December 28, 2024

Posts Comments

Avoid Another Srebrenica at Camp Ashraf

July 21, 2011 by

The Huffington Post

At first glance, the massacre of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica almost two decades ago has little in common with the plight of some 3,500 dissident Iranians at a place called Camp Ashraf in Iraq.

But a closer look shows the opposite.

In 1995, Dutch forces serving as UN peacekeepers to monitor the situation during the siege of Srebrenica did nothing to protect Muslim civilians, who were turned over to the Serb military and slaughtered.

In 2003, residents of Ashraf surrendered their weapons to U.S.-led Coalition forces and, after a 16-month investigation, the U.S. government recognised each one of them as a Protected Person under the Fourth Geneva Convention and issued every resident an ID card and a “Protected Person under Fourth Geneva Convention” card.

Now, eight years later, Iraqi forces – at the instigation of their masters in Iran – have besieged Ashraf. In assaults carried out in July 2009 and last April, 47 of these “protected persons” were killed and 1071 injured. So, just as the Dutch failed in Bosnia, so has the U.S. in Ashraf.

So what?

Until recently, that might have been the answer: But then, a surprise legal event took place. On July 5, the Dutch court of appeals held the country’s government accountable for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. The court said that the Dutch forces failed to protect the lives of civilian Muslims, and the judges ordered the Dutch government to pay retributions to families of the victims. The court rejected the argument offered by the government that its soldiers were acting under the command of the United Nations thus removing their responsibility for the situation.

Sounds a lot like Ashraf, doesn’t it?

Indeed, as the President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, said the U.S. inaction is far more serious. The U.S. individually questioned every resident of Ashraf, took all their weapons, even what might be needed for self-defence, ruled that they posed no threat of terrorism, and assumed full responsibility to provide protection until their final disposition.

Nothing that has happened since relieves the United States of this responsibility. Yet, the U.S. has refused to interfere in the situation, a decision far more unacceptable than the inaction of Dutch forces during the Srebrenica tragedy. There is no doubt that the United States, by virtue of the responsibility it accepted to protect the lives of Ashraf residents, should be leading an investigation into the Iraqi actions and demanding answers for the killings and injuries committed at Ashraf.

Rather, it has turned a blind eye to the situation.

The irony is that in every area except Ashraf and the People’s Mujahadin of Iran (PMOI), whose members have lived there for 25 years, the U.S. has assailed the mullahs in Tehran and their activities in Iraq. Recently, it blamed the increase in U.S. casualties in Iraq on weapons sent there by Iran. It also has decried Iran’s export of terrorism.

Yet, it has sat on the sidelines as the Maliki government in Baghdad cosies up to the mullahs. And it has done nothing to remove the PMOI from its place on the list of terrorist organisations, a designation that goes back to the days when the State Department thought they could get closer to “moderates” in Tehran through appeasement. The mullahs are still laughing at the success of that ploy, as it advanced their programme of nuclear weapons development.

Now, it’s “put-up-or-shut-up” time for the Obama administration.

Most urgently, it must act to protect those 3,500 at-risk residents of Ashraf, whose plight is getting more desperate every day as another military assault it prepared. They don’t want reparations for their families following their slaughter; they want a safe haven, outside of Iraq.

It must also remove the terrorism label from the PMOI so it can continue to lead the struggle for a free and democratic Iran. That’s all the Iranian opposition wants – no troops, no funds, just to have the unjustified “terror” tag removed. It is this that Iran and Iraq use to justify the killings of Ashraf residents.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale is Chairman of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom. He is a former Chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lord-corbett/avoid-another-srebrenica-_b_904251.html

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Howard Dean: Why is the MEK on the terrorist list?

July 21, 2011 by

Speech by Governor Howard Dean, Former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (2005-2009), “Middle East, Iran Spring: Obstacles, Opportunities and U.S. Policy,” Washington, DC, July 16, 2011, Excerpt:

Governor Howard Dean, Former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee

I just do want to say two thanks before I start: the first is to the leadership of this organization [MEK] which has worked so incredibly hard to save 3400 unarmed people in Ashraf and to stand up for what’s right in their own country.So I want to thank all of you who have put all these together. I don’t know what number this is, the one that I’ve done, but when this happens — and we will free the people of Ashraf, and we will free Iran from the tyranny of the mullahs — when this happens  — when this happens, you will thank us, but we will thank you, because this never happens without the people — the United States cannot stand up for people who won’t stand up for themselves. And you have stood up for yourselves, and we intend to support you in doing that.

Secondly, it’s an incredible honor to be on the platform with so many distinguished American military leaders. And I actually don’t think I’ve ever done this before, but I’m going to. My brother was a — classified as a POW/MIA in Vietnam. He was a civilian, and he was captured in Laos by the Pathet Lao and ultimately executed in December of 1974.

And since I have three Generals here, I want to thank them for the Joint Task Force full accounting, because nearly 30 years later, we recovered his remains because of this extraordinary group of young people. So I want to thank you not just for standing here today, but for what the American military has done not just in the field, which you’re adequately praised for all over the place, but what you do behind the scenes for the families.

Mitchell said when we started that there had been some progress, and there has been progress and there’s also been setbacks.

The biggest setback since the massacre on April 8th has been the clock, because the clock continues to tick. And as of January 1st, it looks like our troops will be out of Iraq, and we cannot trust the word of Prime Minister Maliki. We cannot trust the Iraqis to keep their word in terms of the promises that they made to the people of Ashraf and to the United States of America.

And I deeply regret that the American people have lost over 5,000 brave troops and many, many more than that severely injured only to see in power a puppet of one of the most dangerous regimes on the face of the Earth, which is the Iranian Government.

We can do better than this. And if for no other reason than to preserve the memory of our troops that sacrificed their lives, Maliki owes us at least the dignity of allowing us to be the brave, free country that we are and save the people of Camp Ashraf from destruction at the hands of his regime.

We did not die — we do not want to have our folks die in vain. We will not put up with what Prime Minister Maliki is representing in the Government of Iraq.

I was delighted to see the Spanish judge announce that he was going to investigate Prime Minister Maliki as soon as he stepped down, which, of course, now, he may never do. Because the Spanish courts don’t have the ability to investigate people who are in office, but they do have the ability to investigate people who leave office.

And the Spanish judge is now investigating — announced that he will investigate Prime Minister Maliki as a war criminal.

I was delighted to see that Wes Clark has said and then was quoted in the testimony before the Rohrabacher Subcommittee that he knows a war crime when he sees it, and what happened at Camp Ashraf was a war crime.

But what looms in front of us is a far bigger war crime, and that is the massacre of the remainder of the 3400 residents. And it is very clear there can be no assurance by the Iraqi Government that would have the credibility that we could rely on or that the people of Ashraf could rely on.

Washington, DC, July 16, 2011 - Panel of former senior U.S. government officials calls on the Department of State to expeditiously complete its review and remove the MEK from its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO)

What are the reasons for keeping the MEK on the terrorist list?

In 2006, when we disarmed the members of the MEK in Ashraf, we gave a signed — our commander on the ground gave a signed piece of paper to every single resident of — of Ashraf saying that the United States would protect them. We did not say we will protect you until the Iraqis will take over, we will protect you until Maliki takes over or if he changes his mind, then we — we reserve the right — we said that we would protect them.

That is the word of the United States of America.

At that time, when we took over Ashraf and disarmed the residents, the Federal Bureau of Investigation — and we have one of the most distinguished leaders of that agency with us today — according to Colonel Morse, interviewed every single person in Ashraf.

Not one person that they interviewed out of the 3400 was found to be a terrorist.

So now we have a group of people who are under siege by supposedly our ally, who have been found by the Federal Bureau of Investigation not to be terrorists, who have been promised the protection of the greatest nation on the face of the earth, and 35 of them were massacred in cold blood a few months ago. And the threat now is to get the other 3365 at a later time.

These people are not terrorists. This is not a rhetorical game. You see in the paper the pro-Iranian lobbyist saying, well, they’re a cult and they’re this and they’re that.

Well, first of all, I don’t believe that’s true, but even if it were, does that justify the murder in cold blood of people who are under American protection? I think not. Let’s stop the name calling and the foolishness and look at this for what it is. This is genocide, and we will not have it.

The president of the Iraqi Parliament recently visited with Struan Stevenson, who chairs the European Parliament Committee on Iraq. The President of the Iraqi Parliament, the President of the Iraqi Parliament, in his delegation, said that it was an extraordinarily foolish idea to move the people from Ashraf to another location inside Iraq.

If the President of Iraqi Parliament believes that it is a foolish idea to move the people from Ashraf to another location inside Iraq because they won’t be adequately protected, then why is it the policy of the United States to move people from Ashraf to another location inside Iraq?

The American proposal is harming the chances of getting these unarmed civilians out of Iraq alive.

Because the Europeans are now interested in a process where folks from Ashraf could go back — as you know, many of the people in Ashraf grew up in European countries, sometimes, at some point, were citizens, and not only European countries, but American — of America.

Many were educated in the West. In fact, at least there’s one person and maybe more who actually worked for the Department of Defense in the United States of America who has been in Ashraf for some years.

So one of the plans that the Europeans have is that we could relocate the 3400 members of Ashraf, to save their lives, to the West.

Every time the United States Ambassador says anything about relocating them in Iraq, it makes it easier for those who don’t want to relocate folks into Europe to say no.

This is a bad policy that we have, and there is no logical basis for the policy of the United States of America right now. And it has to change.

Now, there are some very smart people here who know a lot about intelligence, a lot more than I do. I’m going to let them talk about it.

But I — I want to close by saying a little bit about why I’m in this. You know, there are — as General Mukasey said at another meeting, there’s about the widest diversity of people on this group, politically speaking, as any group that I’ve certainly ever worked with.

It’s actually been a pleasure for me to actually get to know Republicans as people. I had a job which was trying to get rid of as many people as I could — get them out of office. We’re not talking about the Iraqi way of doing it.

so it’s been a great opportunity for me to get to reach across the aisle and get to know people and respect them, even though, of course, my job was to get them out of office as soon as I could for four years.

I think the thing that brings us together is that we believe in America. Many of the people in this room are Iranian-Americans. And you have very deep feelings about Iran, as you should, as many Irish-Americans have feelings about Ireland, and Jews have feelings about Israel, and so forth and so on.

But as — I’m doing this because I’m an American. I’m doing this because we do live, I think, in the greatest country in the world. What makes — I don’t believe an American is a better person than an Iranian or an African or a Hispanic or from South America or any — I don’t believe — but I do believe the founding documents in the United States makes us an exceptional country in this way: If you look at the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, all those years ago, we established ourselves as not only a nation of laws, but a nation of hope, that we hope for something better for ourselves than what we had left; that we had a more positive view of human beings than what was currently available in the world of the late 1770s; and that we would stand not just for individual freedoms, but for hope, for opportunity and, most importantly, which is frequently forgotten today, individual responsibilities to each other to recognize the extraordinary human potential that was available. That’s the greatness of America.

This is a moment to decide whether we are not — we are the — whether we are or are not still a great nation.

We are in this for the people of Ashraf not because we want to overthrow the Iranian Government, although that would be a very good idea; we are in this for the people of Ashraf because, as General Shelton said, we gave our word. We stand up for those who are trying to stand up for themselves but don’t have the means to do this.

We risk being the Dutch at Srebrenica instead of being the Americans in the Balkans. We cannot give up our legacy of standing for a free people who are willing to stand for themselves, especially for those who do not have the ability right now to stand for themselves.

We have to do this not for the people of Ashraf, not for the Iranian community; we have to do this so that the United States of America remains a great country dedicated to freedom, opportunity and personal responsibility.

Thank you very much.

Filed Under: Luminaries Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Wake Up State Department, Take the MEK off the FTO List Today”

July 20, 2011 by

General Hugh Shelton, Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1997-2001), Saturday, July 16, 2011, Washington, DC

Excerpts:

Thank you for a very warm welcome. It is truly great to be with you here in Washington today and to join such a distinguished group of colleagues.

I’d also like to offer greetings to the residents of Camp Ashraf that may be watching or may see this later on. You know, there have been some substantive changes that have occurred in the political landscape and in the challenges that the Ashraf residents face since I last spoke to you or this group in May of this year, but some things have not changed.

