give a pass to a terrorist group and to even encourage it to undertake violent action, as long as it is “our” terrorist group attacking people that we consider the bad guys.
Given the history of the MEK as a terrorist organization and the deliberately broad wording of the relevant U.S. statute, it would seem that speaking on behalf of the group amounts to material support of terrorism. So I have to ask why is it that the numerous prominent MEK supporters are walking free while Jubair Ahmad can be called a terrorist for the exercise of what might well appear to be similar First Amendment rights in producing something for a website? Can it be that the richly compensated MEK spokesmen are too important to arrest? Or is there one justice system for working-class Muslims and another for blowhards like John Bolton? Or is it just a fool’s game with the usual Washington crowd queuing up for a bad cause because they are both lining their pockets and thinking they are helping Israel? In any event, it is a poor bargain for the rest of us, but that hardly seems to matter anymore.

by Philip Giraldi

March 10, 2012 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts