The MEK And Terrorism Double Standards
- The American Muslim
12 March 2012By Sheila Musaji
The Mujahedeen Khalq, or People's Mujahedeen, known as
the M.E.K has been designated a terrorist organization
by the U.S. State Dept. for 15 years.
The M.E.K. are terrorists. They were driven out of
Iran and given a home at a place called Camp Ashraf in
Iraq by Saddam Hussein, who they supported. Saddam
Hussein used the M.E.K. to carry out terrorist acts in
Iran. Now that Hussein is gone, the Iraqi's want the
M.E.K. out of Iraq as they also see it as a dangerous
group. They are not former terrorists, but current
terrorists.
Richard Engel & Robert Windrem of NBC News reported
just this month that
Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being
carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is
financed, trained and armed by Israel's secret
service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming
charges leveled by Iran's leaders.
The group, the People's Mujahedin of Iran, has long
been designated as a terrorist group by the United
States, accused of killing American servicemen and
contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover
of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the
Iranian mullahs in 1980.
The attacks, which have killed five Iranian nuclear
scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile
research and development site, have been carried out
in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants
often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior
of the victims' cars.
Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News the
MEK's role in the assassinations, with one senior
official saying, "All your inclinations are correct."
A third official would not confirm or deny the
relationship, saying only, "It hasn't been clearly
confirmed yet." All the officials denied any U.S.
involvement in the assassinations.
NIAC reports that
A 2004 FBI report on the Mujahaddin-e-Khalq (MEK) was
revealed in June 2011 which states that the MEK "is
actively involved in planning and executing acts of
terrorism," despite the organization's alleged
renunciation of terror in 2001.
Some of the highlights (all direct quotes):
"Los Angeles investigation has determined that the
MEK is currently actively involved in planning and
executing acts of terrorism." [pg 4]
"This organization routinely lobbies unwitting
members of Congress under the pretext of human rights
issues in Iran." [pg 5]
"NLA fighters are separated from their children who
are sent to Europe and brought up by the MEK's Support
Network. Investigation has learned that these children
are then further indoctrinated in to the organization
and are often used for various social benefit fraud
such as was revealed during joint FBI/Cologne Police
Department investigation in Germany. In one case one
of the children was chained to a bed and only after
her escape and report to local police was the fraud
scheme discovered. Interviews of some of these MEK
children found children fully indoctrinated into a
"cult-like" organization with no regard to the welfare
of the child. These children are then returned to the
NLA to be used as fighters upon coming of age.
Interviews also revealed that some of these children
were told that their parents would be harmed if the
children did not cooperate with the MEK. Open source
reporting from defecting MEK members has revealed that
MEK fighters are often told the same story about their
children should they take issue with MEK leadership
and desire to leave the organization." [pgs 26-27]
"The MEK, in addition to being a foreign terrorist
organization, is a "cult"
MEK members and supporters
often indicate that Rajavi makes his decision based on
input from God." [pg 26]
"MEK members/supporters/fighters have been through
years of ideological training and for lack of better
word brain washing'." [pg 31]
"This (Foreign Terrorist Organization) designation
was made due to the MEK's long and violent history of
past terrorist activity directed against U.S.
personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Iran during the
1970s, the assassinations of multiple Americans, the
MEK's ongoing acts of terrorism in Iran, and the MEK's
past terrorist activities in Western Countries to
include hostage taking and attacks on Iranian
diplomatic establishments and officials. This
designation was also made to send the message that the
U.S. had taken the high road on terrorism and would
designate any foreign group engaged in terrorist
activity abroad to include not only groups that target
U.S. interests, but terrorists groups that target any
sovereign nation." [pg 24]
"Additionally, the MEK continues to practice
misinformation operations in the U.S. and Europe. MEK
lobbyist routinely hold press conferences and pass
information regarding the current Iranian government
that is inaccurate and is designed to influence
Western Media and governments." [pg 18]
"Interviewers should keep in mind that membership in
the MEK is a significant step in the MEK hierarchy or
leadership cadre. It is safe to say that only the high
echelon leadership will most admit to being MEK
members." [pg 29]
" Another tactic that the MEK has been employing is
disinformation regarding former MEK members and
witnesses who have come forward to testify and speak
against the MEK. The MEK will brand these former
members and witnesses as Iranian government agents.
This information is often picked up by Western
Intelligence agencies as factual information and is
disseminated as intelligence. This further frustrates
criminal investigators as they attempt to interview
these former MEK members and potentially use them for
testimony." Pg 18-9
That being the case, it is difficult to understand why
it is that elected representatives, and government
officials of the U.S. government could support and/or
work with, and accept money from this organization
freely and openly. It is difficult to understand in
the case of support for the M.E.K. as it is difficult
to understand in the case of Rep. Peter King's open
support and fundraising for the IRA. The only
justification for such an indefensible position must
be that these folks believe that the enemy of my enemy
can't be a terrorist.
Glenn Greenwald has written a very detailed article on
the hypocrisy of this support for a terrorist
organization. Here are a few key points from his
article:
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.
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.