First is the United States’ guarantee of protection for the residents of Camp Ashraf.  It is a commitment that we, as a nation, made and that we must honor if we are to sustain our reputation as a great nation and one that can be trusted to honor its
commitments.

As we all know, the residents of Camp Ashraf are individuals that provided invaluable information to the United States during the War with Iraq and at its most critical moments.  They are individuals that have placed themselves at great — great risk, not only themselves, but their families as well, by voluntarily giving up their arms when they were asked to do so by the United States, when, at that time, they were guaranteed protection by us.

And as an organization, we must remember that they are ones that first alerted us to the — to the nuclear programs that had been proposed by the mullahs, and as such, the regime might have those weapons today had it not been for their assistance.

The second thing that has not changed is — is that the current regime in Iran is still the world’s largest exporter of terrorism and the greatest threat to peace and stability throughout that region.

The ruling Iranian regime is an oppressive regime, as we all know.  It’s one that mixes theocracy with autocracy and extreme expansionist ideology and one that continues to defy the international community.

It is a regime that is intent on denying their own citizens the freedoms that they desire and that they deserve.

The U.S. has encountered elements of this regime in every operation that we have conducted for the last 25 years.

And it is a regime that is not there to help another country fight for freedom; it is there to impose their will on that regime whenever they can and wherever they can.

We recently heard Secretary of Defense Panetta say or express concern regarding Iran’s interference with the Maliki Government in Iraq.  So I think that now we have, in terms of Admiral Mike Mullen and Secretary Leon Panetta, two individuals in the Pentagon that fully understand the threat that Iran poses to the region and to the United States’ interests.

Third is the oppression of the — and the inequality of women by the current regime, and Iran has not changed.  It is deplorable.  We know that women want equality, they want respect and the right to participate in all social and economic events, and they deserve to live their lives in a productive manner, one in which they can live with dignity, one, unfortunately, which is not their lot in Iran today.

The current regime’s theocratic manner of declaring women as intellectually and physically inferior to men is counter to women’s rights, and it’s counter to their expectations, as well as — as what is the right thing to do by that regime and what — something that the regime understands but fails to do it.

Unfortunately, another thing that has not changed is that the largest, best-organized resistance to Iran’s current regime, the PMOI or the MEK, is still on the foreign terrorist list here in the United States.

Our great ally, the UK, took them off their list in 2008, followed very quickly in 2009 by the EU.  In the United States, we have former Ambassador Dell Dailey, another colleague who is — as — as the ambassador for counterterrorism to the State Department and as an individual who commanded our Joint Special Operations Command who knows more about terrorism and the – and the various organizations in this country than anyone in the State Department today, also previously recommended that the MEK come off the FTO list.

Our Congress has passed a resolution encouraging the State Department to take them off, and we’ve also seen in this — in this process that the State Department, in spite of being told to provide it, has failed to provide any either classified or declassified information that states why the MEK should have been placed on the list in the first place.

They also, as we know, last week, exceeded the 180 days that they had been given by the Court to produce evidence to substantiate their reasons why the MEK is on the list.

I say:  Wake up State Department, take the MEK off the FTO list today.

Now, what has changed since we saw that deplorable attack on — of Maliki’s control Iraqi troops in April?  Well, first, the — the fate of Ashraf residents has become very tenuous.  We, in the United States, have continued to fail to acknowledge our commitment to ensure the safety of the Ashraf residents hiding behind the lame excuse that it is now an Iraqi problem.

Ambassador Jeffrey in Iraq, his idea that Ashraf residents should be relocated somewhere else in Iraq without any assurance or even any apparent concern for their safety or providing rationale as to why this is a good idea, other than said it moves it further away from the Iran border, is appalling.  It causes me to stop and wonder what is this man drinking.

This idea is a recipe for disaster.  It is a recipe for slaughter.  It is a recipe for ethnic cleansing, far outside the reaches, now, of the international community.  By dispersing the residents of Ashraf, it is setting up a recipe for — or setting up a disaster.

The — the Iranian influence on the Maliki Government today has shown — has shown us that the Maliki Government is incapable of providing the degree of protection for the Ashraf residents that they should be providing.

It has shown that the Maliki Government has a disdain for the Ashraf residents, because we see inhumane treatment of the Ashraf residents on a daily basis, to include the loud speakers, the psychological warfare that they have been — that they have been carrying out, as well as the fact that they have continued to not allow the proper degree of medical treatment for the Ashraf residents.

And then, of course, we all watched the Maliki-controlled troops as they attacked or slaughtered and injured the unarmed residents of the Camp Ashraf.

We either need to send a new ambassador with moral courage who understands America’s prior commitments, or we need better oversight and guidance from Washington for that ambassador.

Equally appalling to me is the fact that when you look at the fact — that we have not used the tools of our national power to make sure that the Ashraf residents who are provided proper medical treatment is absolutely astonishing.

We should not forget that the MEK is the best organized, it is the most formidable opposition to the current Iranian regime.  It has challenged the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism for the past 32 years.  And to me, it is the MEK that provides hope for the current Iranian people that – it provides a degree of hope that far exceeds anything else that we, here in the United States, or our allies can offer short of direct intervention.

When you look at the 10-point program of human rights platform published by President-elect Mrs. Rajavi, which emphasizes the same religious and gender freedoms that are emphasized and advocated by the U.S. Department of State, to me, it makes it a no-brainer.

Just how dumb can Ambassador Jeffrey or anyone else be to ask an organization of this type to disband itself as he did just recently when, all over the world, we are supporting groups, groups who stand — stand against ruling dictators, dictators that are far less a threat to the United States than the Iranian regime and, in fact, dictators that were considered friends of the U.S. in some cases.

Why would we not want to put the weight and power of this country behind an organization that we know stands for the — the same principles that we stand for and that is the best-organized, best-led organization to take on the current Iranian regime?  It just doesn’t make sense.

As we look ahead, you say,okay, those are the problems, what do you recommend?  Well, my recommendation would be, first of all and first and foremost, take the MEK off the list.

Secondly,we need to remember that the — the Ashraf residents are part of the group that the United States recognized as protected citizens under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and that we, ourselves, provided protection for for six years.

Third, we need to pressure the Iraqis to stop all harassment and suppressive measures against the Ashraf residents today.Fourth, given that the Ashraf residents have accepted relocation as an option, we should let the Iraqis know in no uncertain terms, and by that, I mean, use maybe what I would characterize as “coercive diplomacy,” that forcible displacement inside Iraq is totally unacceptable.

We should use the tools of our national power, particularly our diplomatic and our economic tools, to ensure that the Iraqis live up to the commitments that we made to the Ashraf residents if we are not going to do it ourselves.

Fifth, we, in the United States, should step up to our responsibilities and guarantee temporary protection to the residents of Ashraf until they are resettled in third countries.

Let me summarize by saying we know that Iran is much — has much stronger and concentrated nationalism than any other country in the Middle East.  We know that many other countries in the Middle East look at Iran as a threat and for good reason.

We also know that the MEK provides the best avenue for change, and it’s why they — that Iran considers the MEK as a significant threat to their regime.

I would call on Secretary Clinton and Secretary Panetta to acknowledge the U.S. commitment, the promise that we made, the contract that we made with the Ashraf residents to provide for their protection.  Let’s quit hiding behind the lame excuse that that’s now an Iraqi problem as a reason — that — that gives us a reason to stand by and watch, and that’s not a reason at all.

Again, I say use the tools thatare available.  We’ve got a very strong economic tool, and we certainly have got diplomatic tools that we can use to adjust Maliki’s attitude and his actions towards the residents of Ashraf.

We, the United States, as I said before, are a great nation, but we are not in the eyes of the rest of the world if our word is not our bond and if we do not honor our commitments and our promises.

This is a disgrace for America in my opinion.  If President Maliki is so weak that he can’t control his armed forces or if he, in essence, is using his armed forces to attack, harass and, in the case of April, to slaughter the residents of Ashraf, then it’s a clear indication that he is nothing more than a puppet for the current Iranian regime.

Today, it is clear that the current regime in Iran needs to change, and the MEK, with their platform of human rights and equality, is the one that they fear.

We should join the UK and our European allies and remove the MEK from the FTO list, allowing them to continue to bring maximum pressure on the current regime.

This, combined with the strength and courage of those individuals living in Iran today who want their freedom, and especially the women and the youth of that country, offers the greatest opportunity for seeing Iran with a government that is sensitive to the needs of the people of Iran and the greatest opportunity for all the citizens of Iran to enjoy the basic human rights and freedoms that the rest of the free world enjoys.

Thank you very much.

Filed Under: News, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Empower Iranians vs. Tehran

July 19, 2011 by
National Review Online
 
Iran ’s most prominent opposition group should not be labeled a terrorist organization. 
 
How should Western governments deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, whichWashingtonlabels “the most active state sponsor of terrorism”
 
Iranian aggression began in 1979, with the seizure of the U.S. Embassy inTehran, and the holding of some of its staff as hostages for 444 days. Major subsequent attacks included two bombings inBeirutin 1983: at theU.S.embassy, killing 63, and at a U.S. Marine barracks, killing 241.
 
More recently, U.S.secretary of defense Leon Panetta stated, “We’re seeing more of those weapons going in [to Iraq] from Iran, and they’ve really hurt us.” Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added, “Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shiite groups, which are killing our troops.”American responses fall into two main camps: tough and diplomatic. The first sees Tehran as irredeemable and counsels a policy of confrontation and even force; it assumes that diplomacy, sanctions, computer viruses, and threats of military strikes have no chance of dissuading the mullahs from going nuclear, and it speaks of regime change or a military option against the Iranian bomb. The diplomatic camp, which generally controlsU.S. policy, accepts the permanence of the Islamic Republic of Iran and expectsTehran to respond to diplomatic overtures.
 
A main battleground in this dispute is the question of whether or not the most prominent Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MeK), should remain on the U.S. government’s terrorism list. The tough camp generally views the MeK, founded in 1965, as a lever against the mullahs and (with a minority dissenting) wants it delisted. The diplomatic camp argues that delisting would anger the Iranian leaders, hampering efforts to improve relations, or (contradictorily) would limit Washington’s ability to reach out to the Iranian street.

The pro-MeK side argues that the MeK has a history of cooperating with Washington, providing valuable intelligence on Iranian nuclear plans and tactical intelligence about Iranian efforts in Iraq. Further, just as the MeK’s organizational and leadership skills helped bring down the shah in 1979, these skills can again facilitate regime change. The number of street protestors arrested for association with the MeK points to its role in demonstrations, as do slogans echoing MeK chants, e.g., calling Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei a “henchman,” Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “dictator,” and shouting “down with the principle of Velayat-e Faqih” (that a religious figure heads the government).

A number of fomer high-level American officials advocate delisting the MeK, including a national-security adviser (James Jones), three chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Hugh Shelton, Richard Myers, Peter Pace), a secretary of Homeland Security (Tom Ridge), an attorney general (Michael Mukasey), and even a State Department coordinator for counterterrorism (Dell Dailey). A chorus of prominent Republicans and Democrats favor delisting, including a bipartisan group of 80 members of Congress.

The anti-MeK faction does not address the benefits of delisting but argues that the U.S. government must continue the listing on the basis of allegations of terrorism. Their indictment notes that the MeK killed six Americans in the 1970s. Whether or not these allegations are accurate, a terrorist incident must have occurred within two years to continue with the terrorist-group designation — rendering discussion of the 1970s completely irrelevant.

What about the past two years? The pro-MeK side points to three main U.S. terrorist databases — the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI), the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), and the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS) — and notes that in each one the MeK comes up clean since 2006 or earlier.

What about capabilities and intentions? The State Department’s 2006 “Country Reports on Terrorism” accused the MeK of maintaining “capacity and will” for terrorist acts but the 2007, 2008, and 2009 reports omitted this statement. Britain’s Court of Appeal derided proscription of the MeK as “perverse,” and the group was removed from the U.K. terrorist list in 2008. The European Union cleared the group of terrorism charges in 2009. The French judiciary dismissed all terrorism-related allegations against the group in May 2011.

In brief, the argument to maintain the MeK’s terrorist designation is baseless.

Following a court-mandated review of the MeK’s terrorist designation, the secretary of state must soon decide whether to maintain this listing. With one simple signature, the Obama administration can help empower Iranians to seize control over their destiny — and perhaps end the mullahs’ mad nuclear dash.

— Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2011 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved. 

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Iranian resistance demands Clinton remove it from terrorist list

July 19, 2011 by
 The Washington Times
July 19, 2011
By Marieke van der Vaart
Delay said to appease Tehran
 

Iranian opposition activists are accusing the State Department of flouting a federal court’s year-old ruling ordering the removal of the Iranian resistance from the U.S. list of international terrorist organizations.

Supporters of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) called on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to comply with the court order as they rallied outside the State Department last week to mark the anniversary of the ruling.

The State Department says it is still reviewing evidence about the group.

“Until the [MEK] are removed from the list, the U.S. policy is appeasing the current Iranian regime,” said Mohamad Alafchi, an Iranian-American protester from New York.

“The Iranian people see that. That’s the only reason they’re on the list — to appease the Iranian regime.”
The State Department said it most recently received evidence from the MEK legal team in June.
“Were currently reviewing this new material,” said State Department spokesman Mark Toner. “So, no decision has been made.”

High-level support for removing the MEK from the terrorist list range from former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from the Bush administration to Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

President Clinton placed the resistance on the terrorist list in 1997 to meet a key demand of the Iranian government when he was trying to open relations with Tehran. Before that, the resistance operated openly in the United States with a Washington office.

The MEK first petitioned to get off the terrorism list in 2009, but the State Department rejected its appeal in early 2010. A year ago on Saturday, the federal court of appeals in Washington overturned that decision, but the MEK has remained on the list ever since.

Resistance members are demanding that Mrs. Clinton either present more evidence to prove the group is engaging or has recently undertaken terrorist activities or drop the accusation entirely.

The current legal debate is only the latest controversy in the MEK’s turbulent relationship with the United States since its founding in 1963. Led by a group of leftist Iranian university students, it carried out several bombings, abductions and hijacking operations in the 1970s that resulted in the deaths of six Americans in Iran, according to the State Department.

After the Iranian revolution, the MEK emerged as a key opposition group to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his brutal theocratic regime. In the 1980s, MEK leaders fled into exile to Camp Ashraf, 50 miles from Iran inside neighboring Iraq.

Then-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein allowed the resistance to carry out attacks on Iran, his enemy in the Iran–Iraq war of the 1980s.

In 2003, the MEK signed an agreement with U.S.-led coalition forces to hand over all of its weapons. Bruce McColm, president of the Institute for Democratic Strategies, said that each of the 3,400 refugees was guaranteed security. The United States handed over the camp to Iraqi forces in 2009.

Since then, Iraqi security forces have raided the camp twice, killing between 41 and 46 Iranians and wounding about 800 more.

“[Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki] put in writing that he would protect the people at Camp Ashraf, according to the Geneva Convention,” Mr. McColm said. “Clearly, he hasn’t.”

MEK members said that until the United States takes the group off its terrorist-organizations list, the Iraqi government will continue to use that terrorist designation as a justification for violence.

“You have a situation that creates a humanitarian disaster,” Mr. McColm said.

In 2009, a European court ordered the European Union to remove the resistance from its own terrorist list, after finding the MEK had committed no acts of terrorism.

 
Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

UN chief urges solution to Iranian exiles in Iraq

July 19, 2011 by

Reuters
By Patrick Worsnip

UNITED NATIONS, July 19 (Reuters) – U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon called in a report made public on Tuesday for stepped-up efforts to resolve the problem of Iranian exiles living at a camp in Iraq that was the scene of a bloody clash in April.

Camp Ashraf, some 65 km (40 miles) from Baghdad, houses the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI), which mounted attacks on Iran before the U.S.-led overthrow of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The future of the camp has been uncertain since the United States turned it over to Iraqi control in 2009. Unlike Saddam, who fought an eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s, Iraq's current government is sympathetic towards Tehran and has vowed to close the camp by the end of this year.

In April, the camp — which houses 3,400 people — was the scene of clashes between Iraqi security forces and residents, 34 of whom were killed according to a U.N. investigation.

“I … encourage all stakeholders involved to increase their efforts to explore options and seek a consensual solution that ensures respect for Iraq's sovereignty while also being consistent with international human rights law and humanitarian principles,” Ban said in a regular report on Iraq.

“To this end, I call upon (U.N.) member states to help to support and facilitate the implementation of any arrangement that is acceptable to the government of Iraq and the camp residents,” the U.N. Secretary-General added.

Earlier this month, PMOI leader Maryam Rajavi rejected a U.S. proposal to move the camp residents to another location chosen by the Iraqi government, saying the plan would lead to a “massacre.” The PMOI is officially considered a terrorist group by Washington but enjoys some support in the U.S. Congress.

Camp residents have voiced fears that they will eventually be handed over to Iran.

INVESTIGATION PENDING

In his report, Ban urged Iraqi authorities to refrain from use of force and ensure adequate access for camp residents to goods and services.

Rights group Amnesty International said in a statement last week that Iraq should halt “harassment” of the exiles, who have said they could not buy basic medicines and had been denied permission to travel outside the camp for medical treatment.

At a Security Council debate on Iraq on Tuesday, Baghdad’s U.N. Ambassador Hamid Bayati said his country had allowed U.N. representatives and U.S. forces to enter the camp to deliver food and medicine.

He also said Baghdad had expressed a willingness to start an investigation of the April clash, a probe that Ban said “remains pending.”

Bayati said Iraq had decided “to work on (camp residents’) resettlement and guaranteeing their human rights” but gave no details of its plans. He charged that the PMOI “considers the camp as liberated and holy territories for them and refuses to leave it, which is a stark challenge to Iraq's sovereignty.”

Bayati said the April clashes started after Iraqi forces attempting to assert control of part of the camp were attacked with fire bombs and knives.

But Mohammad Mohadessin, a Paris-based representative of the camp residents, said in a statement sent to Reuters that Ban’s account of the incident “clearly lays bare the lies by the Iraqi ambassador.” (Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/un-chief-urges-solution-to-iranian-exiles-in-iraq

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

US Policy Helping Iran Regime

July 18, 2011 by

The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Monday, July 18, 2011

 by Bob Barr

Over the last several months, peoples in several Middle Eastern countries have taken to the streets in protest of oppressive governments — reflecting a profound desire for reform and an end to corruption. Many politicians in Washington have hailed these protests and openly encouraged government leaders in the countries affected to take meaningful steps to transition to democratic rule. Except for Iran.

