On Friday thousands of Iranians rallied outside the US State Department calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to immediately lift the terrorist designation of Iran’s main opposition group People’s Mojahedin (MEK/PMOI) and ensure US forces guarantee the protection of the group’s members in Camp Ashraf in Iraq. I joined them to announce the support of 500 British Parliamentarians from all parties and both Houses of Parliament, and a total of 4,000 lawmakers globally, for their just cause.

I addressed the rally alongside my distinguished American colleagues including Louis Freeh, former Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation; Ed Rendell, former Governor of Pennsylvania; John Sano, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Colonel Wesley Martin, former Coalition counter terrorism commander in Iraq; and Patrick Kennedy, the distinguished former US Congressman and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.

Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, who addressed our rally via satellite link from Paris, told us: “It has been more a year since the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, which ordered the State Department to review the terrorist listing of the PMOI. Iranian people and the Iranian Resistance have paid the price for this unjustified delay with the blood of their most courageous children… The terror listing in the U.S. is openly used as a justification to legitimize such bloodletting, both by the cruel mullahs in Tehran as well as their proxy government in Iraq.”

If ever there was a time for Secretary Clinton to remove the MEK from the US list of terrorist organisations, today is that day.

Thousands of MEK members have repeatedly come under deadly attack in Camp Ashraf by Iraqi armed forces at the behest of Iran’s fundamentalist regime. In April 36 MEK members were slaughtered by Iraqi forces and hundreds of others were injured. Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri Maliki has now threatened to close the camp and expel the residents by force at the end of the year.

The MEK was blacklisted in Washington in 1997 as a “goodwill gesture” to Iran in the hope that the mullahs could be placated to abandon terrorism and repression. The British government labelled the group as terrorist in 2001 for similar reasons. Yet the mullahs have not only continued to use terror at home and abroad; they are now fast pursuing an illegal nuclear weapons program.

As one of the 35 Parliamentarians who were successful in legally challenging our government to delist the MEK in the UK, I know that our victory tells us all we need to know about the decision Secretary of State Clinton must now make. Every single shred of evidence available to the British government was placed before the British courts. Much of this information was made up of Iranian regime misinformation, but also a great deal was provided by the US authorities. We are all fully aware that intelligence between the UK and US governments is widely shared and in the case of the MEK it was no different. The British courts found the ban on the MEK to have been ‘perverse’ and ‘flawed.’

We are fully aware that the listing of the MEK in the US and UK was never honest nor was it reasonable, rather it was an attempt by previous administrations to pander to the wishes of the Iranian regime and hold out a hand of friendship to this vile regime. The regime gratefully took our hand and has for years used it to slap us, as it continues to support terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan with 7 out of every 10 Coalition deaths directly linked to the Iranian regime while continuing to defy the international community over its nuclear weapons program.

Now Secretary of State Clinton must do what is just. She must do what the legal system of the United States requires her to do and that is to immediately remove the MEK from the US list of banned organisations.

Brian Binley is a Member of Parliament from the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/178407-appeal-to-secretary-clinton-to-delist-the-mek

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