True Facts

Investigate the case of lobbyists for MEK terror group in Washington

Congressman Kucinich to Attorney General Eric Hoder:
Investigate the case of lobbyists for MEK terror group in Washington

Kucinich Asks Tough Questions About FBI Investigation of Anti-War Groups
“Is it Good Judgment to Direct the Overwhelming Resources of the Federal Government onto Small, Local Groups and Individuals whose Primary Interest is Peace
Washington, Jul 25 – Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder asking tough questions about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s large commitment of resources to investigate small, local groups of individuals whose primary concern is peace. Congressman Kucinich also asked for an explanation for the apparent differential use of vague and broad criminal statutes.

“A federal prosecutor has tremendous power and resources,” wrote Kucinich. “Because of that, he has a concomitant obligation to exercise that power with judgment and discretion. Is it good judgment to direct the overwhelming resources of the federal government onto small, local groups and individuals whose primary interest is peace? Is it good judgment to investigate them under a vague and broad statute whose text and interpretations have changed numerous times over the past decade? Is this really the best use of Department of Justice personnel?”

See a signed copy of the letter here.

part of the Document:… The Washington Post and other news sources have reported that fromer Attorny General Michael Mukasy, former Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, former Whaite House security adviser Frances Townsend, and former New York Mayor Tudy Giuliani have publicly expressed their support for the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), and organization that has been on the foreign terrorist list of the State Department since 1997… It has been reported that the MEK has spent millions of dollars on lobbyists, PR agents an communications firms to build up pressure on Secretary Hillary Clinton to take the group off the terrorist list. In Horder, the Department of Justice, under both your direction and that of Attorny General Mukasey, argued that it was felony to file an amicus brief on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization, or to engage in public advocacy on behalf of such an organization, unless that advocacy was totally”independent”of the organization. How do you reconcile those arguments with the total absence of attention paid to lobbying activities in support of the MEK? how do you reconcile that inaction with the apparent overkill that has been directed at the anti-war activists in Mineapolis and Chicago? …

Link to the full document:

Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich/ kucinich.house.gov

July 27, 2011 0 comments

France

France step nearer to putting MKO back on EU list

PRESS RELEASE No 73/11
Luxembourg, 14 July 2011
Press and Information
Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-27/09 P

France v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran
Advocate General Sharpston suggests that the Court reject France’s appeal against the General Court’s judgment removing PMOI from the EU terrorist list

France step nearer to putting MKO back on EU list

In so doing she suggests a number of improvements that could be made to procedures so as to ensure an appropriate balance between the need to combat terrorism and the respect of fundamental rights

In December 2008, the Court of First Instance (now called the General Court), annulled a Council Decision including the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran on the European list of terrorist organisations whose funds and other financial assets were to be frozen1. This was the third occasion on which that Court had annulled a decision of this kind.
The previous decisions that had been annulled by the General Court2 had been based on the existence of a UK decision proscribing PMOI, the existence of such a decision by a competent authority at national level being a prerequisite for including an organisation on the EU list. However, PMOI was removed from the list of proscribed organisations in the UK on 24 June 2008, following a ruling of a national court in November 2007 which described that listing as “perverse” and “unreasonable”.

When, on 15 July 2008, the Council adopted a new decision3 updating the EU list, it nevertheless maintained PMOI on the list. The inclusion of PMOI was based on information provided by the French Government as to (i) the opening of a judicial inquiry by the anti-terrorist prosecutor’s office of the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris (Regional Court, Paris) in 2001 and (ii) two supplementary charges brought in 2007 against persons presumed to be members of PMOI. Information to this effect was communicated by the Council to PMOI on the day the decision was adopted.

Annulling this decision, the General Court found that the Council had violated the rights of defence of PMOI by not communicating this new information before adopting the decision.
Whilst this in itself was sufficient to annul the decision, the General Court, for the sake of completeness, also examined the other arguments put forward by PMOI. In particular it found that the opening of a judicial inquiry and the two supplementary charges did not constitute a decision by a competent authority, in respect of PMOI itself, noting that no reasons were advanced as to why the acts ascribed to the alleged members of PMOI should be attributed to that organisation itself. Furthermore, the Court found that by failing to communicate to the Court certain information about the case which the French authorities refused to declassify, the Council had equally infringed the fundamental right of PMOI to effective judicial protection.

France appealed against this judgment to the Court of Justice.
1 Case T-284/08 People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran II (see also Press Release 84/08)
2 Case T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran (see also Press Release 97/06) and Case T-256/07 People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (see also Press Release 79/08)
3 Council Decision 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21).

www.curia.europa.eu

In her Opinion issued today, Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston suggests that the Court dismiss France’s appeal.

As regards the failure by the Council to communicate, prior to the adoption of its decision, the new information to PMOI which resulted in that organisation being maintained on the list, Advocate General Sharpston disagrees with the General Court that the Council had ample time between receiving the information from the French Government on 9 June and adopting its decision on 15 July to communicate that information to PMOI, taking into account the internal procedures of the Council.

However, in her view, this should not have prevented the Council from providing the information to PMOI before adopting a decision maintaining it on the list, as required by the Court’s case law. Whether or not issues of urgency arise, it is simply not open to the Council to ride roughshod over a party’s rights of defence.
So as to balance the interests of the Council, PMOI and the other persons on the list who have a right to have that list reviewed every six months, Miss Sharpston suggests that the Council should have adopted a decision as regards the other persons on the list within the timescale required but deferred adopting a decision in relation to PMOI until such time as it had had the opportunity to notify PMOI and consider that organisation’s response. The error made by the Council was in assuming that it had to adopt a single decision dealing simultaneously with all the persons and organisations on the list. This was not the case.

Consequently, Advocate General Sharpston concurs with the conclusion of the General Court that the Council’s decision had been adopted in violation of PMOI’s rights of defence. As this was the sole reason for the annulment of the decision by the General Court, the Advocate General suggests that the Court dismiss the appeal.
Mindful of the fact that the remaining arguments ought to have no bearing on the outcome of the case, Advocate General Sharpston nevertheless considers it important that they be addressed. Failing to do so would, in her opinion, leave France faced with precisely the same uncertainty that led it to appeal in the first place, an uncertainty which may well be shared by other Member States.

As to whether the opening of a judicial inquiry in 2001 and the supplementary charges brought against individuals suspected of being members of PMOI in 2007 constituted a decision by a competent authority, Miss Sharpston first considers that, given that terrorists are unlikely to assist the authorities by establishing themselves in an easily identifiable manner, the requirement that a national decision be taken “in respect of the persons, groups or entities concerned” must be interpreted broadly. As such it is, in her view, not necessary that the national decision name precisely the same persons or organisations as the EU decision. It is sufficient that there exist serious and credible evidence and clues that the persons named are essentially the same.

As to the nature of the national decision, the Advocate General takes the view that a simple decision to initiate investigations is not, of its own, enough. On the other hand, requiring the national decision to be taken by a court would be too strict a requirement. In her opinion there needs to be serious and credible evidence or clues which are strongly suggestive of a terrorist act and significantly more than mere suspicion or hypothesis.

Taking this into account, Advocate General Sharpston considers that the opening of a judicial inquiry in 2001, which led to further proceedings in 2003 (under French law known as a mise en examen) would meet this test but that the supplementary charges brought in 2007, which were not subject to a mise en examen, would not. As the two were taken together as a whole by the Council, this leads to the conclusion that the French decisions could not form the basis of the Council’s decision.
Furthermore, the Advocate General agrees with the General Court that no proof was provided that the investigations launched in 2007 against alleged members of PMOI could be said to be directed against PMOI itself.

Finally, as regards the withholding of confidential information from the General Court, Advocate General Sharpston takes no issue with that Court’s finding that the Council’s refusal to communicate the information in question resulted in the General Court being unable to review the lawfulness of the decision. However, given the absence of any specific provisions in that Court’s Rules of Procedure for dealing with information that needs to be communicated to the Court but not to the other party to the case, the Advocate General, nevertheless, does not find France’s position unreasonable. In strict accordance with the General Court’s Rules of Procedure it was not possible for that Court to offer the Council any assurance that the confidential information would not, at some point, have to be communicated to PMOI. As a result Advocate General Sharpston suggests that changes be made to the Rules of Procedure and principles be outlined so as to allow the use of such confidential information where necessary to combat terrorism whilst simultaneously ensuring respect of the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date.
NOTE: An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of the European Union that are contrary to European Union law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well founded, the act is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the act.

Court of Justice of the European Union

July 18, 2011 0 comments

USA

Mujahedin-E Khalq criminal investigation by FBI

FBI recently disclosed report reveals MKO continued terror campaign years after they claimed to renounce terrorism

A recently disclosed FBI report from 2004 reveals Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, Rajavi cult) continued to plan terrorist acts years after they claimed to renounce terrorism. The State Department has documented the MEK’s disturbing record: killing Americans and Iranians in terrorist attacks; fighting for Saddam Hussein against Iran and assisting Saddam’s brutal campaign against Iraq’s Kurds and Shia; its”cult-like”behavior; the abuses and even torture it commits against its own members; and its support for the U.S. embassy takeover and calls for executing the hostages …

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK) criminal investigation by FBI

The following is a detailed summary of information learned during criminal investigations of the Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK), aka Mojahedin Khalq Organization(MKO), aka Peoples Mujahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) aka National Council of Resistance (NCR), a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO). … to View the Report click here
Download Mujahedin-E Khalq criminal investigation by FBI

July 3, 2011 0 comments

USA

US State Department: No popular support for MKO among Iranians

A U.S. State Department document released in May 2011 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act says the MEK has no popular support inside Iran and “to the extent Iranians know about this group they are far more likely to oppose it than support it.” It added, “Any U.S. support for MEK would extremely damage its reputation amongst Iranians and would increase anti-American sentiments in Iran.” The State Department cables quoted defectors as describing MEK as a cult that punishes former members. The cables said the MEK leadership ordered the execution of all attempted defectors.
—
UNCLASSIFIED
IRANIAN POPULAR ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE MEK

Summary
Showing a unanimity rare among Iranians, anecdotal information gleaned from both ordinary Iranians living inside Iran and abroad and from Iran analysts strongly indicates that the ‘Mujahedin-e Khalq’ (MEK) opposition group has not significant popular support inside Iran. To the extent that Iranian respondents are familiar with the MEK they express severe dislike for this group, primarily due to its alliance with Saddam Hussein during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. All Iranians queried tended to disbelieve the MEK’s expressed allegiance to the ideals of human rights and democracy, with even hardened Iranian oppositionists and persecuted religious minorities such as the Iranian Baha’i saying they would prefer the current Iranian government to an MEK-affiliated one. Many Iranian respondents believe that any indication of USG support for the MEK would seriously harm USG popularity among ordinary Iranians, even among those Iranians who oppose the current Iranian government, would fuel anti-American sentiment, and would likely empower Iranian hardliners. END

SUMMARY
Body
UNCLAS RPO DUBAI 000048
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
E.O. 13526; N/A
TAGS; PREL, PGOV, IR, PTER

******* THIS IS A COMBINED MESSAGE ******
SUBJECT: IRANIAN POPULAR ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE MEK
1. (SBU) NOTE: The following cable is based on input from State Department Iran-watchers and consular interviewing officers in the main posts that interact with Iranians on a regular basis, i.e. ANKARA, BAKU, BERLIN, DUBAI AND ISTANBUL. END NOTE.
2. (SBU)
SUMMARY: Showing a unanimity rare among Iranians, anecdotal information gleaned from both ordinary Iranians living inside Iran and abroad and from Iran analysts strongly indicates that the ‘Mujahedin-e Khalq’ (MEK) opposition group has no significant popular support inside Iran. To the extent that Iranian respondents are familiar with the MEK they express severe dislike for the group, primarily due to its alliance with Saddam Hussein during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. All Iranians queried tended to disbelieve the MEK’s expressed allegiance to the ideals of human rights and democracy, with even hardened Iranian oppositionists and persecuted religious minorities such as the Iranian Baha’i saying they would prefer the current Iranian government to an MEK-affiliated one. Many Iranian respondents believe that any indication of USG support for the MEK would seriously harm USG popularity among ordinary Iranians, even among those Iranians who oppose the current Iranian government, would fuel anti-American sentiment, and would likely empower Iranian hardliners.
END SUMMARY.
3. (SBU) MEK – BACKGROUND (see Appendix): Originally a 1960s Islamic-Marxist group dedicated to violent overthrow of the Pahlavi regime, the ‘Mujahedin-e Khalq’ (MEK- a.k.a. ‘The People’s Warriors’) was one of the main popular organizations to emerge in the early days of the 1979 Revolution. The increasing ascendancy by clerical elements supporting Ayatollah Khomeini after the revolution let to this group’s gradual elimination from the ruling coalition and its eventual flight from Iran in the early 1980s. Using Iraq as its base, the MEK mounted attacks against Iranian military during the latter stages of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, then after the 1988 Iran-Iraq cease-fire it continued attacks against Iranian leadership until it was forced to stand down its Iraq-based operations as a result of ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ in 2003. Currently, MEK supporters claim the group has renounced violence as a tool and seeks a secular, democratic Iran, while its detractors claim it is more a cult of personality centred on a leadership unchanged since 1979 than a popular-based political movement. Its membership in its ‘Camp Ashraf’ base in Iraq consists of a few thousand rank-and-file members, mostly either older original ‘first generation’ members from the 1970s or younger Iranians from poorer ethnic minorities such as Iranian Baluch.
Since deprived of Iraq government funding since 2003 the MEK has increasingly relied on fundraising in Europe under various front organizations that use popular antipathy towards the Islamic Republic to solicit money. END BACKGROUND.
4. (SBU) In January and February 2011 State Department Iran-watchers and consular offices in the main posts that interact with Iranians on a regular basis (Ankara, Baku, Berlin, Dubai and Istanbul) asked Iranian contacts and visa applicants their opinions on the MEK.
POPULAR FEEDBACK
5. (SBU) In speaking to hundreds of Iranians both in the preceding two months and before, ordinary Iranians were almost uniformly dismissive of the MEK, reacting with either disdain or apathy, their responses strongly indicating a lack of any significant popular support for the MEK among Iranians living in Iran. Among older Iranians this lack of support was largely due to MEK support of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Among younger Iranians (i.e. most of the population) this lack of support was derived from both the MEK’s ‘treasonous acts’ in supporting Iraq during the war and also from a near–total lack of information due to the absence of any MEK influence inside Iran.
6. (SBU) The following direct quotes reflect what was heard from ordinary Iranians both inside Iran and abroad:
— “The MEK are detested among the young and old in Iran, although many young Iranians don’t know much about them, and to the extent they do it is in relation to their pro-Iraqi activities during the Iran-Iraq war. Many young Iranians familiar with the MEK’s lack of any support inside Iran wonder why this group is so well-supported abroad and in international organizations.”
— “They are hated among Iranians, since their hands are stained with the blood of their fellow countrymen.”
— “I’m an Iranian Bahai (i.e. the most persecuted religious minority in Iran) and I can tell you that even Bahais in Iran would much prefer the current Iranian government to any MEK government.”
— “We are scared of them because we think they want power. They are like Fidel Castro in Cuba. They will turn Iran into a North Korea or Cuba. It’s not correct to call them a terrorist group THOUGH: THEY JUST WANT POWER. THEY DO NOT HAve the support of the majority of people. They are not democratic just because they appointed a lady as ‘President of Iran’.”
—“They were supported and loved during the Revolution, especially among young people. We loved them. They were beautiful people. But their Marxist-Islamic ideology has passed away. The group’s ideology is far away from the people now.”
—“Aside from their cooperation with Saddam against Iran, their leadership is immoral – Massoud Rajavi has forced himself on many women, with Maryam’s awareness, and in their camp in Iraq they separate children from their parents. I had a distant relative who joined the MEK and once he did so the rest of the family disowned him.”
—“Nobody likes them.”

—“They have no support in Iran.”
—“The group is not popular. People hate them, and they are terrorists. They killed many people.”
—“Once they fought for what they believed in and they had some support but now we don’t really know who they are and what they do.”
—“They are a terrorist organization.”
—“The MEK is a joke.”
—“They are a bunch of #@$*!” [From a young Iranian male]
—“They MEK under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi and President Maryam Rajavi are meaningless in the domestic Iranian political spectrum and totally marginalized. They try however, with great effort, to create the impression that they are the most significant Iranian exiled opposition group.”
ANALYSTS ON MEK
7. (SBU) The above-cited characterization of the MEK by ordinary Iranians was replicated in feedback from political analysts focused on contemporary Iran, all of whom were Iranian by birth. Without exception these analysts said that the MEK lacked any significant popular support inside Iran, with Iranian popular reactions to the MEK varying from rank ignorance (mostly among the young) to extreme aversion (to those more familiar with their history).
8. (SBU) The following direct quotes from prominent analysts of contemporary Iran, all of whom are Iranian by birth, reflect the feedback received:
—“Right after the 1979 revolution the MEK had considerable support in Iran, especially among the youth. Even after the MEK began its campaign of assassination of official figures in June 1981 and the regime responded by executing MEK supporters, there was still sympathy. But then MEK leadership left Iran and went first to France and then Iraq, began collaborating with Saddam Hussein’s regime, and acting as its spies. This turned the tide against the MEK, and the Iranian people began despising MEK for its support of Saddam, for its revealing information about Iran, and for still continuing its campaign of assassination while the nation was involved in a long war.
That has not changed, and in fact it has become stronger, since all sorts of horror stories have been told to the public by former MEK members who had become disillusioned with the leadership and wanted to leave Iraq and Camp Ashraf but were tortured and then delivered to Saddams intelligence as Iranian spies. It was also revealed that the MEK had a direct role in putting down the Shiites uprising in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprising in northern Iraq right after the first Persian Gulf War. The fact that MEK revealed some information about Iran’s nuclear program also angered a lot of people, because they consider it treason.
The net result is that, with losing thousands of its members to executions and consistent opposition to the IRIG, the MEK has no significant base of support in Iran. Given that 70 percent of the population is under 35, they do not even know who the MEK are.
Iranians who know about the MEK consider it nothing but a religio-political cult. …
—“The trick used by MEK is to approach the “simple man on the street” or politicians with little expertise on Iran and convince them that they are collecting signatures or money to protest human rights violations in Iran. These signatures are then used by the organization as proof of support for the organization’s broader political agenda. The organization works under a number of PSEUDONYMS. THE RECENT PROTEST MOVEMent in Iran that followed the 2009 elections showed quite clearly that the MEK has no noticeable support inside Iran and is isolated amongst exiled Iranians as well.”
—“Generally speaking I encountered two things concerning the MEK from living in Iran. The older generations’ has a disdain for the MEK because of their belief that MEK contributed mightily to the radicalism and violence of the early years of the revolution and for its siding with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war. This disdain was not merely based on the fact that the government held MEK responsible for the bombings of the early revolutionary years. The younger generation’s views on the MEK are characterized by apathy and lack of basic knowledge about the group, its leadership, and its political positions. I have not found any evidence that MEK has been able to fire the imagination of a single university or high school student in Iran. Believe it or not, the few students who express interest in radical politics, instead of reform, were much more interested in Marxism than MEK”.
— “The MEK is a dead political group in Iran, even if its specter is not anymore haunting the Iranian people. The MEK has no considerable support in the country, either among the elites or among the ordinary people, whether in the capital Tehran or in the PROVINCES. WHILE IRANIANS FOLLOW ON A DAILY BASIS different opposition websites, the MEK website is one of the poorest regarding the amount of its viewers (this fact is easily provable by checking the traffic the website has comparing to others). The truth is the MEK is one of the most hated political groups in Iran. If Iranians would be asked to choose between MEK and IRGC – Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – they would definitely go for the latter. The MEK is mostly known as a terrorist group in Iran; people are afraid of the group’s obsolete ideology, its aggressive and vengeful rhetoric and its authoritarian leadership.
The Iranian regime is aware how notorious the MEK is and takes advantage of this in certain political situations. ….
Any U.S. support for MEK would extremely damage its reputation amongst Iranians and would increase anti-American sentiments in Iran. People would regard such an act not as animosity towards the regime but towards the nation. They would assume that the U.S. intentions are not to promote freedom and democracy in Iran, but simply to spoil the country. The Iranian regime would definitely take advantage of such a situation, showing it as a proof of its claims of calling Americans as the enemy of the nation.”
—“The MEK are an Islamist-Socialist cult whose membership numbers in the thousands. Their popular support in Iran is negligible. Over a four year period living in and travelling to Iran I never met anyone who expressed any affinity for them. On the contrary they are widely perceived as brainwashed traitors who fought alongside Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. government should stay as far away from them as possible. Even (former NSC head) general Jones recent interactions with them have spurred concerned rumors among Iranian democracy activists that Washington may be flirting with the MEK.”
9. (SBU) COMMENT: The results of this admittedly unscientific polling of contacts and ordinary Iranians concerning the MEK confirms what those familiar with Iran already assumed to be the case: regardless of whether the USG deems it a terrorist organization, the MEK lacks any significant popular support in Iran, and to the extent Iranians know about this group they are far more likely to oppose it than support it. The pro-human rights and democratic ideals which the MEK now claims to espouse are ones which the USG also emphasizes in our own Iran policy. But one does not need to support the MEK to promote these goals, and indeed it seems to be the case that any increased show of USG support for this group will not help the cause of freedom and democracy in Iran, but will only adversely impact popular perceptions of the USG among ordinary Iranians, and could also strengthen support for Ahmadinejad and other hardliners.
END COMMENT

APPENDIX: MEK HISTORY
1965: MEK Founded on Islamic-Marxist ideology by former members of Iran’s nationalist “Freedom Movement of Iran”.
1970s: MEK engaged in ideological work combined with armed struggle against the Pahlavi regime, to include terrorist killings of US military and civilian personnel in Iran.
1975: MEK splits in to two groups, Marxist and Islamist, with the Marxist group changing its name to “Paykar”.
1979: Massoud Rajavi assumes MEK leadership, and MEK becomes one of the main political groups active during the 1979 Islamic Revolution. MEK supports US Embassy takeover in November 1979.
1979-81: Like Iranian nationalists and leftists elements, MEK influence in government slowly eliminated by the clerical elements supporting Ayatollah Khomeini.
Early 1980: As IRIG moves against MEK, MEK elements inside Iran mount massive assassination campaigns against the IRIG leadership, killing approximately 70 high-ranking IRIG officials in one June 1981 bombing, with another MEK bombing two months later killing the IRIG President and Prime Minister. Hundreds of MEK supporters and members either arrested or killed. Massoud Rajavi forced to flee Iran in 1981, and majority of MEK relocates in France.
1981-1986: Using France as base of operations, MEK continues campaign of violence against Iranian government figures.
1986-1988: In 1986 due to improved Iran-France relations MEK relocates headquarters to Iraq, relaying on Iraq for basing, financial support, and training. During Iran-Iraq war its “NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY” UNDER CONTROL OF THE IRAQI MILITary mounts attacks against the Iranian military, causing it to lose massive support among the Iranian people.

1988: Execution of MEK prisoners inside Iran by IRIG.
1989-2003: MEK continues assassination attacks against IRIG officials, receiving major financial support from Saddam Hussein, to include:
–1992 (April): MEK conducts near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries.
— 1999 (April): MEK assassinates key Iranian military officers, to include deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff, Brigadier General Ali Sayyaad Shirazi.
— 2000 (February): MEK launches series of attacks against Iran, to include a mortar attack against a major Iranian leadership complex in Tehran.
–2000-01: MEK conducts regular mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids against Iranian military and law enforcement personnel, as well as government buildings near the Iran-Iraq border.
1991: MEK assists Iraqi Republican Guards in crackdown on anti-Saddam Iraqi Shia and Kurds.
2001: FBI arrested seven Iranians in the United States who funneled $400,000 to an MEK-affiliated organization in the UAE which used the funds to purchase weapons.
2003: At start of Operation Iraqi Freedom MEK leadership negotiated a cease-fire with Coalition Forces and voluntarily surrenders their heavy-arms to Coalition control.
2003: French authorities arrest 160 MEK members at operational bases they believed the MEK was using to coordinate financing and planning for terrorist attacks.
Post -2003: High level MEK leave MEK’s “Camp Ashraf” in Iraq, relocating in various European capitals.

BT
#4594
7002
UNCLASIFIED

June 25, 2011 0 comments

The MEK; Baath Party Accomplice

The Saddam Oil Vouchers Affair and MKO

Introduction

On January 25, 2004, the Iraqi independent daily Al-Mada published a list of approximately 270 individuals and entities who were beneficiaries of Saddam Hussein’s oil vouchers. [1] The report The Saddam Oil Vouchers Affair and MKO evoked reactions from many of those included in the list as well as from the Arab media, among them apologists for Saddam’s regime. The fact that so many have opted for silence may give credence to the list’s authenticity.