When the Iranian people rose up in June 2009 and began a wide and continuing protest against the Ahmadinejad administration and its religious leaders, all we heard from Washington was a modest degree of lip-service. Meanwhile, scores of Iranian youths wearing green, the color of the opposition, were killed, tortured, or imprisoned.

Iran remains the elephant in the room in terms of U.S. foreign policy. While sanctions have been placed on the country and other punitive diplomatic initiatives imposed, there has been no serious focus on or support for the Achilles Heel of the regime in Tehran — the Iranian people and their organized opposition.

In fact, the past three U.S. administrations have seriously and expressly weakened the ability of opposition forces in Iran to effect positive change. All three have done this by abusing U.S. law that permits the State Department to designate entities as “terrorist organizations” and thereby deny them recognition and access to resources. This is precisely what the federal government for 14 years has done to the single most important and best organized Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK).

The MEK is not in fact a terrorist organization, but was so designated in 1997 by the Clinton Administration to curry favor with Tehran. This ill-placed “goodwill gesture” effectively destroyed the ability of MEK to develop support and raise resources in the U.S. and elsewhere. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama continued the policy, despite its obvious lack of success at producing any positive changes to the repressive regime in Iran. In fact, a strong argument can be made that continuing to placate Tehran by designating the most important opposition group in the country as a “terrorist organization,” has actually strengthened the regime.

Ramifications of this policy extend also to military and national security concerns. Iran’s continued development of nuclear and missile capabilities very well could be slowed by strengthening, rather than weakening, civil opposition groups. Groups like the MEK are more concerned with increasing freedom within Iran than with saber-rattling and wasting resources on dangerous nuclear weaponry.

To be sure, the MEK is controversial, and other Iranian opposition groups, including those associated with the former Shah, despise it. But being “controversial” is hardly a basis on which to black ball a legitimate political entity whose goals – freeing the Iranian people from the grip of religious zealots – coincide with official U.S. policy.

This view is shared by many leading military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in the United States. Earlier this year, three former Bush Administration officials – Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, Frances Fragos Townsend – along with Rudy Giuliani, wrote in the National Review that “MEK is not a terrorist group.” They noted also that the organization had, in fact, proved to be an asset to the United States by “provid[ing] valuable intelligence to the United States on Iranian nuclear plans.” John Bolton, Bush’s former UN Ambassador, concurs in this assessment.

Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle also see the value in helping rather than hurting the MEK — 83 members of the House have co-sponsored a resolution encouraging the State Department to delist the organization.

Ironically, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made statements publicly supporting “all Iranians who wish for a government that respects their human rights, their dignity and their freedom.” But the gulf between her public statements and official administration policy continuing the unfair and counterproductive punishing of MEK, belies Washington commitment to “human rights, dignity and freedom” in Iran.

by Bob Barr — The Barr Code

http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2011/07/18/us-policy-helping-iran-regime/

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Prominent Former U.S. Officials Call for Expeditious Review of MEK Status and Its Removal from State Department’s Watch List, Urge U.S. Protection for Camp Ashraf

July 18, 2011 by

PRNewswire

July 18, 2011

WASHINGTON, July 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The following is being released by the Iranian American Community of Northern California:

In a symposium, coinciding with the anniversary of the ruling by a U.S. Federal Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the main Iranian opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/MEK), former senior U.S. government officials called on the Department of State to expeditiously complete its review and remove the group from its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO).

Panel of Senior Former US Officials Calls for De-Listing of the MEK, Protection for Camp Ashraf

The bi-partisan panel expressed dismay over the administration’s failure to resolve the humanitarian crisis in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, home to 3,400 members of the MEK and their families.

General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1997-2001), General James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps (2006-2010); Governor Howard Dean, former Chair, Democratic National Committee; Louis Freeh, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Togo West Jr., former Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania (2003-2011); Prof. Sarah Sewall, Director of Mass Atrocity Response Operations, Harvard Kennedy School of Government; and Professor Anita McBride, Chief of Staff to First Lady Laura Bush (2005-2009) spoke at the conference, moderated by Ambassador Mitchell Reiss, Director of Policy Planning of the U.S. Department of State (2003-2005).

“Whatever our political affiliation, it has no bearing today, as we are unified shoulder to shoulder in our effort to help right this wrong, to de-list the MEK and to help the people at Camp Ashraf,” Ambassador Reiss said in his opening remarks.

General Shelton remarked, “The State Department has failed to provide any, either classified or declassified, information that states why the MEK should have been placed on the list in the first place. They also last week, exceeded the 180 days that they had been given by the Court to produce evidence to substantiate their reasons why the MEK is on the list. I say, Wake up, State Department, take the MEK off the FTO list today.”

“We should not forget that the MEK is the best organized, it is the most formidable opposition to the current Iranian regime. It has challenged the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism for the past 32 years,” he added.

Governor Dean described the April 8, 2011 massacre at Camp Ashraf by the Iraqi forces as a war crime. “What looms in front of us is a far bigger war crime, and that is the massacre of the remainder of the 3,400 residents. And it is very clear there can be no assurance by the Iraqi Government that would have the credibility that we could rely on or that the people of Ashraf could rely on.”

Referring to the recent heightened campaign by the Iranian regime and its U.S.-based lobby to overshadow the growing consensus in the U.S. Congress and among policy and political circles on the need to immediately de-list the MEK, Governor Dean stated, “These people are not terrorists. You see in the paper the pro-Iranian lobbyist saying, well, they’re a cult and they’re this and they’re that. Well, first of all, I don’t believe that’s true, but even if it were, does that justify the murder in cold blood of people who are under American protection? I think not. Let’s stop the name calling and the foolishness and look at this for what it is. This is genocide, and we will not have it.”

Director Freeh emphasized, “The MEK… is not a terrorist group. Do you think for a moment that the likes of the people on this panel would be here if there was even a remote possibility that this organization was a Foreign Terrorist Organization? By the way, we all keep contacts with our associations and our agencies. No one has come up to me or any of my colleagues from their current agencies and said, you know I don’t think you should be doing this; this is a bad organization; this is an organization that has terrorists’ intent or capability. That’s not happened.”