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 National Iranian American Council (NIAC) has
previously expressed concern about this support for a
terrorist organization. They noted in July of 2011
that
Congressional supporters of the drive to remove the
Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the U.S. terrorism list
defended the organization's use of violence while
dismissing Iran's nonviolent Green Movement at a
hearing on Capitol Hill last week. The hearing was
also remarkable in that senior leaders of the
designated foreign terrorist organization were caught
counseling some of the witnesses before the hearing.
It is illegal to coordinate with a foreign terrorist
organization to advocate on behalf of the terrorist
group.
Despite the terrorist listing, Ali Safavi, a senior
member of the National Council of Resistance of Iran,
was at the hearing, where he openly counseled
witnesses before and during their testimony. The NCRI
is the MEK's political wing and is considered a
terrorist organization by the U.S. government.
The hearing's witnesses included three former U.S.
officials who have actively participated in pro-MEK
conferences, including former Bush Administration
Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
All three witnesses who previously appeared at MEK
conferences unanimously called for the MEK to be
removed from the terror list, though none were asked
to disclose whether they had received money to support
the organization, as have other officials who have
advocated for delisting the group.
The NY Times reports today that this state of affairs
may be changing and that such individuals may now face
scrutiny. According to the article's author Scott
Shane Edward G. Rendell, the former Democratic
governor of Pennsylvania and an outspoken supporter of
the M.E.K., said on Monday that William Morris
Endeavor, which handles his speaking engagements,
received a subpoena last week seeking information on
fees he had received for M.E.K.-related speeches.
Shane had reported back in November of 2011 on a long
list of officials. At that time, he wrote
The extraordinary lobbying effort to reverse the
terrorist designation of the group, the Mujahedeen
Khalq, or People's Mujahedeen, has won the support of
two former C.I.A. directors, R. James Woolsey and
Porter J. Goss; a former F.B.I. director, Louis J.
Freeh; a former attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey;
President George W. Bush's first homeland security
chief, Tom Ridge; President Obama's first national
security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones; big-name
Republicans like the former New York mayor Rudolph W.
Giuliani and Democrats like the former Vermont
governor Howard Dean; and even the former top
counterterrorism official of the State Department,
Dell L. Dailey, who argued unsuccessfully for ending
the terrorist label while in office.
The American advocates have been well paid, hired
through their speaking agencies and collecting fees of
$10,000 to $50,000 for speeches on behalf of the
Iranian group. Some have been flown to Paris, Berlin
and Brussels for appearances.
The M.E.K. advocacy campaign has included full-page
newspaper advertisements identifying the group as
"Iran's Main Opposition" an absurd distortion in the
view of most Iran specialists; leaders of Iran's broad
opposition, known as the Green Movement, have
denounced the group. The M.E.K. has hired high-priced
lobbyists like the Washington firm Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld. Its lawyers in Europe won a long fight
to persuade the European Union to drop its own listing
of the M.E.K. as a terrorist group in 2009.
The group's spending, certainly in the millions of
dollars, has inevitably raised questions about funding
sources.
Ali Safavi, who runs a pro-M.E.K. group in Washington
called Near East Policy Research, says the money comes
from wealthy Iranian expatriates in the United States
and Europe. Because "material support" to a designated
terrorist group is a crime, advocates insist that the
money goes only to sympathizers and not to the M.E.K.
itself.
Congress has taken note of the campaign. A House
resolution for dropping the terrorist listing has 97
co-sponsors, including the chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers, Republican of
Michigan. At a hearing this month, senators pressed
the defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, about the
threat to Camp Ashraf
Last month, Congressman Dana Robrahacher spoke in
favor of removing the terrorist designation from the
M.E.K.
Rep. Ted Poe (R TX) has praised the M.E.K. as the
ticket to regime change in Iran.
John Bolton spoke at an event in honor of the
Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK)
Two years ago, Rachel Slajda reported that Rudy
Giuliani, Tom Bolton, and Tom Ridge had gone to Paris
and spoke at an event in support of the M.E.K.
Jason Ditz has reported that The MeK's history of
terrorist attacks includes repeated attacks on US
businessmen and military personnel in pre-revolution
Iran, and the group was one of the founding members of
the "Foreign Terrorist Organization" list when it was
created by the US State Department in 1997. The group
is typified by its harsh reaction to any criticism,
and was reported by Human Rights Watch to have run a
private system of detention centers inside Iraq to
detain (and in many cases torture) dissident members.
In addition to all of this open support for a
terrorist group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) ran this
ad on American television calling for its removal from
the State Department's list of terrorist organization.
Former Gov. Ed Rendell, Tom Ridge, and former Mayor
Rudy Guiliani are mong the people appearing in the ad.
Can anyone imagine any other designated terrorist
organization being allowed to purchase television
advertising?
During the uproar over the Park51/Cordoba House
community center last year, Rep. Peter King called for
a "full investigation" of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf
because Rauf refused to publicly call Hamas a
"terrorist organization." Imam Rauf hadn't expressed
suport for a terrorist organization, he hadn't lobbied
to get it removed from a terrorist list, he hadn't
accepted money from them, or attended or spoken at
their events but simply because he hadn't publicly
called them a "terrorist organization", Rep. King
thinks he deserves a "full investigation".
I think it is time to demand the same standards of our
elected officials and representatives.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments