State Dept to court: Don't meddle with terror list decisions
Iranian-Americans rally outside the White House to urge the administration to remove the MEK, from the State Department's Foreign Terrorist Organizations List
March 27th, 2012
08:51 AM ET

State Dept to court: Don't meddle with terror list decisions

By Jill Dougherty

The State Department is asking a U.S. appeals court to deny a suit that would force Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to decide, within 30 days, whether to remove an Iranian opposition group from the U.S. list of foreign terror organizations.

The group, the Mujahadin-e Khalq, was placed on the terror list in 1997 because of the deaths of Americans during attacks in the 1970s against the U.S.-backed shah of Iran. The U.S. says the M.E.K. engaged for years in terrorist activities in Iran launched from bases in Iraq, including assassinations of high-level Iranian officials and attacks in Iran with heavy weaponry. In the 1980s, the M.E.K. supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. Later, it vowed to disarm. Since 2003 the group has been living under U.S. protection on a former U.S. military base in northern Iraq, Camp Ashraf.

The Iraqi government is in the process of moving the residents from Camp Ashraf to another location in Iraq. Clinton has said the way that transfer is carried out could influence whether the group is removed from the terror list. A number of residents have objected to the move.

In its statement to the court, the State Department said the review of the M.E.K. requires "close analysis of highly classified information ... expert judgments about the continuing capabilities and intentions of a currently designated foreign terrorist organization ... extremely sensitive national security judgments and difficult decisions concerning the best way to avoid possible serious human rights violations."

The secretary of state, it said, has to "direct her full attention to emergencies of the highest magnitude, involving the United States and its allies throughout the globe."

"Any interference by a court with the Secretary's ability to carry out these absolutely critical duties would set a seriously troubling precedent."

The terrorist designation prohibits Americans from providing material support to the organization, but a number of high-profile former U.S. officials have taken up the cause of the M.E.K. and called for it to be delisted. Some of them have received speaking fees for that support. The Treasury Department currently is issuing subpoenas to some speakers' bureaus for information on the source of those funds.

soundoff (60 Responses)
  1. Ali Reza

    take the PMOI off the list now. they are freedom fighters and they are paying the price for their struggle. the thing is that they should be consentrated on the Iranian regime not the US State Department but this is the way it is today. Shame on the State Department that have kept them in the list for no reason or maybe for appeasing the Mullahs!?

    March 31, 2012 at 10:23 pm | Reply
    • sahin ashriani

      This is good enough reply to this. I think we have little time left to save the people who have been already hurt because of this shameful listing. We cannot accept Machiavellian politics:

      http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2012/03/27/framing-the-core-issue-mek-court-appeal-against-us-state-department/

      http://www.5pr.co.uk/op-ed/usa/1228/mek-state-dept-vs-rule-of-law

      April 2, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Reply
  2. Ali Reza

    take the PMOI off the list now. they are freedom fighters and they are paying the price for their struggle. the thing is that they should be consentrated on the Iranian regime not the US State Department but this is the way it is today. Same on the State Department that have kept them in the list for no reason or maybe for appeasing the Mullahs!?!

    March 31, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Reply
  3. Ali Reza

    take the PMOI off the list now. they are freedom fighters and they are paying the price for their struggle. the thing is that they should be consentrated on the Iranian regime not the US State Department but this is the way it is today. Same on the State Department that have kept them in the list for no reason or maybe for appeasing the Mullahs!?

    March 31, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Reply
  4. siavosh

    Joe Banna keeps making raciest remarks. He or she is using synonymous name like the unknown officials in the State Department making false allegations against the PMOI. I do not know if he/she is the infamous Anne Singleton but his/her vocabulary is certainly very similar to her. Singleton's vocabulary is the vocabulary used by Iranian Intelligent ministry. In fact she had been seen working in the notorious Evin prison North of Tehran.
    My 33 years experience of fighting against fundamentalist mullahs proved to me that no one calls PMOI a terrorist organization out of pure patriotism. 17 credible courts in the UK and EU gave verdict that PMOI is not a terrorist organization, in fact the UK court called its government’s decision for listing PMOI as perverse.
    So in a civilized world either we respect courts’ decisions or we side with uncivilized world of Islamic fundamentalism and call PMOI a terrorist. Why do we side with the murder’s mullahs in Iran and why do we appease them? No doubt Joe Banna benefits from ignoring the court’s decisions by still calling PMOI a terrorist organization, but why the US government keep PMOI in the list. Do they like the mullahs’ in Iran, No. Are they after a regime change in Iran? Yes, but they do not want an independent government in Iran, they want mercenaries. They want people like President karzai in Afghanistan or President Maliki in Iraq who are proxy governments. That is why the State Department bites round the bush when it comes to justifying the listing of PMOI.

    March 28, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Reply
    • joe banna

      what racist remarks have I been making? You have no argument, you are just another useful idiot for the MEK. I suggest you take a few English classes, and make a cohesive argument that is understandable.

      March 28, 2012 at 8:05 pm | Reply
  5. Laura Goldman

    I have interviewed the former American commanding officer at the camp at Ashraf and a MEK member still there. The general never found any evidence of terrorism in 6 years.

    http://nakedphiladelphian.blogspot.com/2012/03/former-general-in-charge-government.html

    March 28, 2012 at 7:42 am | Reply
  6. laila2000

    What a laughable load of rubbish by Clinton! Where are the highly classified information and why has she not provided them to the court after two years if they really exist?! Everyone knows all these phony excuses are to cover up the destructive policy of appeasement by Obama’s administration towards the most brutal regime on the face of the earth, Iran.
    What is more important for Clinton than stopping the daily executions of political prisoners in Iran and the massacre of 3,400 Iranian dissidents in Iraq for unlawfully placing Iranian Opposition on her FTO list?
    To Hilary Clinton, I must say that with or without removing this nasty terror tag, brave Ashraf residents will continue their struggle and resistance against two dictators in Iran and in Iraq under the leadership of Maryam Rajavi and soon or late the people of Iran will overthrow the terrorist regime in Iran. On that day, you and your husband who initiated this terrible destructive foreign policy and your president will go down in history as America's most corrupt politicians. Shame on you all!

    March 28, 2012 at 6:50 am | Reply
    • holzo

      What a great post!

      And all the supporters of the iranian resistance in the world will also continue their fight agaist the real terrorists in Iran.

      The day will come when this all will end and the "terrorists" from today will be the heros from tomorrow.

      Look at south africa and you will see that yesterdays US State Department Terrorist Nelson Mandela is a hero of today.

      Obama and Clinton are one of the most disappointing people for all the freedom lovers inside and outside Iran. Maybe someday they have to explain all this and I hope that all the MEK People and Supporters will find the way again to the courts when the time is over for mr. obama, mrs. clinton and the rest of this corrupt stuff.

      March 28, 2012 at 7:25 am | Reply
  7. mickey1313

    of course the state department wants to block a ruleing that would strip it of some of its STOLEN power.

    March 28, 2012 at 12:36 am | Reply
  8. joe banna

    Do they really have support in Iran? After all, they were a mechanized division in Saddam's army. They fought against their own brothers in Iran after saddam invaded. They supported a ruthless arab dictator trying to acquire Iranian territory. This will NEVER be forgiven by Iranians. They also killed scores of Shia and Kurdish dissidents trying to free themselves from Saddam's rule, and this will NEVER be forgiven by Iraqis

    March 27, 2012 at 6:08 pm | Reply
    • Saeed

      It will never be forgiven by idiots who believe in Iranian regime propaganda! I am Sick of hearing this allegations from Mullas. for 30 years I am hearing these in state radio and tv. tell something new!

      MEK members are freedom fighters and Iranians are proud of them

      March 28, 2012 at 3:36 am | Reply
      • joe banna

        they are terrorists and killers, like the current regime....except worse. They fought against their own people. They helped the Arab invaders, that is why they are in Ashraf...IRAQ. Do you deny this? If you do, I understand your being brainwashed by simayeh arabi, but for those of us capable of logic and critical analysis, it is painfully obvious

        March 28, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
      • joe banna

        actually, they are terrorists, and ordinary Iranians are disgusted by them. If you shave khamenei and put a roosari on his head....voila....you get maryam rajavi.....same crap

        March 28, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
      • William

        Marxist-islamists of MEK are not any better than the current regime in Iran , in fact they are the worst alternative. the current MEK ideology runs in terrorism and totalitarianism mentality of 1950s -1960s era, this ideology are politically bankrupt. The current middle aged members in camp Ashraf are held against their will by a minority who live in Europe to keep their dream alive. I couple of years no one will hear about them. If some US politicians paid to talk in support of them it does not mean that they can get out of the US terrorist group. So you may better put invest the money in something productive.

        March 30, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
    • laila2000

      Hey joe banna, I was told that you are not who you say you are but the infamous Ann Singleton! the agent of Iranian regime's Ministry of Intelligence and Security!!!!

      March 28, 2012 at 6:59 am | Reply
      • joe banna

        Hey laila, I dont know if comedy is your thing, but you should really try it. You obviously are unable to participate in this discussion in any meaningful way.

        March 28, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • Iraneman

      If you think MEK has no support lets has a free election, free speech and free of intimidation then you will see. State Department put them on the list as a good gesture in a time Italian dressed Khatami. Why don’t you look at the Mullahs propaganda machine such as NIAC (Trita Parsi, hoshang Amir Ahmadi), 50 TV stations, buying media like salon.com, philly.com and leftist group like antiwar.com and using Alavi foundation in California as a bank account to feed many of these Mullahs lobbyists? Where NIAC get their money to operate? I like you to question your conscious and come honest with yourself.

      March 29, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Reply
      • siavosh

        joe banna's remark matches what the notorious Iranian Intelligence ministry has been saying all along. So it would be fair to assume that she/he has a vested interested in Iranian theocracy.

        March 29, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
      • joe banna

        If that really is the only way you can respond to my inquiries, by offering blustering platitudes that have no basis in reality, then you are just as bad as the akhonds and the rajavis, and you deserve them both.

        March 30, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
      • joe banna

        I have been honest with myself. I see no difference between the mullahs and the rajavis. One is sitting in power and is the current dictator, and the other is sitting in Iraq and wants to be the dictator. I, unlike you, want a democratic and free Iran, free of dictatorships. I, unlike you, believe the Iranian people are talented and educated enough to have an open democracy where the government changes based on the will of the people....not on the will of khamenei or rajavi. If you do not have anything meaningful to add, other than the usual claims the MEK members on this post have claimed, then dont bother replying. I am seeking a useful discussion, not a bunch of mindless idiots claiming i am singleton, or an agent of Iran. That is typical mek bluster that has no basis in reality, just an easy out for a discussion they do not want to have.

        March 30, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • Sansouna

      For those who want to get back to the Leveretts' review of Trita Parsi's book, I think this paassge from Parsi's response to the Leveretts is interesting, and avoids the passion that distracts from the arguments made by both sides: In my more than 60 conversations and interviews with Obama administration officials, as well as officials from key states involved in this issue such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the European Union, … what emerged was a much more complex picture in which the president’s vision was consistently compromised by opposition from within his own cabinet; by pressure from Israel, Saudi Arabia, lobbyists, and Congress; and by the actions of the Iranian government. I'll confidently venture a guess that the Leveretts would not exclude the other listed causes for Obama's backtracking from his hopeful Cairo speech in early 2009, with the important exception of actions of the Iranian government. Yet they do end up minimizing the significance of these other causes, assigning a very great deal of weight instead to what they believe is Obama's insincerity from the outset. Parsi is not correct to say that the Leveretts offer no evidence to support this assertion. For the most important example, while Obama's April 2010 letter to Brazil's president is certainly not conclusive evidence of insincerity, it nonetheless is an important fact worth considering very carefully on this question. Even so, I think it is fair to assign more weight than the Leveretts do to the other causes offered by Parsi for the lack of follow-through: opposition from within [Obama's] own cabinet; by pressure from Israel, Saudi Arabia, lobbyists, and Congress I suspect these influences on Obama were considerable, and his backbone has not proven to be as strong as many people predicted.Whether or not actions of the Iranian government can fairly be added to the list of causes is harder to evaluate. I have not read Parsi's book, and so I do not know what he presents as evidence of that. I've certainly read many arguments presented by others, most of whom insist that Obama's extended hand was batted away by Khamenei, who insisted that the Iranian government would respond favorably to actions by the US government that proved to be consistent with Obama's hopeful Cairo rhetoric. Perhaps it would have been more diplomatic for Khamenei not to insist quite so bluntly that the US government walk the walk rather than merely talk the talk, but walking the walk is what any responsible government would ultimately expect. Khamenei was merely stating that simple fact of international relations.Sincere or not, Obama's outreach obviously has not led to any reduction of friction between the US and Iran, which seems instead to be growing. While it may be unfair for the Leveretts to attribute that solely or principally to Obama's insincerity, it nevertheless may be fair to assign the bulk of the blame to a combination of naivete and ignorance of important details, without reaching firm conclusions on the relative weight of each factor and without assigning material blame to either insincerity or actions of the Iranian government. There is good reason to believe now that Obama's gracious offer to negotiate with Iran on its nuclear program always had a precondition that predictably made any such negotiations unlikely to succeed: the US' demand that Iran give up its right to enrich uranium. Obama was diplomatic enough not to mention this in his Cairo speech, an omission that may have induced optimistic listeners to believe the US would no longer insist on this. Perhaps Obama did not believe that the right to enrich really matters all that much to Iran, though the Iranian government has always made clear that it does. Maybe Obama understood that it matters but mistakenly believed the NPT or Iran's Safeguards Agreement denies Iran the right to enrich because of its pre-2003 disclosure violations (several serious and knowledgeable writers have made this argument, after all), and was confident that Iran would eventually be persuaded that it was not justified to insist on this right. Possibly Obama sincerely but mistakenly believed that Iran is obligated to observe the Additional Protocol, or to answer questions about military matters that go well beyond its Safeguards Agreement and, once again, he was confident that Iran could be persuaded to start complying with these obligations. Each of these beliefs – if and to the extent Obama held them – could be attributed to some measure of naivete and/or ignorance of details about the NPT, Iran's Safeguards Agreement and the importance to the Iranian government of Iran's right to enrich uranium – all of which, taken together could have been sufficient to scuttle negotiations without the need to add either insincerity or actions of the Iranian government to the mix.

      May 21, 2012 at 5:05 am | Reply
  9. holzo

    What in the hell does it matter what they had done in Iran or Iraq? They never done a terrorist attack against the US for decades and 9 court decisions around the globe tell that there is no evidence for attaks or plans against western countrys.

    What is the difference between the US State Department and the iranian regime when they can list a group without any evidence and tell the court that they don't have to meddle?

    It's a good bye for democracy and nothing else. No court will act in favor for the MEK if there is any evidence for terrorist attaks or plans against US Citizens!

    March 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Reply
    • joe banna

      You are right, they have not killed any Americans since the mid-70's. The MEK have killed Iranians. They have Iranian blood on their hands. Should they not be on the terror list b/c their victims were Iranian?

      March 27, 2012 at 5:21 pm | Reply
      • mickey1313

        no when terrorests kill terrorests, that is a good thing, let them fry Iran.

        March 28, 2012 at 12:37 am |
  10. holzo

    Good bye democracy.. If a court can't meddle in decisions of the state department based on the principles of law what in the hell is the difference between them and the iranian regime? There is no evidence in 9 court decisions around the globe for a terrorist organisation of the MEK/PMOI.

    f...... corrupt system!

    March 27, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Reply
  11. joe banna

    What, exactly, is the difference between the dictatorship of the mullahs and any potential dicatatorship of the rajavi's? Replacing shah khamenei with shah rajavi should not be the answer. Aren't these the same mujaheddin that supported Saddam's campaign against Iran in his efforts to acquire Persian territory? Iranians are smart and talented people who can choose their own leaders rather than having another dictator in power. Imagine the possibilities

    March 27, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Reply
    • holzo

      Do you really know what you are saying?

      Over 70 people get hanged this year, thousands got tortured 2009 for nothing, people get slashed for wearing the wrong clothes. it don't think that even one MEK member had done that and their programm is totally different from the mullahs. they won't fight them if they had the same thoughts.

      It's not worth discussing!

      March 27, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Reply
      • joe banna

        they have the same thoughts, but they dont have the same power. Dictator rajavi wants to replace dictator khamenei. You are right, it isnt worth discussing b/c they have no support in Iran, and that is what really matters. The people of Iran are ready to throw off the shackles of dicatorship, not just replace the one they have

        March 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
      • holzo

        @ joe banna

        You don't have any single proof that mrs. rajavi will only replace khamenei. i talked with her personally and met several MEK members (i am not a MEK member and not even a Iranian!) and I don't saw any sign of a new dictatorship. For example there is gender eqaulity in their organisation.

        Their programm is totally different from the regime it is based on democracy and they said several times that the iranian people should decide after overthrow of the regime in a free election with UN supervision. I checked them 3 years very closely and found no sign of any new dictatorship either in their movement nor in the pratice.

        You also don't have any proof that they don't have support in Iran. In Exile they have several Hundred thousand supporters (as you can see every year at the great rally in paris) and their TV Station got a lot of money in the last collecting campaign especially from Iran.

        You have only allegations and nothing else and its 100% Regime Propaganda.

        March 28, 2012 at 6:03 am |
      • joe banna

        so tell me, holzo....what would the mek be without the royalty of the rajavis? They would be nothing, and that is why they are a dictatorship. When khomeini came to iran, he never said he wanted to be the dictator of Iran, to replace the shah...but that is what happened. Same with rajavi, they wont win a whole lot of support if they came out and said they want to replace the current dictatorship with their own. In reality, that is what they want. I say, no ahmadi, no pahlavi, and no rajavi. End the cycle of dictatorship in Iran.

        March 28, 2012 at 3:11 pm |
  12. Saeed

    Shame on State Department. Blood of Ashraf's residents is on their hands. How long they want to appease Tehran's regime? MEK is a legitimate resistant organization again the brutal regime in Tehran.
    Defending yourself and your people against a fascist regime is not terrorism.

    March 27, 2012 at 3:53 pm | Reply
    • joe banna

      MEK has too much Iranian blood on their hands to make that claim. They are just as fascists as the crazy mullahs

      March 27, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Reply
      • Saeed

        If you mean murderers and Pasdars of terrorist revolutionary guard, when you say Iranians. Yes, That's true! self defense against the fascistic brutal regime is a right!

        March 28, 2012 at 3:44 am |
      • joe banna

        No, I mean ordinary Iranians. Kinda like the ones that died defending their country against an Arab aggressor. The MEK took the side of the Iraqis. It is obvious that MEK supporters do not have a leg to stand on, so they resort to mindless name calling (like laila 2000).

        March 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • Buzzer

      Has the MEK in the past and in the recent past (ie: in the last year) carried out OFFENSIVE violent acts intended to create fear and carried out these asct for their stated objectives and targeted and/or disregarded the safety of civilians? If yes, then they are terrorists. If they are DEFENSIVE, which means they are protecting civilians from violent Iranian governmental "raids" on civilians by actively fighting the government soldiers/spec ops/police forces in the course of the raid then they are not. Anytime you cannot effectively engage governmental forces "toe-to-toe" because you are outmatched in respect to conventional weapons and equipment and resort to targeting civilians (EVEN if they are part of the government) and attempt to kill them to create "fear" you are a terrorist organization. If you stick with engaging the military/police when and where you can then you're "resisting" the ones "enforcing" the "repressive" laws of the "oppressive" regime, and you then and only then call yourself "resistance" fighters/movement.

      March 27, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Reply
  13. See DOWNLOAD MP4/3GP VIDEOS FOR FREE PLEASE NOTE: U MUST BE 18

    with imediate effect, pls remove.

    March 27, 2012 at 3:24 pm | Reply
    • Roque

      Castellio, Agreed, Limbert was limping along, wasn't he. He was clalrey more concerned with maintaining good relations with the State Dept and with ensuring the continued comfort of his Naval Academy job than with applying frank analysis. His level of knowledge did not seem to exceed anything one might learn from this blog.It's hard not to speculate that the only thing Limbert has going for him is having been held captive in Iran. Come to think of it, if he had been any kind of foreign service officer back then, he would have been able to head off the situation, or resolve it.Painful to realize that even the good guys are mediocre at best.One more thing at the beginning of the conversation he mentioned that Feltman is now the only person at State who is working on Iran; at the end of the conversation he heaped fulsome praise on State Department, with the caveat that they have their hands tied, or words to that effect. A few minutes before that comment, Limbert expressed consternation that Iran was wary of US intentions, suspecting tricks and nefarious schemes. Tricks and nefarious schemes are Feltman's modus operandi. Surely the State Dept is aware of that. If State were half as praiseworthy as Limbert claims, they'd fire Feltman and place a real diplomat on the case.

      May 21, 2012 at 7:15 pm | Reply
  14. MEK are Terrorists

    All the people defending the MEK are clueless morons. Generally this is a natural characterstic of MEK supporters.
    1) The Department of State is not required to respond 180 days from the time the court issued a remand. Even the MEK counsel now that, idiot.
    2) To get removed from the list the criteria is not an absence of terrorist activity for five years. The Secretary of State needs to illustrate that the circumstances have changed since the MEK's listing. Groups can stay on the list of they still have capability and intent. A group doesnt need to actually have a successful attack to remain on the list.
    3) The MEK has a long well known document history of killing innocent civilians, including Americans.
    4) Freeh, Rendell, Ridge, et al. need to be prosecuted for providing material support to the MEK terrorists. They are a disgrace to America and should be ashamed that they are supporting a group that has killed AMericans. Guliani is the worst by far.

    March 27, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Reply
    • ali

      Reza Marashi, Is that you? hiding and remaining unknown!

      March 27, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Reply
    • joe banna

      I wonder how much money the arabs give the MEK to pay these politicians to tout their cause. That is why we have a unified organization in AIPAC. If Iranians were united, they would be twice as effective, but most Iranian political groups, like the MEK, have their own agenda, and that does not include the well being of ordinary Iranian citizens

      March 27, 2012 at 4:44 pm | Reply
    • Shahab

      Perhaps you should go read up on the subject matter. Reviews are done every five years, HOWEVER, an organization must have not engaged in violent acts over the previous TWO years. You clearly are not knowledgeable regarding these matters. The State Department had 180 days from the July 16, 2010 9th District Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the MEK to review the designation. The MEK and its lawyers waited patiently for nearly two years.

      Regarding MEK killing civilians and Americans, where is your proof? Give the readers one CREDIBLE shred of evidence that shows that they have killed civilians. Can you? I can give you evidence that shows otherwise.

      2011 French Court: Investigating magistrates Marc Trevidic and Edmond Brunaud said that in the absence of any evidence that civilians had been hit in the actions praised by the MeK in the documents, it would be beyond their mandate to classify the group as a terrorist organization... ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576319452976120730.html )

      2007 UK Courts: Rejecting the documentation produced by the British government, including the “classified material”, and rejecting the oral testimony of the British Foreign Office official, POAC rules that “having carefully considered all the material before us, we have concluded that the decision” to keep the PMOI blacklisted “was flawed and must be set aside”. It added that the decision “is properly characterised as perverse”. The POAC added that “we order that Secretary of State lay before Parliament the draft of an Order under section 3(3)(b) of the 2000 Act removing the PMOI from the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2.” ( http://www.delistmek.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/POACJudgment-24_06_08pmoi1.pdf )

      EU Court: In three different rulings annulled terror tag ( http://www.delistmek.com/court-rulings/eu-courts/2008-ruling/ )

      With regards to killing Americans, that is a tired stale allegation devoid of any factual evidence. State Department is playing willfully playing ignorant knowing that the MEK did not murder any Americans in the 70's. It was a Marxist splinter faction that committed those murders after all the MEK leadership and cadre were arrested and executed in the early 70's by the Shah. The current MEK did not reorganize until 1979. Plenty of documentation to prove it.
      Amb. Bloomfield Report Pg. 19 http://www.delistmek.com/MUJAHEDIN-E-KHALQ-AN-INDEPENDENT-ASSESSMENT.pdf
      DLApiper Investigation Pg. 87 http://www.delistmek.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/DLApiper-A-New-Approach-to-US-Iran-Policy.pdf
      In fact the State Departments own 2005 own Country Reports on Terrorism stated a Marxist element did the killings. So the moron is those who don't know the facts and regurgitate the disinformation they read.

      Your capability and intent argument is even more laughable seeing as how Camp Ashraf has been disarmed and under seige by Iraqi mercenaries of the Iranian government since 2009 and under strict US control prior to that. So really, do some research because your ignorance on the matters is obvious.

