March 19, 2024

Members of Congress Voice Support for Rally to Urge Delisting of MEK

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

Secretary Clinton, it’s time to delist the PMOI

 

 

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

On MEK, Listen to Those who Care about America’s Security

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.”

Describing the MEK as a resistance movement which aims “to overthrow Iran’s current Islamic fundamentalist regime and replace it with a democratic government,” Captain Gembara, expressed regret about the missed opportunity of partnership with the MEK as a result of Washington’s reluctance to work with a group which was designated as a FTO. “Classified as a terrorist organization by the State Department in 1997, the [MEK] bears the burden of an outdated and inaccurate label,” she wrote.

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.

*************
Navid Dara is a Washington-based analyst of US policy towards Iran.

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

Former State Department Officials Urge Delisting of MEK

In recent months, with anticipation of a decision by Secretary Hillary Clinton about the lifting of the unfounded terrorist designation from Iran’s democratic opposition Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a number of former senior officials of the State Department, from both Republican and Democratic administrations, have gone on the record to call for an objective review of the designation based on facts and devoid of customary ill-advised foreign policy considerations designed to send conciliatory signals to Tehran.
 
John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations and the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, stated during a recent conference that  “I didn’t see anything when I was in the government that justified them [MEK] being on the [FTO] list. We’ve had very senior officials in our American intelligence and counter-terrorism activities that have talked about the work they’ve done with the MEK.  We have repeated testimonials by senior American military officials during the days of the American military presence in Iraq … who have talked about their cooperation and the renunciation of terrorism, the disarming of Camp Ashraf and the work that was done to help the United States during that period.”

Back in September, Ambassador Bolton explained why, despite the abundance of evidence and facts to delist, the previous administration decided to maintain the MEK on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). He said “We have seen in recent years that opinion within the U.S. government has tended towards delisting the MEK, but at the end of the Bush administration Secretary Rice decided not to do that for essentially the same reason that the Clinton administration put the group on the list to begin with: to open channels of communication with Iran.”

Among the most significant views about the FTO designation of the MEK are comments made by Ambassador Dell Dailey, Coordinator for Counterterrorism of the State Department in the last two years of the previous administration. He was the official with full access to MEK’s “terrorism” file and yet he could not find any justification of the group’s continued FTO listing.

In 2008, he recommended the MEK be removed from the FTO list based on absence of any evidence to meet the statuary criteria. Secretary Rice, however, overruled that decision.

Last March, Mr. Dailey reiterated his recommendation and said “It is essential that Secretary Clinton . . . revoke the designation and delist the MEK. It is within her ability to do that right now… Delist the MEK from the foreign terror organization list and let the Iranian citizens decide their own form of government.”

Mitchell Reiss, former Director of Policy Planning in the Department of State, has spoken about the bi-partisan and multi-discipline nature of the growing support among senior national security and policy figures for the removal of the MEK from the FTO list.

He told a panel recently that “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.” He added that “The fight being waged to de-list the MEK, the fight to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf… is America’s fight as well. Both our interests and our values are inextricably linked in this case.”

Former senior State Department officials from other administrations have also urged the MEK’s delisting. Bill Richardson, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, has noted that “I sense this momentum with what’s happening in the Middle East, what’s happening in Iran, the repressive nature of the regime responding to the protesters. First, is the delisting [of the MEK] and we should do something about [the protection] of Camp Ashraf. This is a movement that doesn’t want any money. This is a movement that doesn’t want weapons.”

Stuart Eizenstat, former US Ambassador to the European Union and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, has stressed on the importance of strengthening democratic oppositions and addressed the issue of MEK’s blacklisting in his recent remarks. He said “The State Department is going through their process as the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia required them to do and I hope as they do so, they will expedite their decision and that they will reflect on the fact that the UK and the EU, to which I was an Ambassador, have both lifted their restrictions with respect to the MEK.”

Nancy Soderberg, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, in her remarks earlier this year about the April 2011 massacre of MEK members in Camp Ashraf, said “The government of Iraq absolutely must stand by its obligation to protect those in [Camp Ashraf] and U.S. must push it harder to do so.”

As for the need to review the MEK’s FTO designation based on facts and legal requirements, Ambassador Soderberg has been optimistic that “I am confident the Obama administration’s current review will be decided on the merits.  Having spoken to a variety of people in the administration, I do think this will be decided on the facts.” Such a belatedly fresh approach by the administration toward the MEK’s FTO status, should guarantee the group’s removal from the terror list.

Dr. Philip Zelikow, Former Counselor of the States Department and Secretary Rice, and Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, stated back in April that “What would I recommend to the Secretary [Clinton] were I in my old job today? I would say: here is a four-part proposal of what you could do: Part one. Delist the MEK as an FTO.”

The consensus among these former officials of the State Department has extended beyond this circle and now many other national security and policy figures as well as subject matter experts have joined the US Congress to urge Secretary Clinton to end the MEK’s blacklisting. It is passed time to do so.

Amir Naderi is a Washington-based research analyst with focus on US-Iran relationship.

America Must Keep Its Word

THE HUFFINGTON POST

There has been a lot of talk lately about what losing the AAA credit rating means for America. But America’s failure to keep its promise to the people of Camp Ashraf in Iraq also threatens to diminish our great country. Currently there are 3,400 Iranian opposition members known as the MEK who live in Iraq at Camp Ashraf, many of whom had family members imprisoned, tortured and executed by the Iranian Mullahs.

Despite the fact that the MEK has renounced violence since 2001, some believe and promote the idea that the MEK is a terrorist organization. There are key facts, which have been obscured, omitted or ignored in recent articles written about these 3,400 unarmed people. First, a lot has changed since the MEK was classified as a terrorist organization in 1997. In recent testimony to Congress by Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs under Clinton, it was revealed that the motivation behind the ’97 classification was to help open a dialog with the ruling party of Iran.

Second, in July 2010, the U.S. Appeals Court in Washington DC ruled that the group was actually not given due process in 1997 and ordered the State Dept. to reevaluate the terrorist designation. Notably the governments of France, Britain and the EU have already ruled that the MEK is not a terrorist organization. Currently the only two nations that remain in agreement on what is now a discredited classification are America and Iran.

Third, In 2006 the U.S. military peacefully disarmed the inhabitants of Camp Ashraf. American FBI agents visited Ashraf and questioned all of the 3,400 residents. None were found to be associated with terrorists or terrorism. The US military made a promise in writing that each resident would be protected against outside threats.

Fourth, in 2009, and again in 2011, American troops were ordered to leave the vicinity of Ashraf by the Iraqi Government — then led by Prime Minister Maliki. Iraqi troops went into Ashraf and killed 47 unarmed civilians in cold blood. Most of the hundreds who were wounded were denied medical care as American troops stood idly by just a few miles away.

Fifth, while the residents of Ashraf are currently asking to be re-located to other countries, the plan currently being pushed by Lawrence Butler from the US State would instead relocate them to another area in Iraq and “guarantee” their safety. Yet neither the American or Iraqi governments have thus far kept their word to the residents of Ashraf.

Some are suggesting that a distinguished group of bipartisan and knowledgeable counter-terrorism American experts, including former Directors of the CIA, NSA, NSC, FBI, an Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, Chiefs of the Joint Staff, Marine Corps Commandant, NATO Commander, CENTCOM Commander, DOS Asst Sec for Counter-Terrorism, governors, ambassadors, generals, and many others, are being paid for their support of the residents of Ashraf.

This is simply not true. America gave its word to the MEK that we would protect them. We believe that allowing 3,400 people to be murdered in cold blood and breaking that promise is wrong. We believe that in the end this debate is about America, not the people in Ashraf. America is a country that values freedom and the rule of law. We must keep our word and help the people of Ashraf get out of Iraq. We must support those who peacefully and through democratic means fight for their freedom. If we fail and again stand by as 3,400 unarmed men, women and children, in Ashraf are murdered by the Iranian Government or its Iraqi proxies, we diminish ourselves as a great nation. Its time for America to keep its word to the people in Ashraf.

Howard Dean, MD is former Governor of Vermont. While he has delivered paid speeches for the MEK through the Harry Walker agency, he was not paid for this column and any opinions represented are his own based on the humanitarian issues involved.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-dean/america-must-keep-its-wor_b_933345.html

It’s Time to Lift the ‘Terror Tag’ From Iranian Opposition Group MEK

FoxNews.com

As a retired Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you could say I have a soft spot for a good crime story. Here’s one that would make anyone’s spine tingle: a secret U.S. government document emerges that asserts a friendly foreign organization is planning to conduct multiple terrorist attacks. Sounds like best-seller material. The only problem is that someone put this purely fictitious tale on the non-fiction shelf, with dangerous implications.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will soon announce a decision on a court-mandated review of the status of Iran’s main opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq’s (MEK). The group was classified as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization” (FTO) during the Clinton administration at the request of the Iranian government in a futile effort to placate the mullahs in Tehran whom Clinton believed were open to negotiations (the group had a violent past against the Iranian regime).

Today, the organization has strong bipartisan support in both the U.S. House and Senate. The poisonous “terror tag” has been removed by both the United Kingdom and the European Union years ago, yet it remains in place the United States, a naive and inhumane bit of leverage against the Iranian regime, who hate the idea of an organized democratic opposition.  

Meanwhile, the MEK has provided accurate intelligence to the U.S. regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program and its deadly meddling in Iraq.  

U.S. counter-terrorism professionals—including the former heads of the FBI and the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff–are perplexed that an organization that has provided so much assistance to the United States still remains listed as an “FTO.” To many of us who have dedicated our lives to fighting terrorism, the removal of the MEK from the FTO list is as necessary as it is certain.

Enter the “document”.

With the State Department’s imminent decision, a number of detractors of the MEK have engaged in a last ditch campaign to hype a November 2004 document which they claim is an “FBI Report,” as evidence that the MEK was planning terrorist acts. I’ve seen the so-called “report.” I, myself, have written reports on terrorist organizations. And believe me, this amateurish collection of vague and unsubstantiated charges is no FBI “report.”

The document, known in FBI parlance as a “Letterhead Memorandum (LHM),” indicated the FBI was investigating individuals with ties to the MEK in a “criminal” investigation, not a “terrorism” investigation. It has no author and no FBI file number, making its validity highly questionable. After further examination, the LHM is actually comprised of two completely separate documents, pasted together.

The cover page of the LHM (dated November 2004) was prepared by the Los Angeles Office of the FBI as part of its criminal investigations about individuals with alleged ties with the MEK. 

In a recent article, Trita Parsi, an Iranian-American critic of the MEK, claims that the “FBI Report” finds that the MEK “continued to plan terrorist acts at least three years after they claimed to renounce terrorism.” But, there is nothing in the LHM that substantiates that claim as it focuses clearly on criminal matters — such as immigration smuggling by a number of Iranian nationals.

The LHM fails to make any reference to a single “terrorist” activity after 2001. And, some of the alleged incidents described as terrorism amount to nothing more than Iranian exiles pelting rotten eggs at Iranian regime officials on foreign trips. Incredibly, one of the examples and criteria of “past terrorist activities” is: “June 1981, the MEK began large scale protests against Khomeini.”

The second portion of the LHM, which appears to be clipped from a completely different document, is apparently meant to be a guide for agents to conduct field interviews. It begins by saying, “In anticipation of potential interviews of Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) members who are detained in Iraq, the following is a guide…that may prove helpful in interviews.” 

This document could not have been prepared in November 2004 because the “potential” interviews were actually already completed by that time (as mentioned earlier in the LHM). 

Roughly seven months before the document’s date, in May 2004, several different U.S. government agencies, including the Departments of State, Justice, Defense, Homeland Security and Treasury (as well as the CIA, the FBI, and the DIA), completed their interviews with the members of the MEK residing in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. As a result of these interviews, the U.S. government granted the MEK members at Camp Ashraf ‘protected persons’ status under the Fourth Geneva Convention after finding “no basis to charge any member of the group with the violation of American law,” according to the New York Times

The section in the LHM entitled “Current Terrorist Activity” refers to purported investigations of alleged “telephone calls” discussing “acts of terrorism.” If “telephone calls” were used as justification to label “terrorist activity” the LHM would have been labeled “SECRET” or “Terrorism Investigation” versus “Criminal Investigation.” 

Citing a Canadian newspaper, the Ottawa Citizen, the LHM charges that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction were being hidden in Camp Ashraf, the besieged home of the MEK in Iraq. However, ten years after the invasion of Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction have been discovered anywhere in Iraq, let alone at Camp Ashraf.

The very existence of a public FBI LHM is suspect; the FBI and intelligences agencies are not known for providing investigative information to the public.

The MEK shares an important objective with the U.S.; to support democratic change in Iran that would bring human rights protection and freedom for its citizens. The MEK’s removal from the FTO list would show Western support for the Iranian people and their desire for freedom. Delisting the MEK would strengthen America’s hand in its complex relationship with Tehran and would be of material assistance in achieving U.S. regional and international goals of combating terrorism and halting the spread of nuclear weapons.

The MEK’s listing is, and has always been, about politics and not national security.  Louis Freeh, former director of the FBI said he and other former U.S. military, intelligence and diplomatic leaders would not have spoken in favor of the MEK “if there was some secret, classified magic bullet that legally or factually justified keeping this freedom fighting organization on the list. There is none.”

The FTO list is an important tool in combating terrorism, but its designations must stand to reason. If due process is completed in an impartial and objective manner and not influenced by the likes of an unsubstantiated, amateurish cut-and-paste job like the LHM, then it would lead to delisting the MEK.

Richard R. Schoeberl has over 16 years of counterintelligence, terrorism, and law enforcement experience. Mr. Schoeberl is a former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent where his experience ranged from service as a field agent to leadership responsibilities in executive positions at FBI Headquarters and the National Counterterrorism Center where he provided oversight to the United States international counterterrorism effort. Mr. Schoeberl held collateral duties in the FBI as an FBI Certified Instructor and a member of the FBI SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) program. 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/22/its-time-to-lift-terror-tag-from-iranian-opposition-group-mek/#ixzz1VmbLdkEn

New Study Released by Iran Policy Committee

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

MEK Is an Ally, Not a Foe

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 on the frontlines in Iraq or the pro-Tehran lobby in Washington with well-established political and financial ties to Iran’s leadership and its UN Mission in New York?

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.”

Describing the MEK as a resistance movement which aims “to overthrow Iran’s current Islamic fundamentalist regime and replace it with a democratic government,” Captain Gembara, expressed regret about the missed opportunity of partnership with the MEK as a result of Washington’s reluctance to work with a group which was designated as a FTO. “Classified as a terrorist organization by the State Department in 1997, the [MEK] bears the burden of an outdated and inaccurate label,” she wrote.

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.

Noting that “US and Mujahedeen troops have mingled cordially during the discussions here over the past two days,” 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, Col. Martin 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, spanning a period of eight years, 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 and an incentive to placate Tehran rulers based on some misguided policy consideration and assumptions.

As the anti-MEK crowd, spearheaded by the US-based Tehran lobbies, 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.

Navid Dara is a Washington-based analyst of US policy towards Iran.

Tens of Thousands of Iranians Demand MEK Delisting

Nearly 100,000 Iranians Demand MEK to be Removed from the US State Department's List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations

 

On June 18, 2011, in a gathering of nearly a 100,000 Iranians, the participants described maintaining the terrorist tag against the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) by the US State Department as an illegal measure and tantamount to participating in the repression of the Iranian people and Resistance. They called on the U.S. government to comply with July 2010 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. and immediately revoke the MEK’s terrorist designation.

Rudolph Giuliani, former New York City Mayor and Presidential Candidate (2008); US Congressman Bob Filner; Andrew Card, White House Chief of Staff of President George Bush (2001-2006); Tom Ridge, first US Secretary of Homeland Security (2003-2005); Michael Mukasey, former US Attorney General (2007-2009); former Senator Robert Torricelli; Alejo Vidal Quadras, European Parliament Vice President; Rita Sussmouth, former Speaker of the German Parliament (1988-1998); Judge Ambassador John Bruton,former Prime Minister of Ireland (1994-1997) and EU ambassador to the US (2004-2005); Geir Haarde, former Prime Minister of Iceland (2006-2009); and Sid Ahmed Ghozali, former Prime Minister of Algeria; were among the speakers at the rally.

The event’s keynote speaker was Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the Iranian Resistance, who said: “The U.S. bears the responsibility for blocking the path of change in Iran, because the main force of change in Iran has been entangled with a bogus terrorist tag. Taking into consideration the ruling of the U.S. Appeals Court and calls by US Members of Congress and high-profile and senior American dignitaries who are demanding the lifting of the terror label and recognition of the Iranian Resistance… We call on the U.S. to put an end to this listing and change the policy that is impeding the Iranian people’s path of attaining freedom.”

 

Will U.S. Abandon Appeasement With Iran?

There is an Iranian parable of a man who sees a drowning mullah crying for help. He reaches out to help and says: “Give me your hand!” The Mullah responds, “No, you give me your hand!”  A way to describe how Mullahs never learned to give even if they are dying! You give them a hand and they ask for your arm. This is why when some in the West hope that by sacrificing the Iranian people’s aspirations for democracy to appease the Supreme Mullah Khamenei, people in Iran laugh and say: Oh, they really don’t know a Mullah!

Soon, one of these days, Secretary Clinton is about to make a long-overdue decision whether to keep or remove the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list. The Iranian regime and its multi-million-dollar lobbyists in the US are tense as they fear their 14-year-long investment to keep the MEK, the largest and best organized Iranian opposition movement, designated as terrorists, in danger. The Mullahs see the MEK as a vexing threat because they are devoted to the downfall of the regime.

MEK supporters have long pointed to the fact that the FTO-designation was a political “goodwill gesture” to Iran’s president Mohammad Khatami in 1997, though no serious reforms – that Khatami had promised in exchange – was ever brought to Iran. On the contrary, the meager reforms he was rewarded for by the West, soon came to an end as MEK’s blacklisting was followed by the EU in 2002.  Khatami’s job was seen “finished” by the supreme leader and he had to vacate power for the hardliners. Ahmadinejad was the result of the West’s failed appeasement policy towards Iran; “Leashing the stone, and unleashing the dog” as the saying goes in Farsi. 

Advertise with OfficialWireThe regime’s lobbyists, paraded as “Iran experts” by NIAC, who advocate for MEK’s continued FTO designation do not present any legal arguments for such a designation with lethal consequences for thousands of MEK members and supporters in Iran, Iraq and around the world, but instead use legally-irrelevant rhetoric that any de-listing will harm the “reformists” and is therefore politically wrong.

Even if they were right – which has been proven wrong – this argument would only affirm MEK’s decade-long assertions that the terror-label was never based on facts but was a purely political instrument from the beginning.

There is in fact no evidence to prove that the MEK is a terrorist organization. The Federal Appeals Court of DC Circuit ruled in July 2010 that the State Department had not acted properly on available evidence and therefore remanded the case to the Secretary of State to review her decision. But one year and one month after that ruling, the State Department has not made any decisions yet.

This wrong policy also threatens the lives of 3,400 unarmed and innocent residents of Camp Ashraf, because Iraq is use’s the terror-label as an excuse for murdering and attacking them. The Iraqi Prime Minister mentioned this in a meeting with the US Congressional delegation who recently visited Iraq to protest an assault by Iraqi guards that killed scores of innocent people in Ashraf in April.  Removing MEK’s FTO designation will give Ashraf residents a chance to be transferred to third countries. This could prevent a much feared Srebrenica-style massacre that international jurists have warned is looming in Ashraf if the status-quo persists.

The main drive behind the anti-MEK campaign in Washington DC is “National Iranian American Council (NIAC)” led by Trita Parsi. For years he has been lobbying for a “softer policy” towards Iran. A few years ago, he was lobbying to prevent the black listing of Iran’s notorious Revolutionary Guards Corps as an FTO. A potential delisting will bring to an end to the long-time policy of appeasement with the Mullah regime in Iran, thus ruining NIAC’s decade-long investment in continued services to the regime.

To justify its campaign, NIAC claims that the MEK is a “dangerous cult” and has no “popular support” in Iran. In fact none of these baseless claims even responds to legal requirements for an FTO designation. A part of this campaign is also focused on discrediting distinguished former US officials, who in recent months have demanded the delisting of the MEK and protection for the 3,400 defenseless residents of Camp Ashraf.

An online petition, started this month, urging Secretary Clinton to delist the MEK has already attracted thousands to publicly put their names to the cause. 

On August 26th, large numbers of Iranian-Americans are going to protest in front of the State Department in Washington DC to demand MEK be delisted and call for protection of Camp Ashraf.

Apart from many innocent lives that are being lost in Iran on a daily basis, continued appeasement of the mullahs will also cost the lives of even more US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan – an uncontestable fact, eight years after the conflicts. A firm policy will make the mullahs understand that America is genuine when it talks about democracy, and would therefore make the Mullahs think twice before supporting terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But at the end of the day, the State Department’s decision must be based on facts and not on fiction and hearsay. If there is no evidence to prove MEK is a terrorist organization, they must be taken off the FTO list, just like in Britain, France and the European Union.

MEK’s terror-designation, as admitted by US officials, was a political decision from the beginning. It has stayed a political decision during 14 years of appeasement of the mullahs, but it can no longer remain so after the Federal Appeals Court ruling. The State Department must either provide solid evidence or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should revoke the designation.

Siavosh Rajizadeh, freelance Journalist and human rights activist from Iran