Robert Hunter, a retired ambassador now with the National Defense University, says the residents of Camp Ashraf ought to be protected. But, he adds,”getting into bed with these people, I think, would be a profound mistake.”Hunter describes the MEK aka MKO/PMOI as a Marxist cult, whose members have learned the ways of Western public relations.
Although UNHCR won’t require the dissidents to disassociate from the group, it said in a recent statement that refugee status could be granted only to individuals and not to the group as a whole. In effect, the MEK aka MKO/PMOI, as its known by its Farsi language initials, appears to be on the verge of accepting the demand by U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey in July to disband as a military formation.
Mr. Arango submitted questions by email, which elicited a lengthy response from the MEK.The problem was not cured, however, because so little of the MEK response was incorporated in the story. One simply does not learn from this story why the group seems so intransigent about its unwillingness to relocate, disband or accept an end to American protection. The MEK’s point of view on this was an essential, but missing, element in a story that so thoroughly reported on the ambassador’s perspective.
In the past, the MEK leadership has refused to allow most residents of Camp Ashraf to apply for refugee status or to speak with UNHCR representatives without MEK officials present.Former members of the group, who contend that the MEK is a cult that fosters blind obedience to its leaders, say that many Ashraf inhabitants have been held against their will and would eagerly leave the camp if they could. ..
The Minister expressed the reservation and objection of the Iraqi government to the request of the European Commission to designate a special representative to Camp New Iraq (formerly Ashraf) but stressed that the government of Iraq has consistently appealed to and asked European countries and other countries to receive and resettle residents of the camp in their countries. He also stressed that the government is committed to close the camp..
The group’s long list of detractors – and many Iran experts – warn against removing them from the terrorist list.In a 2009 report, Rand, a non-profit Washington think-tank, called the group a”cult”and”skilled manipulators of public opinion”.Based inside Iraq, at a camp called Ashraf, north of Baghdad, the MEK/MKO/PMOI has been on the US list of banned foreign terrorist organisations (FTO) since 1997.
“Iraq’s position stems from its commitment to the rules of international law and humanitarian law. Iraq is ready to cooperate with the [UNHCR] Representative to find realistic and humanitarian solutions for the inhabitants of the camp”. Concerning Camp Ashraf, Abawi said,”The [Mojahedin/MKO/MEK/PMOI] organization is a terrorist organization as classified by the United States and Europe,…
Since 1997, the MEK has been through many ups and downs and now, on the eve of its 50th anniversary, has mobilized all its efforts to be removed from the United State’s list of terrorist organizations. The MEK/MKO/PMOI says it renounced violence in 2001, after claiming responsibility for 350 attacks in 2000 and 2001, according to a RAND Corporation tabulation. However, a 2004 FBI report found that the group was “currently actively involved in planning and executing acts of terrorism.”
The people inside the camp are described as “non status” and they are not accepted as refugees or even asylum seekers. The Iraqi government is adamant it will carry out the decision to close the camp – which is one of the last remains of the Saddam regime – and on the other hand the leaders of the Mojahedin inside the camp insist on keeping the status quo without any logical, legitimate, legal or other reasons..
The material-support law is the statute prosecutors most use in suspected terrorism cases, including not just in our federal courts but also in military commissions. It is now the most far-reaching statute prosecutors use in suspected terrorism cases. That certainly appears to be happening now, and that’s part of the danger of criminalizing speech and advocacy in this way. It allows the government to pick and choose whose speech and whose advocacy it favors.