Referring to the year-long use of delay tactics by the State Department in finalizing its review of the MEK status as “an absolute legal disgrace,” the former FBI Director said. “It’s a slow walk to nowhere, intended to frustrate the litigants and defy the order of the Court.”

“The fact that they have maintained this organization improperly without legal or factual basis on the Foreign Terrorist Organization List has given the Iranian regime, through its proxy in Baghdad, a license to kill… So the indecision here is not just an indecision. It is a facilitation of this regime through its proxy in Baghdad, unfortunately, murdering and killing….,” he added.

Former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Togo West Jr., said that he expected the Secretary of State “to do the right thing with respect to the MEK listing and to de-list the MEK. That is not our question. Our question is when? How long? How much more information needs to be reviewed? The State Department has not even responded to the Court of Appeals’ ruling of last year just yet.”

In regards to the dire humanitarian crisis imposed on Camp Ashraf, Mr. West stated, “I am less than clear on what our Government is going to do about Camp Ashraf, and it troubles me greatly… I agree with what has been said about the disaster that arises if they are forced to relocate inside Iraq. I agree that the United States continues to have a responsibility for that, and I urge the United States to step up to that responsibility.”

Dr. Sewall described the Iraqi army’s actions in Camp Ashraf on April 8 as “mass atrocity” and “slaughter of unarmed civilians” and warned, “We are at risk of an extraordinary humanitarian crisis by the end of this year unless we are able to rally the international community to step up to the plate. And here, I do think the United States bears a special responsibility. I do not think that we can, regardless of the legality, hide behind [Iraqi] sovereignty to escape the moral obligation that comes from the history that we have had with Camp Ashraf.”

General James Conway, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, began his remarks about the MEK and Camp Ashraf based on his “own observations and experiences” as “the only member of the panel that has had physical responsibilities for their security.” “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,” he said.

“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… And I’ve got to tell you what happened recently should be a national outrage and, unfortunately, I don’t see it,” Gen. Conway added.

Gov. Rendell  said, “I will send a letter to President Obama and to Secretary Clinton telling them, one, that the United States is morally bound to do everything we can to ensure the safety of the residents of Camp Ashraf and, two, if, Director Freeh and General Shelton and General Conway and Governor Dean and the rest of these great panelists say that MEK is a force for good and the best hope we have for a third option in Iran, then, good Lord, take them off the terrorist list. Take them off the terrorist list.”

“The fight being waged to de-list the MEK, the fight to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf, this fight is not their fight alone. It’s not your fight alone. It is America’s fight as well. Both our interests and our values are inextricably linked in this case. To the residents of Camp Ashraf, we stand with you, we will continue to work to change U.S. policy, and we will not rest until we succeed,” Ambassador Reiss said in his concluding remarks.

SOURCE Iranian American Community of Northern California

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tehran’s Favorite “Lobbyist”

July 16, 2011 by
Originally published on stopfundamentalism.com
 
The infamous Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels’s has a well-known saying: “If you tell a lie big enough and repeat it often enough, and the whole world will believe it.”

Trita Parsi’s preposterous and naive attempt to besmirch the reputation of the main Iranian opposition Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/MEK) as a “terrorist” group smacks of pure desperation to lay lie upon lie in order to build a metaphorical dam against a growing tide of support for the MEK in Washington and around the world.

That is, of course, not unexpected. Parsi is the head of the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), a group widely considered as a “de facto lobby” for Tehran in Washington. Parsi himself has been the subject of an investigation by the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, which “revealed that most of the millions of dollars of federal funds received by NIAC were not used for their intended purpose and that he was working with a regime-controlled front posing as an Iranian nongovernmental organization.”

And in 2009, it was revealed that NIAC may have violated lobbying rules and tax evasions after the group’s own internal memos came to light as a result of a court order. According to the Washington Times, “Law enforcement experts who reviewed some of the documents, which were made available to The Times by the defendant in the suit, say e-mails between Mr. Parsi and Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Javad Zarif – and an internal review of the Lobbying Disclosure Act – offer evidence that the group has operated as an undeclared lobby and may be guilty of violating tax laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lobbying disclosure laws.”

In October 2006, Parsi e-mailed the Iranian regime’s UN ambassador. The email, one of a long series of messages between the two, reveals how Parsi acted as the middleman between regime officials and several members of Congress in order to prop up support for the regime on Capitol Hill: “There are many more that are interested in a meeting,” Parsi wrote, “including many respectable Democrats. Due to various reasons, they will contact you directly.”

Parsi’s intense lobbying campaign for better relations with the regime and also for preventing the delisting of the MEK has clearly nothing to do with the Iranian people’s interests. Far from it, its main motivation is to ensure that the regime’s interests are preserved by keeping the MEK constrained and under constant pressure. The fact that, on several occasions, the regime’s official at the UN praised Parsi’s articles as “excellent,” serves to reveal the main beneficiaries of his efforts in Washington.

Parsi’s lobbying campaign to prevent the delisting of the MEK has clearly nothing to do with the Iranian people’s interests. Far from it; its main motivation is to ensure that the regime’s interests are preserved by keeping the MEK constrained.

The truth is that the Iranian regime has been involved in a multi-million dollar campaign to discredit the MEK and curtail the organization’s activities in the West because it fears and sees first-hand the organization’s social base inside Iran. A May 7, 2008 Wall Street Journal report said, “Iranian officials for years have made suppression of the MEK a priority in negotiations with Western governments over Tehran’s nuclear program and other issues, according to several diplomats who were involved in those talks.”

And how conveniently Parsi disregards the following fundamental facts about the case:

The main motivation behind the State Department’s listing was to curry favor with the mullahs. In September 2002, for example, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs during the Clinton Administration, Martin Indyk, told Newsweek, “[There] was White House interest in opening up a dialogue with the Iranian government. Top Administration officials saw cracking down on the [MEK], which the Iranians had made clear they saw as a menace, as one way to do so.”

  • In July 2010, the US Court of Appeals in D.C. “ordered the State Department to review its designation of the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran as a foreign terrorist organization, strongly suggesting the designation should be revoked,” according to the Washington Post.
  • The July rulingstates, “Some of the [State Department] reports included in the Secretary’s analysis on their face express reservations about the accuracy of the information contained therein.”
  • In 2004, after an exhaustive 16-month investigation of each and every MEK member in Iraq by seven different US agencies, including the State Department, the US Government acknowledged that “there was no basis to charge any member of the group [MEK] with the violation of American law,” according to the New York Times.
  • The State Department’s own top counterterrorism official, Dell L. Dailey, advised to have the MEK removed from the list in 2008, but then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rejected the proposal, according to the New York Times.
  • In June 2008, the United Kingdom removed the MEK from its terror list after a special tribunal called the proscription “perverse,” and the English Court of Appeals said even the government’s classified and secret material “reinforced” its view that the MEK is not involved in terrorism. The European Union also decided to take the group off its list in January 2009 after the Court of First Instance ruledthat the EU’s evidence “is manifestly insufficient” to justify the continued designation of the MEK.
  • The French Judiciary dropped all terrorism and terrorism financing charges against the MEK after an eight-year investigation.

The fact is that the terrorism label against the MEK has been challenged, discredited, and deflated not by “lobbyists,” as Parsi naively claims, but by high-ranking international courts and judges, not just in the US, but in the European Union and Britain as well, unless Parsi wants to claim that the judges were on the payroll of MEK, too!

It is ironic to see Parsi, who is engaged in an intense lobbying campaign to prevent the MEK’s delisting, accuse prominent former US officials supporting the MEK, which include three former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two former heads of the CIA and a former FBI director, nine former State Department officials, an Attorney General and the First Secretary of Homeland Security, of being essentially on the MEK’s payroll! Does Parsi consider himself more patriotic and protective of US national security interests than the likes of General James Jones, General Hugh Shelton and General Wesley Clark.

In a speech before tens of thousands of Iranians in Paris on June 18, 2011, Secretary Tom Ridge said that during the “entire period of time” he served in Washington, “we looked at threats and we looked at terrorist organizations, those individuals or those groups that were threatening the security, the safety of the United States of America never once, not once, never ever, ever, ever did MEK appear on a list as being a threat to the United States of America.  They are not a terrorist organization.”

But, Parsi thinks his evidence trumps all this national security intelligence. He flaunts as one of his “sources” a discredited report by RAND against the MEK. But he deliberately forgets to mention that the individual who oversaw the compilation of that report was James Dobbins, who is a leading expert with the Campaign for a New US Policy on Iran (CNAPI), which was created by (guess who?) Parsi himself!

Needless to mention, a 134-page book was published in January 2010, which provided a plethora of evidence, documents and statements disproving RAND’s biased and ill-intentioned assertions.

A central part of NIAC’s agenda is to dissuade dissidents abroad from speaking out against the regime. Those who do speak out are branded – you guessed it – as “warmongers.” In fact, in January 2008, during a meeting on Capitol Hill, when asked why NIAC and Parsi have been silent on the killings in Iran and why they refuse to talk about human rights violations in Iran, Parsi himself said, “NIAC is not a human rights organization. That is not our expertise.” It certainly isn’t. It certainly isn’t when it comes to the Iranian regime, but somehow NIAC becomes the foremost expert on these issues when it comes to the MEK. Go figure.

In an August 2006 letter to the Iranian regime’s ambassador to the UN, Parsi revealed his amicable relationship and close cooperation with the regime official in the context of opening up some political breathing room for the regime in Washington. “Hope all is well and that you are back from Tehran,” Parsi wrote to Javad Zarif, adding, “Would love to get a chance to see the proposal [from Tehran] or to understand more what it entails.”

Is it any wonder then, that in an internal email to an NIAC project manager, Parsi reassured him that going to Iran will not carry any risks because “NIAC has a good name in Iran”? He added, “In fact, I believe two of our board members are in Iran as we speak!” There was no mention, however, of what possible instructions those two board members came back with.

Ali Asghar Tasslimi is an Alumni of NC State University in Mechanical Engineering, a human rights activist and an independent investment banker. Mr. Tasslimi’s youngest brother was executed by the Iranian regime in the early 1980s. He was 19.

Last Updated (Saturday, 16 July 2011 17:08)

Filed Under: DeList.MEK Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Iranian opposition group pushes to be removed from U.S. terror list

July 15, 2011 by
CNN
Friday, July 15, 2011
By Jamie Crawford, CNN National Security Producer
Backers of an Iranian opposition group rallied outside the U.S. State Department on Friday demanding it be removed quickly from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations, pointing to a court ruling issued a year ago that found its rights had been violated.

Rally Demands De-listing of the MEK, Protection for Camp Ashraf

More than 100 supporters of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, also known as MEK, congregated in northwest Washington to accuse the State Department of dragging its feet in deciding whether to keep them on the list of “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.”

Specifically, they alluded to a ruling issued last July by a federal appeals court in Washington. The three-judge panel found that Mujahedeen-e-Khalq’s right to due process had been violated, because the State Department had not allowed the group to contest certain information used to justify its designation on the terror list.
“President Obama keeps saying he is with the Iranian people, he needs to show it right now,” Shirin Nariman, a supporter of the group, told CNN at Friday’s rally. “If he is really with the Iranian people, he needs to allow the main opposition group” to work inside Iran and around the world to push for the ouster of Iran’s ruling hard-line government.
State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Friday that the U.S. agency is currently “undertaking a review” as to whether Mujahedeen-e-Khalq should be on the terror list. The final decision, as to whether the designation will be kept or rescinded, will be made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Now, my understanding is that the MEK Council provided additional information related to this review on June 6th,” said Toner. “And we’re currently reviewing this new material.”
Mujahedeen-e-Khalq was put on the list by President Bill Clinton’s administration in 1997 as part of an effort to engage what was thought to be a more liberal leadership than the current powers in Iran, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The group has many supporters in Congress, and several former high-ranking government officials have supported its removal from the terror list.
The group maintains a presence at a location called Camp Ashraf in northern Iraq, where more than 30 people were killed and several hundred injured in clashes with Iraqi security forces earlier this year.
The group was offered sanctuary in Iraq under former President Saddam Hussein, after his government waged an 8-year war with Iran. It was then protected by American forces after Hussein’s regime fell. Camp Ashraf’s status has become a source of international friction since it was transferred again to Iraqi government jurisdiction.
Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,