U.S. not ready to remove Iranian group from terror list
Supporters of MEK rally outside the White House in October 2011.
May 8th, 2012
04:23 PM ET

U.S. not ready to remove Iranian group from terror list

By Jamie Crawford

An Iranian dissident group on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations is showing signs of cooperation, but the United States has not decided whether to remove it from the list, a Department of Justice attorney told a federal appeals court panel Tuesday.

An attorney for Mujahedin-e Khalq urged a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to issue a writ of mandamus, essentially an order compelling the State Department to comply with a previous order, and to make a decision on delistment in a timely manner.

MEK is seeking the enforcement of a 2010 ruling by the same court ordering the State Department to review the group's status on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list. In its ruling, the District Court gave the State Department 180 days to review the request from MEK to be removed from the terror list.

Robert Loeb, who argued the case on behalf of the administration, said the lack of total unfettered access to the MEK's base inside Iraq demands more deliberation and time be given to the decision. Loeb argued questions still remain whether "hard core" elements of the group harbor weapons inside the base and thus retain the "capacity" to launch attacks.

Once the base is completely emptied, a decision on MEK's status could be made within 60 days, the U.S. government has said. In court, Loeb stipulated that 60-day period could be subject to extension based on anything learned within that period.

The group has been on the terror list since 1997 because of the deaths of Americans during the 1970s. The group was granted refuge in Iraq by Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. The MEK supports the overthrow of the Iranian theocracy.

The Obama administration has argued it needs to assess the MEK's move from its previous base of operations at Camp Ashraf in Iraq to a processing center at a former U.S. base in Iraq before making its decision. The move is being conducted under U.N. auspices after the Iraqi government ordered the camp closed at the end of 2011.

Mark Toner, deputy State Department spokesman, released a statement this past weekend praising the "continued cooperation" of Camp Ashraf residents. Over half of the approximately 3,000 residents of Camp Ashraf have been relocated to Camp Hurriya, Toner said, with the goal of eventually settling in countries outside Iraq.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a Senate panel last year that the way the transfer was carried out would influence the eventual decision on removing the group from the terror list.

Loeb said the administration understands the "duty" to make a timely decision on MEK's status, but said the administration also has a duty to the public to "get it right."

The group is also known as the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran.

Viet Dinh, a former Justice Department lawyer representing the MEK, said the group no longer poses a military threat because the U.S. Army peacefully disarmed the group after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The U.S. government treated MEK members as protected people under international law until the U.S. turned over responsibility to the Iraqi government.

Dinh told the court the State Department's delay in making a decision is a violation of MEK's due process rights, and liberties granted under the U.S. Constitution.

"The secretary has recognized (MEK's) renunciation of violence and is legally bound to delist the organization," Dinh wrote in a filing in February." She cannot pocket veto (MEK's) application for revocation of its terrorist status."

Col. Wes Martin, who served as base commander of Camp Ashraf in 2006 and was present for Tuesday's proceedings, called Loeb's argument "nonsense." Martin, who supports MEK's removal from the terror list, told CNN he was certain Camp Ashraf has been completely disarmed.

The MEK enjoys the support of prominent high-ranking officials from past Democratic and Republican administrations who speak out against the group's continued presence on the terror list.


Filed under: Iran • M.E.K. • Security Brief
soundoff (30 Responses)
  1. a mitsubishi heat pump

    Excellent points altogether, you simply gained a brand new reader. What could you recommend in regards to your submit that you made a few days in the past? Any sure?

    July 25, 2012 at 1:54 am | Reply
  2. Lawspesy

    must look at this ladydresshouse with low price

    July 20, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Reply
  3. Behrooz

    MEK: Resistance Against Tyranny
    "The Islam we profess does not condone bloodshed. We have never sought, nor do we welcome confrontation and violence... We do not fear election results, whatever they may be... If Khomeini had allowed half or even a quarter of the freedoms presently enjoyed in France, we would have certainly achieved a democratic victory." ~ Massoud Rajavi

    Immediately after the anti-monarchic revolution in 1979, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) began a nationwide political campaign to promote its belief in the absolute need to respect hard won freedoms and democratic rights. This principled position starkly contrasted with that of the organization's main rival, the clerical regime's founder, Khomeini, who sought to institutionalize his theocratic idea of absolute clerical rule (velayat-e faqih) after hijacking the leadership of the revolution.

    The fundamental differences and contrasts between the MEK and Khomeini predated the revolution. In political terms, the MEK had called for the establishment of secular democratic rule while Khomeini had announced his intentions to form an "Islamic" government antagonistic to the modern political notions of popular elections, secularism and the rule of law. Ideologically, while Khomeini's lectures and texts were characterized by a profoundly backward fundamentalist streak, the MEK was committed to a tolerant and modern interpretation of Islam, with a heavy emphasis on freedom.

    In a speech in 1980 on Tehran University campus, the MEK's historical leader, Massoud Rajavi, said, "No progress and mobilization for the revolution would be conceivable without guaranteeing freedom for all parties, opinions and writings. If by freedom we specifically have in mind free and just relationships domestically, independence speaks to the same meaning in our foreign and international relations. We do not accept anything less in the name of Islam."[1]

    On the other hand, Khomeini unambiguously and consistently rejected all talk of freedoms and fundamental human rights, instead justifying his newly established dictatorship under the cloak of Islam: "Even if they give all freedoms and complete independence to us, but take away the Quran, we would still reject it."[2] On May 23, 1978, he also said, "Freedom may be provided to you, and so may independence ... But did the nation want freedom without the Quran? ... Did it sacrifice its blood for freedom or for God? It wanted Islam."[3]

    For the MEK, however, the antimonarchic revolution and sacrifices made by the Iranian people had only one objective: democracy. US historian, and a present-day detractor of the MEK, Ervand Abrahamian, wrote in this respect, "In criticizing the regime's political record, the Mujahedin moved the issue of democracy to center stage. They argued that the regime had broken all the democratic promises made during the revolution; that an attack on any group was an attack on all groups; that the issue of democracy was of 'fundamental importance...'"[4]

    In order to fully consolidate his regime's undemocratic rule and his own position as the "Supreme Leader" in the months after the 1979 revolution, Khomeini gradually eliminated all semblances of peaceful political activity, ordering his extremist and fundamentalist followers (known as "hezbollahis") to attack and disrupt rallies by opposition groups, ranging from liberals to leftists. Thousands were arrested and imprisoned between 1979 and 1981.[5] While, in response, several political groups chose to engage in a premature armed resistance against the Khomeini regime, the MEK, as Iran's largest political opposition at the time, did its utmost to prevent the window for peaceful political activity from closing.

    More than a quarter century ago, even the Department of State acknowledged these facts. A 1984 unclassified report on the MEK submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives by the Department of State, said in part: "When Khomeini took power, the Mujahedin called for continued revolution, but said they would work for change within the legal framework of the new regime [...] The Mujahedin unsuccessfully sought a freely elected constituent assembly to draft a constitution. [...] The Mujahedin similarly made an attempt at political participation when Mujahedin leader Masud [Massoud] Rajavi ran for the presidency in January 1980. Rajavi was forced to withdraw when Ayatollah Khomeini ruled that only candidates who had supported the constitution in the December referendum – which the Mujahedin had boycotted – were eligible."[6]

    The report went on to say, "Rajavi's withdrawal statement emphasized the group's efforts to conform to election regulations and reiterated the Mujahedin's intention to advance its political aims within the new legal system. Between the two election rounds, the Mujahedin announced that its members would disarm to prove that they were not initiating the clashes with the fundamentalists that had become endemic during the campaign. The fundamentalists responded by once again banning Mujahedin representatives from the university campuses. [...] In the early summer of 1980 the Mujahedin staged several rallies in Tehran drawing up to 150,000 people to hear Rajavi promise to carry on the opposition to fundamentalist domination. On June 25 Khomeini responded by a major statement against the Mujahedin, claiming their activities would derail the revolution and bring back 'US dominance.'"[7]

    An Iran expert, Shaul Bakhash, recounts some of the suppressive measures against the MEK as such: "In February 1980, 60,000 copies of Mojahed [the MEK's weekly] were seized and burned. In Mashad, Shiraz, Qa'emshahr, Sari, and dozens of small towns, club wielders attacked and looted Mojahedin headquarters, student societies, and meetings. ... Some 700 were injured in the attack on the Mojahedin headquarters at Qa'emshahr in April, 400 in Mashad. Ten members of the organization lost their lives in clashes between February and June 1980."[8]

    Even after Khomeini's public threats, Bakhash writes, "The Mojahedin responded by quietly closing all their branch offices."[9] Indeed, the MEK refrained from any confrontation and "participated eagerly in the parliamentary elections."[10]

    Similarly, Abrahamian notes that Khomeini's attacks against the MEK "caused three deaths and over 1000 casualties. The attack on the Tehran rally, which drew 200,000 participants, left twenty-three Mojahedin sympathizers seriously injured."[11]

    In that rally held on June 12, 1980, in Tehran's Amjadieh soccer stadium, Rajavi had exhorted the crowd to "defend freedoms... freedom of speech, association and gatherings."[12] Two weeks later, Khomeini drew the line. "Our enemy," he said, "is neither in the United States, nor the Soviet Union, nor Kurdistan, but right here, under our nose, in Tehran."[13]

    "By early June 1981, the prisons – especially in Tehran, the central cities, and the Caspian towns – contained more than 1,180 Mojaheds."[14]. Furthermore, "the hezbollahis ... began a reign of terror. They shot news stand owners selling Mojahedin publications; beat up suspected sympathizers; bombed homes (including that of the Rezai family); broke into the offices of the Muslim Student Association; disrupted conferences, especially the Congress of Trade Unions; and physically attacked meetings."[15] Abrahamian adds that "by 20 June 1981" these attacks "had left seventy-one mojaheds dead."[16].

    Despite tolerating these incredible hardships, which had no justification whatsoever, the MEK did not retaliate for two and a half grueling years. As such, the MEK continued to gain the support of a vast majority of Iranians nationwide, which Khomeini could in no way tolerate. Former President and head of the State Exigency Council, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, acknowledged that the MEK had more than half-a-million full-time and part-time activists around the country.[17] Many experts believed that they would have finished first if free elections were to be held.

    The MEK refrained from violent retaliation against Khomeini and his forces because it believed that to prolong the political process is in the interest of the organization and the Iranian people, while violence would serve the interests of Khomeini. It sought to use every tangible and intangible legal and peaceful option, no matter how negligible or insignificant, to reform Khomeini's policies and guarantee the desired freedoms and human rights for the Iranian people without resorting to confrontation.

    In the context of the post-revolutionary developments, June 20, 1981 was a historic showdown. The MEK secretly organized a peaceful demonstration that caught the regime completely off guard. Throngs began to march from different parts of Tehran, and converged on Enghelab (Revolution) Street. The crowd was half-a-million strong when it reached Ferdowsi Square in the center of Tehran. They continued to march toward the Majlis (Parliament), and if allowed to continue, the crowd would have swelled to one million and Khomeini would have lost control. So, he personally ordered the Revolutionary Guards to open fire. Hundreds were killed and thousands were arrested.[18]

    In this way, Khomeini closed the final chapter on peaceful activities, unleashing a bloody reign of terror, in which tens of thousands were slaughtered and tens of thousands more imprisoned and tortured.[19] The MEK, and indeed every patriotic Iranian, was left with only two choices: either surrender to Khomeini's tyrannical rule, thereby betraying commitments to fundamental freedoms and human rights, or wage a legitimate resistance against Khomeini's tyranny. Only after exhausting all possible peaceful options, the MEK chose the latter.

    The MEK's resistance against the onslaught by the reactionary clerics was an understandable defensive posture. Simply stated, were it not for the MEK's resistance against the mullahs, the millions of Iranians who fled the mullahs' reign of terror could not have found the opportunity to do so. Some 80 percent of four million Iranian refugees left Iran from 1981 to 1984.

    Importantly, there has not been a single credible and independently verifiable finding that the MEK ever targeted any civilians or non-combatants. This is why the Iranian mullahs have been at pains to fabricate plausible cases against the MEK. The US State Department's 1997 assertion, therefore, that the MEK is essentially a violent organization belies obvious historical facts and its own public records and acknowledgments to the US Congress.

    The MEK does not believe in violence as a matter of philosophy. More than 26 years ago, Massoud Rajavi said the following on the subject: "The Islam we profess does not condone bloodshed. We have never sought, nor do we welcome confrontation and violence. To explain, allow me to send a message to Khomeini through you... My message is this: If Khomeini is prepared to hold truly free elections, I will return to my homeland immediately. The Mujahedin will lay down their arms to participate in such elections. We do not fear election results, whatever they may be... If Khomeini had allowed half or even a quarter of the freedoms presently enjoyed in France, we would have certainly achieved a democratic victory."[20]

    But, Khomeini clearly rejected any ideas calling for democracy and freedoms. "If instead of him," Khomeini once said referring to the deposed Shah, "a regime were to be established like those in Europe or France, which have no relation to Islam, a free government which is also independent and guarantees freedoms, we have never wanted and will never condone such a thing because its freedoms are not in tune with Islam."[21]

    To be sure, there is nothing illegitimate about using all options to resist against tyranny when all avenues for peaceful (legal) political activity are, in practice, eliminated. This is supported by the collective historical knowledge of cases where nations were in fact built or liberated by the force of arms. America's War of Independence was violent in nature. Charles de Gaulle and the French partisans used every means available to them to defeat the Nazi occupation of France. Col. Claus von Stauffenberg and his colleagues tried to bring down the Third Reich by eliminating Hitler and his generals, for which they were honored posthumously years later.[22] In Norway, a museum pays tribute those who fought and died in the resistance against the puppet Vidkun Quisling government. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) resorted to bombings, sabotage and armed attacks against the white minority during the fight against Apartheid. Interestingly, in a sign of how out of synch the US terrorist list is with political realities, Mandela remained on the US terror list 15 years after receiving the Novel Peace Prize.[23]

    It is an indisputable fact that every citizen has the undeniable right to the basic freedoms recognized by the international community. In view of that, limits placed on attempts to endeavor for liberty and to resist dictatorship are morally and legally inexcusable. There can be no double standards. America's Founding Fathers, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and distinguished Western statesmen have underscored this fact:

    Thomas Jefferson said in his "Declaration on Taking up Arms" in 1775, "Against violence actually offered, in defense of that freedom which is our birthright, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities have ceased on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed have been removed, and not before."[24]
    In his inaugural address in 1861, the 16th US President Abraham Lincoln said, "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."[25]
    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right "to have recourse as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, and take up arms."[26]
    The International Committee of the Red Cross's commentary on Article 3 of the First Geneva Convention refers to discussions at the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva to ratify the Conventions in 1949: "It sometimes happens in a civil war that those who are regarded as rebels are in actual fact patriots struggling for the independence and dignity of their country... It was not possible to talk of 'terrorism', 'anarchy', or 'disorders' in the case of rebels who complied with humanitarian principles."[27]
    The late U.S. President John F. Kennedy said: "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."[28]
    The Catholic Church, which in general opposes the use of violence, has also recognized this right. A document "Christian Liberty and Liberation," made public by the Vatican in 1986, states: "Armed struggle is the last resort to end blatant and prolonged oppression which has seriously violated the fundamental rights of individuals and has dangerously damaged the general interest of a country."[29]
    In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, President Obama talked about the concept of a "juts war," suggesting that it was justified "if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense...," adding, "... make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."[30]
    Therefore, armed resistance against the clerical regime, and especially its specific application by the MEK (carried out prior to 2001), was completely justifiable and legitimate, at least according to the universally-established international democratic norms and legal criteria.

    Aside from all this, although the end does not always justify the means, in this particular case, too much focus and emphasis on the methods of resistance obscures the noble end and takes the spotlight off the regime's inhumane crimes. The main issue and the reason for the MEK's activities revolve around democracy and popular sovereignty in their home country since day one. That is why, even prior to voluntarily handing over all its weapons in 2003 to Coalition Forces in Iraq,[31] and in fact since the early 1980s, the MEK has repeatedly declared its readiness to take park in a free and fair election under the auspices of the United Nations and fully accept the results of a genuinely democratic plebiscite in Iran.[32]

    This explains why before 2001, when the MEK ceased its military actions in Iran, a majority in the US House of Representatives and 32 Senators as well as majorities in the UK House of Commons and in several European parliaments, including Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium and Norway, voiced support for the MEK as a "legitimate opposition [movement]," that is "working to establish a democratic and pluralistic system in the country,"[33].

    May 9, 2012 at 6:22 pm | Reply
  4. Behrooz

    Lt. Colonel Julie S. Norman, Military Police, JIATF Commander, August 24, 2006:
    “The PMOI [MEK] has encouraged and assisted various Iraqi groups to join the political process and dialogue with the US forces… The PMOI 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 PMOI [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.”

    May 9, 2012 at 6:18 pm | Reply
  5. Behrooz

    Warren Murphy, the Indiana National Guard’s 76th Brigade, August 7, 2009:
    “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.

    May 9, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Reply
  6. Behrooz

    Raymond T. Odierno, Commanding General, Army’s 4th Infantry Division (2001-2004), May 10, 2003:
    NORTHEASTERN IRAQ – Speaking at a Mujahedeen base near the Iranian border, [General Ray Odierno, commander of the US Army's 4th Infantry Division] said they [MEK] appeared to be committed to democracy in Iran and their cooperation with the United States should prompt a review of their “terrorist” status. “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,” he said… Asked what role they could play in the future of Iraq, Odierno said only that they shared similar goals to the United States in “forming democracy and fighting oppression” and that they had been “extremely cooperative.”

    May 9, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Reply
  7. Behrooz

    RAND Report
    A Brief Review of RAND’s Flawed Report on MEK

    In July 2009, just days before a deadly attack by the Iraqi Army on Camp Ashraf, killing 11 unarmed and defenseless residents and injuring hundreds more, the RAND National Defense Research Institute published a federally-funded monograph, entitled The Mujahedin-e Khalq: A Policy Conundrum, for the Multi-National Force-Iraq, Task Force 134 (Detainee Operations), regarding the situation of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK) in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. The report offers flawed and disastrous recommendations regarding the final disposition of Camp Ashraf residents.

    The nartional security reasearch firm, ExecutiveAction LLC, in February 2010, released a detailed analysis of the RAND Report, calling the document “deeply flawed” and “polemical.”

    Read the complete ExceutiveAction analysis Courting Disaster: A Response to the Report “The Mujahedin-e Khalq: A Policy Conundrum” by RAND National Defense Research Institute.’

    According to Neil C. Livingstone, Chairman and CEO of ExecutiveAction, LLC, the report appears to have been written to “justify the destruction of the MeK as a group, without regard to their lives or the consequences of the U.S. committing grave breaches of international law.”

    The Mujahedin-e Khalq (People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran) or MEK, is a major Iranian opposition group, whose members primarily reside in Camp Ashraf. Membership in the organization is a capital crime under Iran’s penal code. There are approximately 3,400 residents of Camp Ashraf, of which 1,000 are women. In a subject of such extreme importance and sensitivity, the monograph cannot be used as a credible reference on the MEK and meaningful tool for U.S. policymakers, given the following:

    • The report’s conclusion that the United States should, in violation of international law, encourage the Government of Iraq to involuntarily deport the entire population of Ashraf to Iran, not only endangers the lives of these innocent individuals, but advises the United States to effectively engage in the very breach of international law norms that it has vowed to uphold as a matter of its fundamental policy and as a protector of human rights.

    • In presenting facts, analysis, and conclusions, the authors omit material and relevant information, fail to consider alternative viewpoints, and exclude relevant and credible information that is on the record, including those from two former U.S. military commanders of Camp Ashraf which contradicts the main recommendations of the report.

    • There are significant problems with the assertions and citations in the monograph. Some citations are of dubious value as they rely on supporters of the Iranian government. In addition, a good number of key propositions are advanced without citations at all.

    • The monograph fails to abide by RAND’s proclaimed “high standards for research quality and objectivity.” The report’s authors lack the necessary expertise and present a polemical and one-sided report. The monograph’s subject matter requires a deep historical background and a thorough and unbiased understanding of the issues involved.

    In sum, the monograph is based on a deeply flawed factual foundation and its findings and recommendations are therefore highly suspect. Unsurprisingly, the Government of Iran has seized on the report to justify its longstanding campaign to seek the involuntary deportation of the Ashraf community to Iran.

    May 9, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Reply
  8. behrooz

    Fact-finding Mission to Camp Ashraf by Members of European Parliament Debunks HRW report on MEK

    On September 21, 2005, André Brie and Paulo Casaca, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) published “People’s Mojahedin of Iran: Mission Report” following an official fact finding visit to Camp Ashraf. The fact-finding mission was prompted by a May 2005 Human Rights Watch report on the MEK. The EP members conducted a full investigation into the alleged human rights violations by the MEK contained in HRW report.

    To this end, unlike HRW, which relied only on 12 hours of telephone interviews with 12 individuals with well-established ties to Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), in addition to extensive research, a delegation of MEPs visited Camp Ashraf in Iraq, held face-to-face private interviews with PMOI members and officials, and conducted impromptu inspections of the sites of alleged abuses.

    The report found the allegations contained in HRW report unfounded, procedurally flawed, and substantively inaccurate.

    ————————————————————————————-

    US Commander in Charge of Camp Ashraf Rejects HRW’s Allegations against MEK

    On May 27, 2005, Col. David Phillips ‘‘Griffin-6’’, commander of the 89th Military Police Brigade and responsible for the safety and security of Camp Ashraf in that capacity from January-December 2004, wrote a letter to Mr. Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, regarding Human Rights Watch’s May 25, 2005 report on alleged human rights abuses inside Camp Ashraf, home to nearly 3,400 members of the MEK. Col. Phillip’s letter was subsequently sent to members of US Congress and later published in the Congressional Record.

    May 9, 2012 at 6:15 pm | Reply
  9. Brad

    Contrary to MEK disinformation, it has long been the view of the U.S. State Department that the MEK was a terrorist organization. The designation in 1997 was made pursuant to the requirements of the Anti-terrorism Act. The allegations that the designation was made to "appease" the government in Iran is belied by the record. See, for example:

    The Congressional Record (September 29, 1993)

    [Page: E2264]

    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in reply to your letter of August 3, addressed to Secretary Christopher. You asked for the Administration's views on a proposed resolution regarding U.S. policy on Iran. The resolution urges, among other things, that the President consider a dialogue with the National Council of Resistance.

    On the general topic of our policy toward Iran, the Administration's position was detailed by Assistant Secretary Djerejian in his testimony of July 27 before the Committee. That statement of policy remains current.

    Concerning contacts with Iranian opposition groups, there are numerous such groups in the United States and abroad that do not espouse violence and whose political aims range from supporting a return of the monarchy to establishing a constitutional democracy. Many focus their efforts on Iranian human rights abuses, and work closely with the U.N. Human Rights Committee and private human rights groups. We do meet with representatives of such groups at their request, and believe these contacts are useful as an informational exchange.

    However, the National Council of Resistance is closely linked to the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI), also known as the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK). Both groups are led by Masud Rajavi. The Administration maintains a policy of no contacts with the PMOI and, by extension, the NCR. This decision is based on our opposition to the PMOI's use of terrorism. Just as we vigorously oppose the Iranian Government's support for terrorism, we do not condone the use of terror and violence in turn by the Mojahedin or any other opposition group. Nor can we forget that U.S. citizens were the victims of PMOI terrorism in the 1970s, or that the group supported the takeover of our Embassy in 1979 and the holding of U.S. diplomats. The PMOI's claim that the organization is not responsible for actions carried out while its current leaders were in jail is a facile one and, in the case of the Embassy takeover, erroneous. As shown in attached 1981 excerpts from the PMOI's own newspaper–published after current PMOI leader Masud Rajavi was released from jail in February 1979–the group fully supported the

    Embassy takeover and opposed releasing our diplomats. Only in recent years has the PMOI sought to distance itself from its past in order to gain Western support.

    Other factors support our view that it would be inappropriate to deal with the PMOI/NCR. The National Council of Resistance's claims to be a democratic organization have never been substantiated by its actions. The NCR did, at its inception, include a diverse range of Iranian opposition groups. However, within three years most of the groups that were not controlled by Masud Rajavi had left the organization. According to Ervand Abrahamian's book The Iranian Mojahedin (Yale University Press, 1989), these groups left because the NCR was not democratic, but rather manipulated by Rajavi.

    In years since, most Iranian opposition groups have continued to refuse cooperation with the NCR. A recent example was a 1992 interview with the late Dr. Sa'id of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan (Iran), who denied any links or connections with the PMOI, and said, `In our opinion, our cooperation with the PMOI right now is impossible.' We have no reason to believe the PMOI has become democratic, nor that an Iranian government established by the NCR would be.

    In a different area, I would note that the PMOI/NCR reporting often contains questionable statements and assertions which do not stand up to later examination. Our intelligence community judges that their reporting is not reliable without validation from other sources.

    Our own analysis does not support PMOI claims to widespread support inside Iran. The PMOI's military wing, the national Liberation Army, continues to be based in Iraq and retains the support and financing of Saddam Hussein's regime. The PMOI joined Iraqi forces in the eight-year war with Iran. These ties to Iraq have discredited the Mojahedin and NCR in the eyes of many Iranians, and the organization does not represent a significant political force among Iranians.

    The Office of Management and Budget advises that from the standpoint of the Administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

    I hope this information is useful to you. Please do not hesitate to call if we can be of further assistance.

    Sincerely,

    Wendy R. Sherman,

    Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs.

    May 9, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Reply
    • Behrooz

      prove it in a court of law, or accpet your loss with dignity BRAD ... no more easy money for the state department !! we want freedom we want peace, we want MEK off the list

      May 9, 2012 at 6:19 pm | Reply
    • Behrooz

      Col. David Phillips “Griffin-6”, the 89th Military Police Brigade, May 27, 2005:
      “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 Mujahedin…”

      ————————————————————————–

      Lt. Colonel Thomas Cantwell, Commander of 324th MP Battalion, Camp Ashraf, Iraq, May 2005:
      “When I moved up into northern Diyala province [in Iraq], the relationship of the Mojahedin 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…”

      ————————————————————————–

      Captain Vivian Gembara, Ex-JAG officer, Lawyer to the 4th Infantry Division, May 2005
      “As a soldier and a lawyer I believe it’s time to change their (MEK) classification as a terrorist organization… The potential benefits of working together definitely overshadow previous concerns or hesitations that we had.”

      ————————————————————————–

      Captain Josh Felker, an Army spokesman, May 2003:
      “The MEK was never fighting coalition forces.”… “They are a very respected fighting force, and as such we are treating them” courteously, Felker said. “Even though they are recognized as a terrorist organization, basically we don’t want to disrespect them. Coalition forces will not allow any other forces to occupy Iraq at this time.”

      ————————————————————————–

      Russell Wohlford, August 24, 2006:
      “I was in Iraq in 2003-04. I was there when the MEK peacefully capitulated and turned over their arms. I was a member of a team that verified the small arms and crew-served weapons that had been turned in…

      “For the record, I would have been honored to fight along their side against the Islamic Revolution and most of the guys, the joes, would have too. I wonder if they still trust us enough to help out when we need them. I would also like to say that it infuriated us that we had these guys penned up in their compounds while SCIRI and the Badr Corps were running rampant all over the Diyala Province. We caged the wrong bird.”

      May 9, 2012 at 6:20 pm | Reply
  10. Behrooz

    UK Courts
    Britain’s Court of Appeal Orders People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran Removed from Terror List

    May 7, 2008

    Summary of Court’s Ruling

    On May 7, 2008, Britain’s Court of Appeal upheld the judgment by the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) and ruled that the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) was not concerned in terrorism.
    The Court ordered government to revoke the group’s terrorist designation. The Court ruled that its “decision is final and cannot be appealed.”
    The Court, led by lord chief justice Nicholas Phillips, ruled that “The reality is that neither in the open material nor in the closed material is there any reliable evidence that supported a conclusion that PMOI retained an intention to resort to terrorist activities in the future.” (Paragraph 53 of Approved Judgment)
    It stressed that the closed material “reinforced our conclusion” that the government “could not reasonably have formed the view in 2006 that the PMOI intended to revert to terrorism.” (Paragraph 57 of Approved Judgment)
    Nowhere in the judgment, does the Court of Appeal state that the PMOI was concerned in terrorism. When addressing the pre-2001 PMOI history, the Court stresses that the PMOI had resorted to “military activities.” (Paragraph 15 of Approved Judgment)
    The Court of Appeal upheld POAC’s findings that:

    “Whatever the accurate characterization of the organization’s activities between 1980 and 2001, the position in 2006-2007 is radically different, and has been so since 2001…

    The [MEK] has conducted no military activity of any kind since about August 2001, whether in Iran or elsewhere in the world…This is attributable to a deliberate decision of the [MEK] made at an extraordinary congress held in Iraq in June 2001, namely, to abandon all military action (or activities) in Iran…

    There is no evidence that the [MEK] has at any time since 2003 sought to re-create any form of structure that was capable of carrying out or supporting terrorist acts. There is no evidence of any attempt to “prepare” for terrorism. There is no evidence of any encouragement to others to commit acts of terrorism….

    The above factors, combined with the 5 years that had since passed since the summer of 2001, demanded the conclusion that continued proscription could not be lawfully justified.

    Furthermore, in its introduction to the PMOI as well as its recount of the organization’s past the Court notes that the PMOI’s stated purpose is to replace the religious dictatorship ruling Iran with a democratically elected secular government in Iran. Moreover, in addition to noting the sustained hostility of the Iranian regime toward the PMOI, the Court points to theNCRI’s August 2002 revelations regarding the regime’s nuclear program. (Paragraphs7 to 11 of Approved Judgment).
    The Court of Appeal’s ruling on PMOI/MEK is indeed even more significant given Britain’s judicial system’s well-established reputation of firmness and meticulous scrutiny in dealing with cases having to do with issue of terrorism.

    May 9, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Reply
  11. Behrooz

    2008 Ruling
    Brief on December 2008 Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in PMOI v. the Council of the European Union

    The judgment

    1. On December 4, 2008, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities annulled for the third time the Council’s decision to include the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI/MEK) on the EU terror list (See EU Court 2008 Ruling Press Release and Wall Street Journal report). Subsequently, on January 26, 2009, the European Union removed the PMOI from its list of banned terror organizations. (See the New York Times report “EU removes Tehran opponents from terror list”)

    The Court First Instance said in its ruling that it:

    Annuls Council Decision 2008/583/EC of15 July 2008implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC, in so far as it concerns the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran.
    Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran.
    2. The two basic obligatory conditions for listing persons or groups according to related regulation are as follows:

    There must be a decision by a competent [judicial] national authority in respect of the concerned entity, which is based on “serious and reliable evidence or clues”. (Article 1(4) of the Common Position 2001/931/CFSP).
    The designation must meet the condition set in Article 2(3) of the Regulation 2580/2001, which requires the entity to be engaged in “committing, or attempting to commit, participating in or facilitating the commission of any act of terrorism”.
    3. The Court concluded that on both accounts the Council had failed to meet those requirements.

    4. The Court also found that, in the course of adopting the decision, the Council had violated PMOI’s rights of defence and effective judicial protection.

    5. Finally, the Court underlined that the degree to which the Council had violated PMOI’s fundamental rights was serious evidence of abuse of power or procedures.

    The consequences of the Judgment

    The PMOI is no longer on the EU terror list. The EU Council is obligated to implement the ruling immediately.
    According to Article 242 of the EC Treaty “the Action brought before the Court of Justice will not have suspensory effect”. Therefore, Even if the Council were to make an appeal to the Court of Justice, it must, nevertheless, implement the CFI judgment.
    The annulled decision was the latest Council’s decision still in effect. Therefore, no other decision exists on the PMOI.
    The decision was annulled both on procedural grounds as well as on the basis of the Council’s failure to substantiate its allegations of terrorism against the PMOI.
    Paragraph 42 of the verdict states that one way to annul the Council Decision and delistian organization is a ruling issued by the Court calling for annulment. The Court had also stated in its previous judgment that when the Court annuls an act, it “is eliminated retroactively from the legal order and is deemed never to have existed”.
    The Court rejects Council’s application for delaying the implementation of the judgment

    On 4 December, the European Council lodged an application with the CFI for interpretation of the judgment. The Council, in particular, asked the Court to endorse its contention that the judgment should not be implemented until the end of the time limit for appeal, or in the case of appeal, until the appeal is determined.
    The Court refused to endorse the Council’s interpretation. It dismissed the Council’s application, arguing that the Council does not even claim that any parts of the judgment, including its operative or essential grounds are affected by an obscurity or ambiguity.
    On those bases the Court stated in its order of 17 December that it has enough information to make a determination and there is no need for further proceeding. As such the Court concluded that the Council’s application “must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.
    In conclusion, the Court’s Order of 17th December put an end to any attempt by the Council to defy or even delay the implementation of the judgment.
    The Council failed to substantiate PMOI designation

    In its Statement of Reasons the Council had concluded that the PMOI “falls within Article 2(3)(ii) of Regulation 2580/2001”, accusing the organisation of being engaged in “committing, or attempting to commit, participating in or facilitating the commission of any act of terrorism.”
    The Court in paragraphs 56, 59 and 78 unequivocally rejected the Council’s assertion. On the contrary, it concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate such a claim. Accordingly, it annulled the Council Decision.
    Paragraph 56: “In the present case, the Court finds that neither the information contained in the contested decision, its statement of reasons and the letter of notification, nor even those contained in the Council’s two answers to the Court order of26 September 2008, comply with the requirements in respect of proof which have been recalled above. In consequence, it has not been established to the required legal standard that the contested decision was adopted in accordance with the provisions laid down in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 and Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001.”
    Paragraph 59: “In the light of the applicant’s factual and legal contentions, neither the explanations so provided by the Council, nor the documents produced by it, make it possible to consider that the contested decision is well-founded in law, more particularly with regard to the provision laid down in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001.
    Paragraph 66: “Nor is it possible, in the absence of more accurate information, to verify the truthfulness and relevance of the allegation made in the statement of reasons, according to which several of the alleged members of the applicant are being prosecuted for a series of offences in connection with a terrorist undertaking. In this respect, the applicant maintains that, apart from the judicial inquiry opened inFrance in 2001, it knows of no member or supporter whatsoever being prosecuted in aMemberState for financing terrorist activities or any other criminal activity in relation to the applicant, contrary to what is asserted in the statement of reasons. Moreover, none of its members or supporters has ever been convicted of unlawful activities relating to terrorism or its financing. The Council did not in any way refute those assertions in its defence.”
    Paragraph 78: “In such circumstances, it must be concluded, first, that it has not been established that the contested decision was adopted in compliance with the provisions of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 and of Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and, second, that the very circumstances of its adoption infringe the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection.”
    The French inquiry not based on credible evidence

    The Council Decision on15 July 2008, maintaining the PMOI on the terror list was based on the French inquiry as the decision by a national competent authority. The Court did not recognise, either in substance or in form, that the French inquiry met the required criteria for listing the PMOI. This also dealt a major blow to the inquiry itself. In substance, despite the claim by the French authority, the Court concluded that that the French inquiry lacks adequate evidence.

    Paragraph 68: “It must also be noted that nothing in the file makes it possible to establish that the judicial inquiry opened in France in April 2001, even assuming that it is attributable to a ‘judicial authority’, which is denied by the applicant, is based, in the assessment of that authority, on serious and credible evidence or ‘clues’, as prescribed by Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931.”
    French Inquiry not in respect of the PMOI

    The Court also concluded that the Council had failed to identify a decision by a national competent authority meeting the definition required by law. Indeed, the Decision which the Statement of the Reasons claimed to have been in respect of the PMOI was established not to be case.

    Paragraph 57: “More specifically, the Council has not provided the Court with any precise information or material in the relevant file which indicates that the judicial inquiry opened by the anti-terrorist Prosecutor’s office of the Tribunal de grande instance of Paris in April 2001 and the supplementary charges brought in March and November 2007 constitute, in respect of the applicant, a decision meeting the definition in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931. Thus, the Council makes that allegation without adducing any evidence in support of its contention.”
    Paragraph 64: “However, that explanation [relying on an inquiry about alleged members to list the organisation] is, firstly, inconsistent with the literal wording of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931, which provides that a decision must have been taken ‘in respect of the persons, groups and entities concerned’”.
    Paragraph 65: “Second, even assuming that one should not follow a literal interpretation of that provision, it would still be necessary, for the Council’s argument to succeed, that that institution or the competent national authority concerned should provide an explanation as to the actual and specific reasons why, in the circumstances of the case, the acts ascribed to individuals allegedly members or supporters of the PMOI should be imputed to the PMOI itself. As already noted above, such an explanation is completely missing in the present case.”
    Paragraph 67: “As regards the supplementary charges brought on 19 March and13 November 2007, the applicant also contends that they do not concern it in any way and that they do not even contain any reference to it. In its first answer to the Court order of26 September 2006, the Council admits that it has not been informed of the specific identity of the persons under investigation and that it knows only that these persons are alleged members of the applicant. Here again, neither the connection between the persons in question and the applicant nor the reasons which might justify imputing to the latter the deeds of the former are explained in any way.”
    Violating PMOI right of defence and effective judicial protection

    The Court also concluded that the PMOI right of defence and judicial protection had been seriously violated. According to the Court, this alone, would suffice for annulling the decision.

    Paragraph 37: “As regards the rights of the defence, it is therefore clear that the contested decision was adopted in disregard of the principles stated by the Court in the OMPI judgment (see, in particular, paragraphs 120, 126 and 131).”
    Paragraph 39: “The Court finds that the Council’s arguments totally fail to substantiate its claim that it was impossible for it to adopt the contested decision under a procedure that would have respected the applicant’s rights of the defence.”
    Paragraph 47: ”In short, the Court finds that the continued freezing of the applicant’s funds by the contested decision was the result of a procedure during which the applicant’s rights of the defence were not respected. That finding cannot but lead to the annulment of the contested decision, in so far as it concerns the applicant.”
    Abuse of Power or procedure

    In the context of legal verdicts, abuse of power is a topic seldom treated by the Court in detail. However, the degree of Council’s defiance of the Court’s previous judgments and the arbitrary nature of its decision to maintain the PMOI on the list, prompted the Court to express its concerns in this regard.

    Paragraph 44: ”Furthermore, the Court considers that the Council’s omission to comply in the present case with a procedure clearly defined in the OMPI judgment, made with full knowledge of the facts and without any reasonable justification, may be material to any consideration of the abuse or misuse of powers or procedures alleged in the fifth plea in law.”
    Refusal to provide the Court with information

    One of the most remarkable aspects of this case was the Council’s refusal to even provide the Court with parts of the information it claimed to have relied on in adopting its Decision. The French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs claimed that the passage in question ‘contained information of a security nature with implications for national defence” whose circulation French Penal Code had restricted. All indications, however, suggest that the Council did not have any evidence but in a acted disingenuously by invoking the security issue to conceal the arbitrary nature of the Decision.

    Paragraph 72: “As regards the Council’s contention that it is bound by the French authorities’ claim for confidentiality, this does not explain why the production of the relevant information or material in the file to the Court would violate the principle of confidentiality, whereas their production to the members of the Council, and thus to the governments of the 26 other Member States, did not.”
    Paragraph 73: “In any case, the Court considers that the Council is not entitled to base its funds-freezing decision on information or material in the file communicated by aMemberState, if the saidMemberState is not willing to authorise its communication to the Community judicature whose task is to review the lawfulness of that decision.”
    Conclusion

    The Council, in line with its obligation of six-monthly review must publish its new list without keeping the PMOI on it.
    Any attempt by any Member States to defy the Court’s judgment or to delay its implementation would further undermine the rule of law. All Member States bear huge responsibility in this respect.

    May 9, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Reply
  12. Behrooz

    On May 12, 2011, the French Judiciary and the anti-terrorist investigative judge officially annulled prosecution order for President-elect of the Iranian Resistance and 23 officials, members and supporters of the Resistance on the charge of terrorism and financing terrorism.

    The unfounded and politically-motivated terrorism case against the MEK was opened 10 years before in 2001 at the height of West’s illusion about mullah Khatami intended to placate Iran rulers and as an incentive to encourage reform in the incorrigible theocratic regime.

    Since a decade ago, most prominent jurists, lawyers, human rights advocates and members of parliament in France have reiterated that this dossier against Iranian legitimate Resistance lacked any criminal substance was completely politically motivated from the outset. Successive courts during the past 8 years proved that the content of the dossier included nothing but the lies fabricated by the Iranian regime’s Ministry of Intelligence and its agents abroad.

    The anti-terrorism Pubic Prosecutor has acknowledged that the main origin for the accusations against the Iranian Resistance and the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) was in fact the EU terror list in which the MEK was included to appease the Iranian regime.

    The May 12 ruling once again proved that any terror label against the MEK by any power is a political label and stems from policy of appeasement. Its continuation would only serve the interest of religious fascism ruling Iran.

    May 9, 2012 at 5:40 pm | Reply
  13. Sodomite

    Looking forward to the day when we add Homoland Security to the terrorist list.

    May 9, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Reply
  14. Sam Freeman

    The Neocons are helping this terrorist group because the group now works with Mossad.

    In 2003 Iran offered to comply with what we claim to want from them in exchange for bringing The People’s Mujahadeen of Iran (PMOI, aka MeK, aka MKO), a terrorist organization according to our State Department, to justice for the assassinations of Iranian officials and other terrorist activities:

    "Observers say the Iranian offer as outlined nearly four years ago corresponds pretty closely to what Washington is demanding from Tehran now.
    Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

    One of the then Secretary of State Colin Powell’s top aides told the BBC the state department was keen on the plan – but was over-ruled.

    The neocons have been working to remove the PMOI from our State Department’s list of terrorist organizations because Israel is using their terrorist activities to press us toward war with Iran. This is a war the neocons planned in the 1990’s (Richard Perle personally delivered the strategy paper “A Clean Break” to Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996), and that is why they rejected peace with Iran in 2003.

    We started training the PMOI soon after we rejected peace. Now it is Mossad who is using the PMOI to carryout terror operations in Iran.

    This rejection of peace in 2003 sent a clear message to Iran that we would one day be implementing the neocons’ plans for regime change in Iran. This was followed by terrorist activity in Iran that we and Israel supported. This also created an incentive for Iran to pursue a nuclear weapons program in order to deter what appears to be an inevitable war with us and an incentive for Iran to help those attacking U.S. troops in Iraq.

    http://www.worldtruth.org/blog/363/neocons-support-american-killing-terrorists-for-israel-039-s-benefit/

    Saddam Hussein funded the MeK activity until 2003 and they helped massacre the Iraqi people after the first Gulf War. They are being used by Mossad to conduct assassinations and bombings of civilians in Iran. Some of the other incidents linked to the PMOI/MEK, a group called a Marxist cult by our State Department, include:

    the series of mortar attacks and hit-and-run raids during 2000 and 2001 against Iranian government buildings; one of these killed Iran’s chief of staff;
    the 2000 mortar attack on President Mohammed Khatami’s palace in Tehran;
    the February 2000 “Operation Great Bahman,” during which MEK launched twelve attacks against Iran;
    the 1999 assassination of the deputy chief of Iran’s armed forces general staff, Ali Sayyad Shirazi;
    the 1998 assassination of the director of Iran’s prison system, Asadollah Lajevardi;
    the 1992 near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and institutions in thirteen countries;
    Saddam Hussein’s suppression of the 1991 Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish uprisings;
    the 1981 bombing of the offices of the Islamic Republic Party and of Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar, which killed some seventy high-ranking Iranian officials, including President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei and Bahonar;
    the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries;
    the killings of U.S. military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran in the 1970s.

    A 1992 State Department Report noted:
    “DEATH TO AMERICA”

    MKO Assassinations

    In the period leading up to the revolution and its immediate aftermath, the Mojahedin carried out their strategy of armed struggle. The results included the murder of Americans, support for the seizure of the U.S. embassy, and opposition to the release of U.S. hostages. The Mojahedin are known to have assassinated the following Americans in Iran during the 1970s:

    Lt. Colonel Lewis L. Hawkins Killed: June 2, 1973
    Air Force Colonel Paul Schaeffer Killed: May 21, 1975
    Air Force Lt. Colonel Jack Turner Killed: May 21, 1975
    Donald G. Smith, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976
    Robert R. Krongrad, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976
    William C. Cottrell, Rockwell International Killed: August 28, 1976

    Reza Reza’i, a member of the Mojahedin’s Ideological Team, was arrested and executed by the Shah’s government for the murder of Colonel Hawkins. The attacks on the Rockwell employees occurred on the anniversary of the arrest of a Mojahedin member, Rahman vahid Afrakhteh, for the murder of Colonels Schaeffer and Turner. In addition. Air Force Brigadier General Harold price was wounded in a 1972 attack Planned by Mojahedin Central committee member, Kazem Zul Ai-Anvar. Widely credited in Tehran for these attacks at the time, the Mojahedin themselves claimed responsibility for these murders in their publications....

    "[The PMOI’s propaganda] described the release of the hostages as a “retreat” and “surrender” and warned that resumption of diplomatic relations with the United States would be “treason to the people and to the blood of our martyrs.”

    "A number of these self-described operations included attacks against clearly civilian targets, such as automobiles, highways, government buildings open to the public, businesses. and private homes. As a March 1994 broadcast claimed: “The exploding of bombs ... took place on the various streets and districts (throughout Iran).”
    Source: US State Department Report: “The People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran,” by Kenneth Katzman. Washington, Nov 1992. 6 p.; Doc. call no.: M-U 42953-1 no.92-824F; Announcement of US about Mojahedin; No direct link.

    May 9, 2012 at 1:28 am | Reply
    • Behrooz

      Come up with some actual facts and not a misinformation campaign which serves only the interest of the Ayatollahs. Based on rules and regulations + International Law, the MEK is NOT a terrorist organization. if you think differently go and save state departments ass from a total humiliation by providing them with this insight information which will enable them to fight the MEK in their own court of justice ... but I’m afraid that the information you shared is of no importance to them because they know the true nature of these stories and the sources which share them. They know that you are spreading around lies together with other Ayatoilet proxies in order to destroy the image of Iran’s organized resistance movement. WE WANT REGIME CHANE – DELIST MEK NOW

      May 9, 2012 at 5:48 pm | Reply
  15. MATTER OF FACT OBAMA WILL REDUCE THE SANCTIONS

    BECAUSE HE IS WITHOUT WISDOM

    May 8, 2012 at 8:25 pm | Reply
    • Cooze

      Says an idiot.

      May 8, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Reply
  16. Sasan

    Tom Ridge, General Hugh Shelton, Patrick Kennedy
    The regime in Tehran views MEK as an existential threat because MEK strives to replace the unelected, clerical regime with a liberal democracy that champions a non-nuclear Iranian future, equal rights for women and minorities, and a free press. But the major opposition to the Mullahs is being prevented from realizing these dreams of freedom for the Iranian people because both Iran and the US designate them as a terrorist organization.
    MEK is a movement that epitomizes the very spirit of the Arab Spring. By removing MEK from an unjust designation, the Obama administration can create a new political dynamic – one that can effectively undermine the worlds’ leading state sponsor of terrorism.
    The Clinton administration initially added MEK to the State Department’s blacklist in 1997 as part of a failed political ploy to appease Iran—mistakenly thought at the time to be moving towards moderation. The Mullahs demanded that the group be listed as a precondition for potential negotiations with the US. Those negotiations never materialized then — and won’t work now either.

    May 8, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Reply
  17. Sasan

    Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-CA, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Oversight and Investigations subcommittee, has called this inquiry “a travesty,” adding that it is “a sin that our government is going after these people trying to support the people of Iran.”
    “It seems that the method to silence those who are in favor of the liberation of the MEK from the foreign terrorist organization… is to attack them personally… That is not going to work. Whoever is behind the attacks on these good men and women with unbelievable credentials, who believe in the de-listing of the MEK, it will not succeed,” emphasized the Texas Republican, Rep. Ted Poe.

    May 8, 2012 at 7:05 pm | Reply
  18. fh

    clinton bending over backwards to please the mullahs in iran... what an absolute disgrace!!

    May 8, 2012 at 6:39 pm | Reply
  19. (See) DOWNLOAD MP4/3GP VIDEOS FOR FREE PLEASE NOTE: U MUST BE 18

    will should they remove their name, dats wat they are.

    May 8, 2012 at 6:13 pm | Reply
  20. Ali

    Secretary Clinton is dragging her feet to long with this case. she must De-List and she is already to late. the moving to Camp Liberty thing that her lawyer came up with and to find new information is just a big lie and they know it they just want to use it as a card to put pressure on the people of Ashraf to accept to go voluntarily to a concentration camp called Liberty shame on this lawyer who came up with this lies

    May 8, 2012 at 6:07 pm | Reply
  21. Behrooz

    Delist MEK, shame on the US Department of state for doing ayatollahs bidding in different courts in DC !! if resisting tyranny is an act of terrorism based on US state department standards , then all American founding fathers belong on that same list where MEK unlawfully is kept on !! Delist us and stop dreaming of reforms , even if we lose Ashraf, there is NO WAY we give away Tehran to another 50 years of so-called reformist who are only there to serve your interests and not that of the Iranian people !! as Amir Kabir once said, let us live in harmony and freedom so we can become owners of our Future.

    May 8, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Reply
  22. Brad

    Hopefully, the Secretary will render her decision based on the law and not be swayed by politics.

    8 USC § 1189 (a)(1) authorizes the Secretary (.) to designate an organization as a foreign terrorist organization in accordance with this subsection if the Secretary finds that (..) the organization (..) retains the capability and INTENT to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.

    The MEK/PMOI is not comprised solely of those persons in Camps Ashraf and Liberty.

    May 8, 2012 at 5:06 pm | 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.