      March 27, 2012 at 5:12 pm | Reply
      • joe banna

        You keep mention killing Americans. They have not done that since the mid-70's. They kill Iranians. Iranians are also human beings

        March 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
      • joe banna

        Why dont you give the readers one shred of proof that Shah Rajavi is any different from Shah Khamenei. What about the documented human rights abuses against inhabitants of Ashraf? You may hold the lives of Americans more dear than those of Iranians, but luckily the State Dept does not share your view. I suggest you read up on the subject matter and stop being a mouthpiece for people killers

        March 27, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
      • MEK Are Terrorists

        Shahab you are an idiot MEK member. It is five years for a change of circumstances and the MEK can petition to be removed after 2 years. That doesn't mean you only go back five years and evaluate information related to their activity. It only means they can challenge the status of the designation after 2 years.

        You are an idiot MEK propagandist citing MEK literature. Get real, Nobody finds you credible, you moron MEK terrorist. Finally, Bloomfield was paid by the lobbying firm doing MEK business. He is not a credible independent individual. Bloomfield is also an idiot who has no access to information any more. Do you really think people only consider unclassified information when considering whether or not to keep a group on the list. You are a dumb moron MEK terrorist.

        March 27, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
      • MEK Are Terrorists

        Shahab – also, only a moron thinks the UK and EU have the same kind of information the US has when considering the MEK's activity. Further, the UK and EU decisions have no bearing under U.S. law. By the way, you are a moron terrorist. Keep on citing the MEK websites. We will really believe you.

        And Joe Banana – you are absolutely right. These group has killed thousands of innocent Iranian civilians. The group is despicable. If they get off of the list it will be because money drives the decision making in this country.

        March 27, 2012 at 7:39 pm |
  15. Shahab

    The State Department believes it is above the laws of this country. We have a constitution and statutes in this country and the law dictates the State Department remove an organization from the terror list once it has met the criteria. Although MEK operations never fell into the category of terrorism as ruled by European courts after review of all relevant material, the MEK cease military operations and armed resistance in 2001 and surrendered it's weapons to the US in 2003. The Statute requires 2 years of no violent acts. The terror list is not to be used as the State Department pleases. They are violating our laws and must be held to account.

    March 27, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Reply
    • Shahab

      The court ordered review in July of 2010. They are required to make a decision in 180 days. It has been nearly 2 years. State Department may not use the MEK as a sacrificial lamb to the mullahs as it has for the last 15 years!

      March 27, 2012 at 12:05 pm | Reply
    • joe banna

      Foreign policy decisions are not the purview of the judiciary

      March 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Reply
  16. ross75

    Unfortunately State Department, is still insisting on her wrong policy of appeasing Mullahs. State Department action is unfair, and is extending Mullahs license to kill innocent people inside and outside of Iran. Also encourages Mullahs to be more aggressive to terrorist the world.

    March 27, 2012 at 11:01 am | Reply
  17. ali

    (1) The State Department want to be above the law. This is wrong.
    (2) This State Department included Nelson Mandela in the FTO list. It was wrong.
    (3) This State Department was behind toppling Mosadeq in 1953. It was wrong.
    (4) This State Department took this counmtry to war with Iraq. It was wrong.
    (5) State Department – Iran Desk in more under control by Iran than State Hillary Clinton. Take look at the "experts" they are using: Reza Marashi, Trita Parsi, Vali Nasr, Ray Takiyeh and their circle of influence. They ALL are on Iran payroll.

    March 27, 2012 at 10:37 am | Reply
    • joe banna

      Just because they are against the MEK does not mean they are on the Iranian Gov payroll. With the current sanctions in place, it would be criminal to accept money from the government of Iran. There are forensic accountants at the Treasury that analyze revenue sources. You know, it is possible to be against both the MEK and the Islamic Republic....they are both anti-human dictatorships

      March 27, 2012 at 4:50 pm | Reply
  18. fayemogh

    it is amazing how this group have paid their way into congress and who is actually behind them.many of us who have grown up ,knowing this terrorist org and their actual history,not the one they have written for the members of the congress,know so well the terror and cultish practices of MEK.they seperate family members from one another,when you are commited,you must sacrifice everthing.their members are very dangerous and they have caused many terrorist act uopn iranian people,inside and out side.they may have curtailed some of their practices for a time being,but their history is very clear to iranian people.

    March 27, 2012 at 9:53 am | Reply
  19. asdf01

    The State Department is finally beginning to realise that it can no longer hide behind closed doors for another 15 years!

    March 27, 2012 at 9:52 am | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.