UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL

PRNewswire 

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Members of Congress and senior former U.S. officials will voice support for a major rally by thousands of Iranian-Americans in solidarity with Iran’s pro-democracy movement on Friday, August 26th, according to Human Rights and Democracy International.

Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), one of the keynote speakers at the Martin Luther King Memorial ceremonies, and former U.S. officials, including Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, FBI Director Louis Freeh, Senator Robert Torricelli, Rep. Patrick Kennedy, CIA Deputy Director of Clandestine Operations John Sano, and Col. Wesley Martin (Ret.), who served as Camp Ashraf commander in Iraq, will address the Friday rally.

In a joint statement, Co-chairs of the House Congressional Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus, Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Bob Filner (D-CA), said, “We welcome our Iranian-American friends to Washington to join in solidarity with the people of Ashraf.” They referred to the “pivotal role the Iranian people, particularly the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (PMOI/MEK) have played in the Iran uprising.”

In his letter to members of the Iranian American community, Senator John Bozeman (R-AR) noted, “House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously adopted an amendment to H.R.2583” making it a policy of the United States to “urge the Iraqi government of Iraq to uphold commitments to the United States for ensuring the continued well-being of those living in Camp Ashraf and prevent their involuntary return to Iran or forcibly relocate from Camp Ashraf.”

“I applaud you for gathering just steps from the Lincoln Memorial to call for transparency and respect for the rule of law,” wrote Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA).  Congressman Mike Coffman (R-CO) member of House Armed Services Committee added, “I am happy to be among about 100 co-sponsors of H.Res.60. The resolution asks our government to do what the United States Court of Appeals has also suggested: to remove residents of Ashraf and the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK/PMOI) from the U.S. terror list—just as our European allies have done.”

“I wish you every success during your visit to Washington… the purpose of which is to bring greater awareness to the situation of family members and friends located in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, including recent humanitarian concerns about the Camp’s residents,” wrote Senate Armed Services Committee member Claire McCaskill (D-MO).

SOURCE Human Rights and Democracy International

In recent weeks a debate has flared in Washington over whether or not Secretary of State Clinton should remove Iran’s main opposition movement, the People’s Mujahidin Organisation of Iran (PMOI), from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organisations (FTO). The subject has been receiving exceptional attention in the media as we approach the anticipated decision in the next few weeks. 

An outstanding group of US former officials and experts on national security as well as members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have called on Secretary Clinton to delist the PMOI. They simply argue that based on their personal experience and deep knowledge there is no evidence to link the organisation to terrorism. The unofficial bipartisan coalition which has been formed includes a diverse spectrum of the US political field. It is a reminder of what happened a few years earlier in the UK, where 35 Members of Parliament from all major political parties successfully took legal action against their own Secretary of State for Home Affairs which led to the delisting of the PMOI in the UK, since the court found the Secretary’s decision for listing the PMOI as “perverse.”

In the UK, as we approached the D day, the Iranian regime’s lobby, disguised under various pretext, intensified its activities. Their arguments were very similar to what we hear today in Washington; no arguments about the PMOI being engaged in terrorism or having capability and intent to do so, let alone any evidence. Their tactic is to create mayhem to somehow keep the opposition on the list. 

While they make a lot of noise, given their lack of evidence against the PMOI, the Secretary of State has a clear case before her. She is expected to make her decision based on facts and law and not political propaganda. Given the factual and legal situation, delisting the PMOI is the most appropriate conclusion.

Let’s see what the Iranian regime lobby is arguing.

Privately, they warn about the possible serious consequences if the PMOI is removed from the FTO list. The same warning was made in the UK. The warning was so strong that the British government in an unprecedented move wrote to the Court saying if the decision is going to be in favour of the PMOI, the government would like to know in advance to take necessary measures against a possible reaction from Tehran. The request was repulsive in a democratic country. But more importantly it was a political misjudgement. The PMOI was delisted and nothing happened. Let’s not forget what encourages the mullahs to engage more in terrorism is seeing signs of weakness. Firmness is the best approach to the tyrannical regime. 

The regime’s lobby accuse the Iranian opposition of all sort of things unrelated to FTO designation but aimed at tarnishing the image of the PMOI and in particular the image of the opposition leader Maryam Rajavi. Not surprisingly, she is what the Iranian regime fears most. I have personally met her and talked to her about her vision.  She is a charismatic leader with a democratic vision for Iran after the mullahs, with gender equality, individual freedom, no nuclear program and good relation with the rest of the world. Her 10 point declaration can be supported by everyone in Europe and the US. No wonder the mullahs are so much against her.

They say the PMOI is not popular in Iran. So what? Even if it was true – for which there is no evidence – it has nothing to with the designation. Those making these arguments are urging Secretary Clinton to ignore the law and decide on other considerations. In short this is an invitation to curry favour with the mullahs in Iran who are responsible for the death of so many British and US soldiers in Iraq.

Secretary Clinton should keep in mind that being on the list requires certain legal criteria to be met. Deciding on the terror tag of the group is not an arbitrary or even political decision to be made as the Iranian lobby call for. Whether the group is popular or not, is a cult or not or whatever else has nothing to do with statutory criteria of a designated terrorist organisation. The PMOI can only be kept on the list if the State Department can prove that it meets the statutory criteria set by law. 

Finally, Secretary Clinton should bear in mind the severe consequences of not delisting the PMOI. Not only will it damage America’s reputation for respecting the rule of law but it will have a direct impact on the lives of political prisoners in Iran and 3,400 members of the PMOI residing in Camp Ashraf in Iraq. They have already been the target of two deadly attacks, which the Iraqi government justifies by relying on the FTO designation. The consequences are traumatic. It is time to take the right decision and delist the PMOI.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead is a former Chairman of Britain’s Labour Party.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/177857-secretary-clinton-its-time-to-delist-the-pmoi?page=2#comments

Scoop Independent News

Who cares more about the safety and security of America and the United States’ national security: The American military personnel who have served their country and put their lives on the line in Iraq or the pro-Tehran lobby in Washington with well-established political and financial ties to Iran’s leadership?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will soon be making a momentous decision about the removal of the Iranian opposition, Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), from the State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). But has she taken note of what many American military officers, who have dealt with the group in person, sometimes for months, say about the MEK?

Captain Vivian Gembara, an attorney for the U.S. military for 4 years, was deployed in Iraq for 12 months beginning in April 2003. During that time, she participated in negotiations with the MEK. She was a member of the 4th Infantry Division team that negotiated and drafted the “voluntary consolidation” agreement between the United States and the MEK. In a 2005 article, she writes that the U.S. Special Forces were first to encounter the MEK in April 2003 when the MEK “offered to work alongside the U.S. to stabilize the country.”

Captain Gambara writes that, instead of establishing a partnership with the MEK, “Led by General Ray Odierno, 4th Infantry Division Commander, we were tasked with delivering the bad news. The [MEK] we encountered [in Camp Ashraf] were just as the Special Forces described – fluent in English, Arabic and Farsi; familiar with the terrain and eager to work with us. Meetings that we anticipated would run several hours wound up lasting two days.”

Elaborating on the substance of these negotiations, General Odierno told reporters at the sidelines of the meeting hall at Camp Ashraf that “It is not a surrender. It is an agreement to disarm and consolidate.” He added that the MEK appeared to be committed to democracy in Iran and their cooperation with the United States should prompt a review of their “terrorist” status, according to news reports.

The French news agency, AFP, quoted General Odeirno as saying “I would say that any organization that has given up their equipment to the Coalition clearly is cooperating with us, and I believe that should lead to a review of whether they are still a terrorist organization or not.”

Similarly, General James Conway, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, spoke on a panel last month about the MEK and Camp Ashraf based on his “own observations and experiences” and as “the only member of the panel that has had physical responsibilities for their security.” He told the audience that:

“As I dispatched some of my commanders to sit down and talk with these folks, as I visited myself, these people are not terrorists. They’re no more terrorists than the people here on the panel… We asked those people to disarm. They’re the only people in Iraq who are disarmed. And yet, these people complied willingly and have done what we asked them to do.”

Speaking at a Congressional briefing in May 2005, Lt. Colonel Thomas Cantwell, Commander of 324th MP Battalion, who for nearly a year was the officer in charge of Camp Ashraf where 3,400 MEK members reside, talked about invaluable role the MEK played as a honest broker between the US commanders and the local Iraqis. Col. Cantwell said:

“When I moved up into northern Diyala province [in Iraq], the relationship of the MEK with the local community helped me in that regard, I think because most of the local sheiks, understanding as part of the Sunni triangle, weren’t exactly trusting of coalition forces but they seemed to have some level of trust with the Mojahedin…”

Also in May 2005, Col. David Phillips “Griffin-6”, the 89th Military Police Brigade, wrote an open letter to Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch which had leveled malicious and completely unfounded allegations about human rights violations in Camp Ashraf. In the letter which was subsequently sent to the members of US Congress and later published in the Congressional Record, Col. Philips stated that:

“I am the commander of the 89th Military Police Brigade and in that role was responsible for the safety and security of Camp Ashraf from January – December 2004… We always had open dialog and debated different subjects. I was exceptionally impressed with the dedication of the female units. These units were professional and displayed strong support for freedom, democracy and equality for women… Were it not for the ongoing insurgency throughout Iraq, I would sanction my daughter to travel to Camp Ashraf and meet these very dedicated and professional female members of the [MEK]…”

In a letter dated August 24, 2006, Lt. Colonel Julie S. Norman, Commander Military Police, JIATF, wrote that:

“The [MEK] has encouraged and assisted various Iraqi groups to join the political process and dialogue with the US forces… The [MEK] has been encouraging peaceful methods in its surrounding community for the establishment of a secure and democratic Iraq and has respected the laws of Iraq…

“The [MEK] has always warned against the Iranian Regime’s meddling and played a positive and effective role in exposing the threats and danger of such interventions; their intelligence has been very helpful in this regard and in some circumstance has helped save the lives of soldiers. Recommend that the facilitation of intelligence continue.”

Few days after the July 2009 deadly attack by the Iraqi forces on MEK members in Camp Ashraf, Warren Murphy from the Indiana National Guard’s 76th Brigade, wrote in the Indianapolis Star newspaper that:

“I also went on several missions to Ashraf and found the people there cooperative and friendly toward us. We should be helping these folks in every way necessary. Repayment for the help they have given us is the least of the reasons to do so. Rescuing them from oppression under the Iraqi government or certain execution if repatriated to Iran is the only action that has a shade of right, and it is easily within our ability to do so.”

Col. Wesley Martin US Army (Ret.) wrote in the New York Post earlier this month that “As a former base commander of Camp Ashraf, the official name of the MEK’s besieged refuge, I’d like to make one thing clear: Despite charges that the MEK is a terrorist organization, these people are American allies. It would be foolish, as well as wrong, to abandon them… As the former antiterrorism/force protection officer for all of Iraq, I know the ‘factual’ basis for the listing is false.”

Last month, he told a Congressional hearing entitled “Massacre at Camp Ashraf: Implications for U.S. Policy,” that “I know from experience, the [MEK] is not a terrorist organization. My recommendation in this effort is for the People’s Mojahedin to be immediately removed from the State Department terrorist list.”

Col. Gary Morsch, who had served as the Battalion Surgeon at Camp Ashraf for nearly a year in Camp Ashraf, told the same hearing that:

“There were no findings of any terrorist activities, disloyalty to the mission of the U.S. military in Iraq, illegal activities, coercion of MEK members, hidden arms, or any evidence that the MEK were not fulfilling their agreement with the U.S. Military to fully cooperate with and support the goals of the U.S. in Iraq…”

Dr. Morsch testified that MEK members in Camp Ashraf were highly educated and “had come to Ashraf to voluntarily serve with the MEK to establish a free and democratic Iran.”

“Now, it seems to me the oppressive events [at Camp Ashraf] are such today that we have got to reconsider our national posture towards the people at Camp Ashraf and the MEK in general.”

What all these US officers have said on the record about the MEK over an eight-year span amounts to description of a pro-democracy, stability-seeking ally, not a terrorist entity or a threat to US national security. These statements make it very clear that the MEK’s FTO designation is flawed. The designation has been and continues to be a political act crafted, based on some misguided policy consideration and assumptions, as an incentive to placate Tehran rulers.

As the anti-MEK crowd, spearheaded by the US-based pro-Tehran pressure groups, are ferociously lobbying the State Department to – despite what the law and facts dictate – refrain from revoking the MEK’s “terrorist” tag, Sec. Clinton is wise to listen to the advise of these American soldiers who have come to know the MEK first hand and are concerned about America’s safety and security like no other.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1108/S00297/on-mek-listen-to-those-who-care-about-americas-security.htm

PRNewswire

Terror Tagging of an Iranian Opposition Organization

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On Thursday, 18 August 2011, the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) held a press conference at the National Press Club to launch its new study—Terror Tagging of an Iranian Opposition Organization.

(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20110822/DC55349)

To determine whether there is credible evidence to sustain a valid terrorist designation, the IPC study analyzes State Department administrative records about the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MeK); the Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism; a declassified State Department summary of classified allegations; public electronic databases; and media at the time of alleged incidents. The goal is to infer credibility (reliability) of sources of allegations against the MeK and validity (reasonableness) of the MeK terrorist designation. The three databases are: U.S. National Counterterrorism Center Worldwide Incident Tracking System; U.S. Department of Homeland Security sponsored Global Terrorism Database, University of Maryland; U.S. supported RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents.

Based on these sources, IPC President Professor Raymond Tanter stated the main finding of Terror Tagging as, “absence of evidence to support the conclusion that the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq engages in terrorist activities or terrorism, or has the capability and intent to do so.” Tanter added, “To be re-designated absent any terrorist activity or terrorism, the State Department has to demonstrate that the MeK has both the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism, and either threatens the national security of the United States or the security of U.S. nationals. So far, the State Department has failed these tests.”

Commenting on Terror Tagging, John Sano, former Central Intelligence Agency National Clandestine Service (formerly, the Directorate of Operations) first Deputy Director, said, “The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security, (MOIS), has shaped the opinion of the MeK [Mujahedeen-e-Khalq] throughout the world.” Sano added that the MOIS planted, “false press reports about how the MeK was ‘responsible’ for… attempted airline bombings, hiding weapons of mass destruction, bombings in several cities, and training female suicide bombers.”

Sano added, “So, what the MOIS has been able to do is exploit vulnerabilities in our intelligence system.” Explaining why the Iranian MOIS plants stories in the press of potential threats faced by U.S. military commanders, Sano stated, “And then [the MOIS] goes to those individuals and says, ‘You know, that Camp Ashraf, they’re harboring suicide bombers. They’re training them, and that’s a threat.’ So now the military commanders on the scene have to worry about that [threat] as well.”

In addition, Sano said, “The next step needs to be, ‘Let’s fix the errors of the past. Let’s take them [the MeK] off the [terrorist] list, let’s move toward greater democratic ideals, and support the MeK.'” Sano closed by stating, “We continue to be puzzled as to why this relatively simple decision to delist the MeK has not been made.”

Explaining the puzzle of why the MeK continues to be designated contrary to the law and the facts, Professor Tanter said, “Because the State Department uses political more than legal criteria and historical circumstances, it continues to list the MeK as a terrorist organization.  Despite a favorable domestic political climate for delisting and overwhelming evidence against an international political justification, the State Department maintains the designation. Listing the MeK to curry favor with the Iranian regime is a triumph of hope over experience.”

Lt Gen Tom McInerney (Ret USAF), former assistant vice chief of staff, U.S. Air Force and co-chair of the Advisory Committee of the IPC, stated, “Empowering the Iranian people requires delisting the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MeK) from the terrorist list. So long as the MeK is on the list, it is limited in uncovering the Iranian regime’s strategy for hiding its nuclear weapons program.”

“Tehran’s nuclear weapons program includes secret operations hidden within a legitimate nuclear organization, which is ostensibly for peaceful purposes; a covert military command that operates the weapons program, including nuclear weapons technology purchases; and research centers as well as companies as front organizations for nuclear weapons work. Because of intelligence revelations of the MeK, we know these facts,” General McInerney added.

General McInerney concluded, “As a general, I am the last one who wants to fight another war. But if we continue our policy of appeasing Ahmadinejad, we are actually increasing the possibility of a major confrontation with Iran; we need to use all the resources that the opposition has so that we get the Ayatollahs preoccupied, not the MeK.”

Former Executive Director of Freedom House and IPC co-chair Bruce McColm stated, “The Iranian regime violates human rights and exports its radical ideology through international terrorism.” McColm added, “When faced with failing engagement and problematic military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, American policymakers need to empower the Iranian people by removing the MeK from the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations list.”

Created in January 2005, the IPC includes former U.S. Government officials from the White House, State Department, intelligence community, Congress, universities, and think tanks. 

SOURCE Iran Policy Committee

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-released-by-iran-policy-committee-128170228.html