A former undersecretary in the Iraqi Ministry of Petroleum, Abd Al-Saheb Salman Qutb, said that the ministry possesses documents proving the authenticity of the list published by Al-Mada. The list was originally the property of the State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO), which was responsible for marketing Iraqi petroleum. [2] Mr. Qutb also said that the ministry was collecting the information for submission to Interpol, which could then pursue the voucher beneficiaries. [3]

The Iraqi Governing Council has focused on 46 foreign individuals and organizations included on the lists, primarily from neighboring countries, to determine appropriate action. [4] Council member Muwwafaq Al-Rabi’i said during a visit to Beirut that the council has "tons of documents" but emphasized that the publication of these documents will be handled in a constructive way and not "for the sake of vengeance and revenge." [5]

In describing what it called "the curse of the Iraqi vouchers," the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat said that it expects more names and details to be made public in the near future and anticipates the revelation of a scandal of vast dimensions transcending countries and continents, implicating many prominent individuals and organizations. [6]
How It Worked: The Voucher Transactions Method

In a subsequent article, Al-Mada provides details on the allocation and sale of oil vouchers. In general, the vouchers were given either as gifts or as payment for goods imported into Iraq in violation of the U.N. sanctions. The voucher holder would normally tender the voucher to any one of the specialized companies operating in the United Arab Emirates for a commission which initially ranged from $0.25 to $0.30 per barrel, though it may have declined in later years to as little as $0.10 or even $0.05 per barrel because of oil surplus on the market. [7] In other words, a voucher for 1 million barrels would have translated into a quick profit of $250,000-300,000 on the high side and $50,000-100,000 on the low side – all paid in cash. According to Al-Mada, Jordan will seek to tax the illicit profits of citizens who benefited from the sale of the vouchers.

One of the common arguments by recipients of vouchers was that the vouchers paid for goods provided in the framework of the U.N.-administered Oil for Food program. However, under the Memorandum of Understanding governing the program, oil allocations were intended for "end users," meaning those with refineries. Most of the voucher recipients would be considered "non-end users." Moreover, if vouchers were used to pay for goods, it would suggest that these were not authorized by the program and should be considered illicit since all contracts approved by the U.N. were reimbursed from the trust account where the oil revenues were kept, at a French bank, at Iraq’s insistence. According to the United Nations: "The oil buyer had to pay the price approved by the Security Council Sanctions Committee into a U.N. escrow account, and the U.N. had to verify that the goods purchased by Iraq were indeed those allowed under the program. But the U.N. had no way of knowing what other transactions might be going on directly between the Iraqi government and the buyers and sellers." [8]

This report reviews the Saddam oil vouchers affair, in two parts:
Part I: (A) the list of oil vouchers recipients; and (B) reactions by implicated individuals and organizations.

Part II: Arab media reactions.

In part of the report one can see the name of Mujahedin Khalq Organization aka MKO, MEK, PMOI:

The Mujahideen Khalq (36.5) is an organization which opposes the Iranian regime which had operated from within Iraq under the Saddam regime. The United States has classified it as a terrorist organization and it has recently been ordered to leave Iraq.

To view the full Document click here

March 3, 2011 0 comments

Organizations

The Third View on MKO during 2010

The Third View on MKO During 2010
No excuse can acquit MKO of violence and terrorism	Palestinianthinkthank
Mojahedin Khalq used again to disseminate false information	Iran Press Service
The West must cut its terror ties	The Daily Star
Iran blames PMOI for Mousavi death	UPI
Iraq FM: Mojahedin Khalq deportation based on Iraqi law	BBC Monitoring middle East
MKO still deserves its terrorist listing	Associated Press
Mojahedin Khalq lobby clutching at straws	UK Parliament
US Congressional Research Service on PMOI	CRS – Congressional Research Service
Blood of Iraqi Children at the Hands of MKO Terrorists	Asharq Alawsat- Mohammed Javad Al-Doreki
Official Fatah Website drops all material related to MKO	Dr. Aaron Lerner – IMRA
Iraqi pro-MKO MP cheats the cult	Sot alIraq
DZI warns against PMOI money laundry	DZI- German Central Institute for Social Issues
Feminist Terrorism: Not a Joke	SpearHead.com – By Welmer
Americans support Mojahedin Khalq Terrorists as well as Jondollah	Russia today
PMOI denied families meetings with their captured children in Ashraf	Al Motammar
The Psychotic World of The Rajavi Couple and Their Marxist-Islamic Cult	socyberty.com
UK: It is in the interest of Ashraf residents to cooperate with Iraq	UK Parliament
Secrets of the Tea Party	Paul shedon Foote
UK: No evidence of intimidation or harassment in the Camp Ashraf	UK Parliament
Official American version of events at Camp Ashraf	US State Departement
Al Motamar reports the meeting between families of the victims of MKO and UNAMI	Al-Mmutamar
Miserable condition of Mojahedin Khalq hostages in Camp Ashraf	Asharq al-Awsat
Mojahedin Khalq and Iraq – bribery, intrigue and chaos	D. Amir al-Khalidi, Almutamar Newspaper
The crisis of Camp Ashraf	Asharq al-Awsat
Turkish Official Deplores MKO’s Crimes against Humanity	Fars News Agency
Families of MEK Victims Want Same Visiting Rights as U.S. Detainee Families	Human rights today
Families lobby for PMOI visitation rights	UPI
UNAMI continues to monitor Camp Ashraf	UNIraq
Iraqi media reports on appeal of families at Camp Ashraf	Al Motammar
Iranian families demand Ambassador Hill helps them meet their detained children	Iraq Beituna Agency
Al adala reports on appeal of families at Camp Ashraf	Al adala
Sadrists: MKO and al-Qaeda responsible for Diyala insecurity	Sadrist movement board of trustees
KRG officers: MKO slamming Iranian shelling is futile	AK News
Iraq confirms its intention to remove the Mojahedin Khalq	Al Sumaria News
US to close base near camp housing MKO exiles	Associated Press
Mojahedin Khalq and contradictory positions!	Al Motammar
Washington backed MKO members arrested before detonating bombs	Reuters
UK government denies any contact with MKO terrorists	IRNA
Camp Ashraf Families of Mojahedin Cult Offered Solidarity by Paris Conference	CNBC
Families’ picket in front of Camp Ashraf continues	Addustour
Who are the terrorists?	Washington Times
Iranians in Iraq’s Diyala call for release of relatives held in MKO Camp Ashraf	Al-Manar TV
Hundreds stage anti-France demo outside France Embassy	AFP
Israel’s Iranian Opposition?	Mondoweiss.net By Kamran
Iraqi Official Reiterates MKO’s Terrorist Nature	Fars News Agency
Iraqi TV stations report from Camp Ashraf	Arabic Media
Iranian families ,after the vigil for more than four months..	Reporters network
Iraqi Criminal Court issues arrest warrant against Massoud and Maryam Rajavi	Al Motammar
Interior Ministry announces receipt of arrest warrants for 38 leaders and members of MKO	Alsumaria News
MKO hostile role in killing the opponents of former Iraqi regime	Habilian Association
Iraqi court seeks arrest of MKO leaders for crimes against humanity	Reuters
The Mujahedin-e Khalq: Who are they really?	Word Press
MKO had a role in the assassination of Iraqi Judge	Rianovosti News
Is the MEK a Terrorist Outfit?	Mark Dankof
Mojahedin Khalq access to the Qandil Mountains	Kurdish Aspect
Iraq and the American Pullout: Separate We Must	Chatham House
Tom Tancredo’s Marriage to the Mojahedin Khalq	Mark Dankof
State Department amused by MKO so called Revelations	US State Department
MKO Terrorists from Iraq on the move	Mathaba
Black Plague – Photos expose the MEK organized crime in Diyala	Iraq Beituna Agency
Neoconservative Iran Policy Committee lobbies for terrorist MKO	CASMII – by Ali Gharib
Israeli Lobby,American Neocons and Terrorist MKO Join forces to lobby USG to bomb Iran	Christian Science Monitor – Scott Horton
Iraq evacuates Camp New Iraq (formerly Ashraf)	UK Parliament
Baghdad will host the Black Plague Exhibition	Sot alIraq
Canadian Lobbyist MPs defend their holiday trip to Paris paid by MKO terrorists	The Canadian sentinel
Canadian MP’s hanging with MKO terrorists	by Darcey Saturday – metisonline.ca
US promotion and support for MKO terrorists backfires	Ismael Hossein-zadeh – Middle East Online
Mossad and Mujahadeen e-Khalq, Partners in Assassination Campaign	Richardsilverstein
A former prisoner at Camp Ashraf reveals human rights violations in Mojahedin	Alsabah, Hadi Anbuge
Joe Lieberman , MEK Murder in Iran , and the Mythology of a Righteous Almighty America	Mark Dankof
Did Giuliani And Co. Provide ‘Material Support’ To Mujahedin Terrorist Group?	Matt Duss, Think Progress
German Central Institute for Social Issues on PMOI money laundry	DZI- German Central Institute for Social Issues

Download the PDF File

January 20, 2011 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq Organization as a terrorist group

Terrorism Profiles – Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization

Terrorism Profiles – Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)

Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO)

Name(s).
People’s Mujahedeen of Iran; PMOI; The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK), National Council of Resistance (NCR); the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI); Muslim Iranian Student’s Society.

Goals and Objectives.
The MEK is an Iranian dissident group whose ideology originally blended Marxism with a moderate interpretation of Islam. In the 1970s, the group opposed the regime of the Shah for its corruption and perceived susceptibility to U.S. and Western influence. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, MEK has opposed the religious Iranian regime, favoring a secular government in Iran. The group apparently supports the Arab-Israeli peace process and the rights of Iran’s minorities, although some believe the group takes these positions only to improve its image in Western countries.

Brief History.
The MEK was founded in the 1960s by leftist college students in Iran opposed to the Shah, who they believed was corrupt and too open to Western influences. During the 1970s, the group conducted several attacks against U.S. military personnel and civilians working with the Shah, as well as attacks against the Iranian government. The MEK participated in the 1979 revolution against the Shah, but quickly fell out of favor with Ayatollah Khomeini. Some of its original leadership was executed by the Khomeini regime.
In 1981, the MEK bombed several important government buildings, killing as many as 70 high-ranking Iranian officials. Under pressure from the government in Tehran, the group fled to France from 1981 to 1986, after which it took refuge in Iraq. While in Iraq, Saddam Hussein armed the group and sent it into battle against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. The group also provided various security services for the Saddam Hussein regime, including helping with the suppression of Kurdish and Shi’a revolts after the first Gulf War in 1991. It continued to attack the Iranian regime, conducting a 1992 bombing campaigning of Iranian embassies in 13 different countries. In early 2000, the group used mortars to attack the leadership complex in Tehran that houses the offices of the Supreme Leader and the President. Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the group has represented an important security threat to the Iranian regime.

U.S. and international policy toward the MEK has been ambivalent and controversial. Some see the group as a legitimate, pro-democracy resistance to the illiberal Iranian government, while others condemn the group’s earlier anti-Western attacks and regard the group as an anti-Western cult with a pro-democracy facade.
French authorities arrested more than 160 members, including the group’s leader Maryam Rajavi, in Paris in 2003, reversing the longstanding French policy of giving asylum to the group. Several high-profile figures have opposed the arrests.
During the 2003 Iraq war, U.S. forces bombed MEK bases in Iraq but later signed a cease-fire with the group. Finally in May 2003, the U.S. military disarmed the group.

Favored Tactics.
The MEK’s tactics range from bombings to organized guerilla warfare.

Anti-American Activities.
The MEK has not attacked or targeted U.S. interests since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. During the 1970s, it conducted several attacks against American military and civilian targets and participated in the capture of the U.S. embassy during the revolution.

Areas of Operation.
The MEK is primarily based in Iraq, near the border with Iran, but it has a global presence. The group conducted attacks in Iran and has also attacked Iranian interests in Europe and elsewhere. The group has affiliated lobbying organizations in the United States and Europe, and prior to a French crackdown in 2003, its members took refuge in France.

Strength and Composition.
The MEK is comprised of Iranian dissidents opposed to the Islamic regime in Iran. According to the State Department, the group possesses several thousand fighters in Iraq and additional members operating overseas. Within Iraq, the group has until recently controlled aging military equipment given to it by Saddam Hussein, including tanks, artillery, and armored vehicles. The U.S. military in Iraq recently disarmed the group.

Connections With Other Terrorist Organizations.
MEK has no known connections with other terrorist groups.

State Supporters and Other Sources of Funding.
Until the recent war to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the MEK received all of its military assistance and much of its financial support from the Iraqi regime. The group apparently uses front organizations to solicit contributions from Iranian expatriates and others, and may also raise funds among sympathizers within Iran .

Originally Designated as an FTO.
October 8, 1997.

Re-designated.
October 8, 1999, October 5, 2001.

Legal Challenges to Designation.
In 1998, a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives signed a letter challenging the State Department’s designation of MEK as an FTO. Some Members have suggested that the United States should support the group as an alternative to the Islamic regime in Iran. The debate over designation of the group has resurfaced in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq war. Some believe that the group represents legitimate opposition to the regime in Iran, while others contend that the group is essentially a fanatical cult with a sophisticated public relations wing and that its pro-Western, pro-democracy overtures should not be trusted. The State Department continues to resist pressure to remove the MEK from the FTO list. On August 15, 2003, the State Department added the group’s political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCR) to the group’s designation. Previously, the NCR had operated in the United States as a legitimate, registered lobbying organization.

Issues of Concern for Congress.
In the recent past, this group has actively lobbied on Capitol Hill. Its political/lobbying arm is now also specifically cited by name as an alias for the MEK (and thus a foreign terrorist organization), and its assets have been frozen as a specially designated entity by the Treasury Department under Executive Order 13224. (See also Legal Challenges to Designation, above.)

American treatment of this group in the aftermath of active hostilities in Iraq was at first ambivalent, but the group is currently disarmed. The status of this group is an important issue in the relationship between the United States and Iran.

By Miguel Denyer , overwatchreport.com ,Fri, Oct 22, 2010

November 9, 2010 0 comments

Mujahedin Khalq; A proxy force

US Government’s Secret Plans for Iran

Report: Markus Schmidt, John Goetz

"these are terrorists, but there is a big difference between being my terrorists or yours.” Ray McGovern, ex-CIA

Sonia Mikich: "After Baghdad, now Teheran, the next war? Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State is in attendance in Europe and praises the efforts of the Europeans to solve politically the atomic controversy with Iran.

That is one signal of American foreign policy. The other one: Pressure is to be finally made on the regime in Teheran. George Bush said clearly yesterday in his speech that Iran is the major supporter of terrorism. And again, the US leads the war against terrorism. This is well known.

A military strike on Iran – the film script has been written long ago, and its logistic preparations are underway. The allied ones are on the ground. Markus Schmidt and John Goetz have this report:

George W. Bush, yesterday night, appeared for the start of his second term of office and his message: America will carry democracy into all world.

George W. Bush, US President : "Iran remains the major international sponsor of terror. It strives for nuclear weapons. This evening, I say to the Iranian people that “if you take a stand for your own liberty, America stands at your side.”

The option of military strikes is still on the table and is being prepared. And these fighters (MKO) play an important role. They call themselves Mojahedin-e Khalq of Iran, MEK. They are mortal enemies of the Iran Government. In their videos they praise their impact force. Thousands of fighters for a new Iran. But for the US State Department, and also for the European Union, they are considered as terrorists, on the same stage with Al-Qaeda. Is MEK today the secret ally of the US? Ex CIA agent McGovern has no doubt.

Ray McGovern, ex-CIA-civil servant: "why the US cooperates with organizations like the Mojahedin, I think, is because that they are local, and because they are ready to work for us. Previously, we considered them as a terrorist organization. And they exactly are. But they are now our terrorists and we now don’t hesitate to send them there to Iran."

Here in the Pentagon the threads gather where the Iran Plan is being run since the autumn of 2002. Here is the power of Neo-Conservatives. For them, Iraq is only an intermediate step for toppling the ruling power in Teheran.

Karen Kwiatkowski, ex Pentagon official: "In the autumn 2002, when the president was campaigning to get the agreement for the invasion to Iraq, the ‘office for special planning’ was looking at Iran. And Neo-Conservatives thought about how to proceed with Iran. In their conception of the world, Iran has long been a target."

"For years, the Pentagon has tried to lift the MKO’s name from the terrorist list and to recognize it as a resistance force. For the war planners, they are the “born allied” ones, trained in sabotage technology, and disciplined."

Ray McGovern, ex CIA civil servant: "They are sent now over the borders into Iran for the usual secret service activities: attaching sensors, in order to supervise the Iranian atomic program, mark targets for air attacks, and perhaps establishing secret camps to control the military locations in Iran. And also a little sabotage."

Karen Kwiatkowski ex Pentagon official: "MKO is ready to do things over which we would be ashamed, and over which we try to keep silent. But for such tasks we exactly use them."

Flash back:

The history of the Mojahedin is as brutal as it is bizarre. Their ideology: a mixture of Islam and Marxism, their practice: Terror…

The 60’s: Fight against the Shah, murdering US soldiers [sic] in Teheran.

1979: Revolution beside Ayatollah Khomeini.

The 80’s: Breaking with the Mullah’s regime, fighting underground, performing military operations due to which many civilians died.

1986: MKO leader, Rajavi left exile in France, under the pressure of the government in Paris. His new host: Saddam Hussein, ruling power of Iraq and mortal enemy of the Mullahs. Saddam showed up generously, gave the bases, supplies and heavy weapons.

May 2003: US tanks scroll up 100 km, to the headquarters of the Mojahedin north of Baghdad. The MKO itself, hands over all heavy weapons without a single shot fired during the operation. The MEK is the only terrorist group in the world, with which the US army cut a deal. And still another characteristic: Their fighters in Iraq are given protected persons status under [the Fourth] Geneva Convention.

US soldier, May 2003: "the Mojahedin explained their preparations to deliver their weapons. They may carry small weapons for self-defense, but they have agreed to hand over their large weapon systems and tanks to the coalition troops."

The spokesmen of Mojahedin give themselves the status of statesmen and say: “No, they are not puppets of the US.” They audaciously praise themselves and add: “Mojahedin was first in uncovering the secret atomic plants of the Mullahs." But now they want to be rewarded for this, and it means that they want their name off the terrorist list.

Mohammad Mohaddessin, MKO spokesman: "Cooperation with Americans? They control us and naturally protect us too. Our units in Iraq form only a very small part of our movement. We have thousands and thousands of supporters [in] Iran."

But behind the scenes, MKO fighters have good relations with Americans.

We visit the ‘Global Option’ private business, which is specialized in military training world-wide. After investigations by Monitor, it becomes clear that the company employs military trainers from the Mojahedin and coordinates all cooperation needs on behalf of the Pentagon. Asked about this intermediary role, the answer is vague: ‘Cooperation, yes. There is bilateral recognition, but direct receipt of money for the services of the company, no’.

Neil Livingstone, Global Option: “MKO, a long time ago, said goodbye to terrorism. It was stupidity in fact to put them on the US terror list, a kind of tranquilizer for the Iranian government. A concession to get the negotiations go faster. We do not cooperate with MKO. I was their guest, I promoted them in Congress, without getting money. I have had good relations with them since a long time ago, for 30 years."

Another informed source speaks words contradictory to those of Livingstone. Pat Long, former department manager in the military secret service, says to Monitor: Global Option has been taken up as buffer by the Pentagon in order to hide the Pentagon’s relations with a terrorist organization from the public.

Pat Long, ex civil servant of Pentagon secret services: "Secret Services adopt security measures in their operations to which we can’t link the orders of government. So, if the operation fails, one can claim that the government has had no role in it and that there were other hands involved.”

Reporter: "and these ‘others’ is Global Option?"

Pat long, ex civil servant of Pentagon secret service: "I exactly heard that.”

"They are again in business. This time not beside Saddam Hussein but at the side of the US: always useful, always a puppet in the hands of powers."

Ray McGovern, ex CIA civil servant: "these are terrorists, but there is a big difference between being my terrorists or yours.”

MONITOR – WDR TV, Germany

October 18, 2010 0 comments

USA

Official American version of events at Camp Ashraf

2009 Human Rights Report: Iraq

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices

(…)

a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
…

On July 28, clashes erupted at Ashraf in Diyala Province when the ISF attempted to establish a police presence inside the more than 3,400-person compound of the terrorist Iranian dissident group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The clashes resulted in the deaths of 11 MEK members and injuries to 30 ISF officers. The government credibly claimed the MEK provoked the clashes by staging a violent demonstration to block the ISF from entering the compound.
(…)

d. Freedom of Movement, Internally Displaced Persons, Protection of Refugees, and Stateless Persons
…

There were allegations during the year that some of the 3,400 members of the MEK terrorist organization located at Ashraf were denied the right to leave under threat of reprisal from MEK leaders. These allegations were corroborated by several former Ashraf residents who had fled the camp. Individuals claimed to have been subjected to psychological and physical abuse, including threats of reprisal against family members and solitary confinement in Ashraf to discourage defections.
…

April 22, 2010 0 comments

USA

US Congressional Research Service on PMOI

Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses
Congressional Research Service

7-5700
RL32048

People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI)/Camp Ashraf

Of the groups seeking to replace rather than moderate the regime, one of the best known is the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI).5 Secular and left-leaning, it was formed in the 1960s to try to overthrow the Shah of Iran and advocated Marxism blended with Islamic tenets. It allied with pro-Khomeini forces during the Islamic revolution and supported the November 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran but was later driven into exile. Even though it is an opponent of Tehran, since the late 1980s the State Department has refused contact with the PMOI and its umbrella organization, the National Council of Resistance (NCR). The State Department designated the PMOI as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in October 19976 and the NCR was named as an alias of the PMOI in the October 1999 re-designation. The FTO designation was prompted by PMOI attacks in Iran that sometimes kill or injure civilians—although the group does not appear to purposely target civilians. In August 14, 2003, the State Department designated the NCR offices in the United States an alias of the PMOI, and NCR and Justice Department authorities closed down those offices. The regime accuses the group of involvement in the post June 2009 presidential election violence.

The State Department report on international terrorism for 2007 asserts that the organization—and not just a radical element of the organization as the group asserts—was responsible for the alleged killing of seven American defense advisers to the former Shah in 1975-1976. The report again notes the group’s promotion of women in its ranks and again emphasizes the group’s “cultlike” character, including indoctrination of its members and separation of family members, including children, from its activists. The group’s alliance with Saddam Hussein’s regime in the 1980s and 1990s has contributed to the U.S. shunning of the organization.

Some advocate that the United States not only remove the group from the FTO list but also enter an alliance with the group against Iran. The FTO designation was up for formal review in October 2008, and, in July 2008, the PMOI formally petitioned to the State Department that its designation be revoked, on the grounds that it renounced any use of terrorism in 2001. However, the State Department announced in mid-January 2009 that the group would remain listed; the next review of the FTO list is in October 2009.

The group is trying to build on recent legal successes in Europe; on January 27, 2009, the European Union (EU) removed the group from its terrorist group list; the group had been so designated by the EU in 2002. In May 2008, a British appeals court determined that the group should no longer be considered a terrorist organization on the grounds that the British government did not provide “any reliable evidence that supported a conclusion that PMOI retained an intention to resort to terrorist activities in the future.” Currently, the governments that still list the group as a “terrorist organization,” include the United States, Canada, Australia. In June 2003, France arrested about 170 PMOI members, including its co-leader Maryam Rajavi (wife of PMOI 5 Other names by which this group is known is the Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO) and the National Council of Resistance (NCR). 6 The designation was made under the authority of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (P.L.104-132). founder Masoud Rajavi, whose whereabouts are unknown). She was released and remains based in France, and is occasionally received by European parliamentarians and other politicians.

The issue of group members in Iraq is increasingly pressing. U.S. forces attacked PMOI military installations in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom and negotiated a ceasefire with PMOI military elements in Iraq, requiring the approximately 3,400 PMOI fighters to remain confined to their Ashraf camp near the border with Iran. Its weaponry is in storage, guarded by U.S. personnel. In July 2004, the United States granted the Ashraf detainees “protected persons” status under the 4th Geneva Convention, meaning they will not be extradited to Tehran or forcibly expelled as long as U.S. forces have a mandate to help secure Iraq. Another 200 PMOI fighters have taken advantage of an arrangement between Iran and the ICRC for them to return to Iran if they disavow further PMOI activities; none are known to have been persecuted since returning.

The U.S.-led security mandate in Iraq was replaced on January 1, 2009, by a bilateral U.S.-Iraq agreement that limits U.S. flexibility in Iraq. The group fears that, now that Iraqi forces have taken control of the camp, Iraq will expel the group to Iran. The Iraqi government tried to calm those fears in January 2009 by saying that it would adhere to all international obligations not do so, but that trust was lost on July 27, 2009, when it set up a police post in the Camp, which was resisted by PMOI residents. The PMOI says about a dozen were killed in the clashes. Some observers say Iraq might move the camp to Iraq’s interior, away from the Iran border. The EU “de-listing” might help resolve the issue by causing EU governments to take in those at Ashraf.

——————————————————————

5 Other names by which this group is known is the Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO) and the NationalCouncil of Resistance (NCR).
6 The designation was made under the authority of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (P.L.104-132).

Kenneth Katzman – Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs – www.crs.gov

January 17, 2010 0 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts