Legalizing Support For Terrorism, Retroactively

[bleeding heart]

The MEK (Muhajedin-e Khalq) is both a terrorist organization and a bizarre, Maoist-type religious cult.

It has been formally designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department for many years.

So under U.S. law, it is a felony to provide any "material support" or any "aid whatsoever" to the group.

And in fact, in 2003, the Bush administration used them as part of their pretext for attacking Iraq:

Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.

( http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html )

It's all pretty clear cut...except for the potentially embarassing (and explosive) fact that a bi-partisan group of major (very major) politicians have been not only speaking on the MEK's behalf...but have taken money from them, for speaking fees and political advocacy.

This is an open breach of the "material support" and "any aid whatsoever" sections of the law, and constitutes a felony.

Indeed, people, notably American Muslims, have been prosecuted for far, far less egregious acts.

Further, this open support for a terrorist group (and for terrorism itself) is, as I said, totally bi-partisan, and the names are big ones:

Rudolph Giuliani

Howard Dean

Wesley Clark

Andrew Card

Tom Ridge

....and many more, including journalists, and Alan Dershowitz and Elie Wiesel.

So, ok...these well-known and extremely influential political luminaries (and commentators) from both major parties are paid supporters and advocates for an officially designated terrorist organization, who also happen to be a weird religious cult.

So how is it that this is not criminal?

Well, it is, of course, criminal, by every and any definition.

So how is Officialdom to keep these brazen, terror-supporting lawbreakers out of trouble?

Why...de-list the MEK as a terrorist organization, of course! Beautiful, simple, perfect.

After all, they are the sworn enemies of Iran...and Howard Dean himself said that their leader should be recognized as "Iran's President" (because little matters like "elections" are irrelevant).

However, de-listing--a cynical and coldly-calculated political act, divorced from considerations like actual terrorism--does not, legally, retroactively exonerate the perpetrators. The group was officiall, formally designated as a Terrorist Group while these little gangsters were heping them out and taking payment for it.

Here's Glenn Greenwald, who has written quite extensively on the subject:

The Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), or People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, is an Iranian dissident group that has been formally designated for the last 15 years by the US State Department as a "foreign terrorist organization". When the Bush administration sought to justify its attack on Iraq in 2003 by accusing Saddam Hussein of being a sponsor of "international terrorism", one of its prime examples was Iraq's "sheltering" of the MEK. Its inclusion on the terrorist list has meant that it is a felony to provide any "material support" to that group.

Nonetheless, a large group of prominent former US government officials from both political parties has spent the last several years receiving substantial sums of cash to give speeches to the MEK, and have then become vocal, relentless advocates for the group, specifically for removing them from the terrorist list. Last year, the Christian Science Monitor thoroughly described "these former high-ranking US officials - who represent the full political spectrum - [who] have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK." They include Democrats Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, and Lee Hamilton, and Republicans Rudy Giuliani, Fran Townsend, Tom Ridge, Michael Mukasey, and Andrew Card. Other prominent voices outside government, such as Alan Dershowitz and Elie Wiesel, have been enlisted to the cause and are steadfast MEK advocates.

Money has also been paid to journalists such as The Washington Post's Carl Bernstein and the Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page. Townsend is a CNN contributor and Rendell is an MSNBC contributor, yet those MEK payments are rarely, if ever, disclosed by those media outlets when featuring those contributors (indeed, Townsend can go on CNN to opine on Iran, even urging that its alleged conduct be viewed as "an act for war", with no disclosure whatsoever during the segment of her MEK payments). Quoting a State Department official, CSM detailed how the scheme works:

"'Your speech agent calls, and says you get $20,000 to speak for 20 minutes. They will send a private jet, you get $25,000 more when you are done, and they will send a team to brief you on what to say.' . . . The contracts can range up to $100,000 and include several appearances."

On Friday, the Guardian's Washington reporter Chris McGreal added substantial information about the recipients of the funding and, especially, its sources. As he put it, the pro-MEK campaign "has seen large sums of money directed at three principal targets: members of Congress, Washington lobby groups and influential former officials", including the GOP Congressman who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers.

And all this doesn't even touch on the other subject in the article: the direct comparisons to those who have been prosecuted for less egregious behaviours under the selfsame Terrorism laws.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa

[GostHacked]

Sure, this won't lead to any kind of 'blowback'. It's not like something similar was done in another country .. right?

[dre]

The MEK (Muhajedin-e Khalq) is both a terrorist organization and a bizarre, Maoist-type religious cult.

It has been formally designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department for many years.

So under U.S. law, it is a felony to provide any "material support" or any "aid whatsoever" to the group.

And in fact, in 2003, the Bush administration used them as part of their pretext for attacking Iraq:

( http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html )

It's all pretty clear cut...except for the potentially embarassing (and explosive) fact that a bi-partisan group of major (very major) politicians have been not only speaking on the MEK's behalf...but have taken money from them, for speaking fees and political advocacy.

This is an open breach of the "material support" and "any aid whatsoever" sections of the law, and constitutes a felony.

Indeed, people, notably American Muslims, have been prosecuted for far, far less egregious acts.

Further, this open support for a terrorist group (and for terrorism itself) is, as I said, totally bi-partisan, and the names are big ones:

Rudolph Giuliani

Howard Dean

Wesley Clark

Andrew Card

Tom Ridge

....and many more, including journalists, and Alan Dershowitz and Elie Wiesel.

So, ok...these well-known and extremely influential political luminaries (and commentators) from both major parties are paid supporters and advocates for an officially designated terrorist organization, who also happen to be a weird religious cult.

So how is it that this is not criminal?

Well, it is, of course, criminal, by every and any definition.

So how is Officialdom to keep these brazen, terror-supporting lawbreakers out of trouble?

Why...de-list the MEK as a terrorist organization, of course! Beautiful, simple, perfect.

After all, they are the sworn enemies of Iran...and Howard Dean himself said that their leader should be recognized as "Iran's President" (because little matters like "elections" are irrelevant).

However, de-listing--a cynical and coldly-calculated political act, divorced from considerations like actual terrorism--does not, legally, retroactively exonerate the perpetrators. The group was officiall, formally designated as a Terrorist Group while these little gangsters were heping them out and taking payment for it.

Here's Glenn Greenwald, who has written quite extensively on the subject:

And all this doesn't even touch on the other subject in the article: the direct comparisons to those who have been prosecuted for less egregious behaviours under the selfsame Terrorism laws.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa

Makes sense to me. The modern definition of terrorism is basically "terrorists that act in a manner that is determined to be contrary to our interests".

So if you find some reason to align yourself with the terrorists is makes good sense to either take them off your list, or just not add them (as is the case with the FSA terrorists currently trying to topple the Assad regime).

[bud]

giuliani? sure. he's as dirty and slimey as they get. i'm kind of surprised that dean is in the same group.

i have a few questions:

1) one question is whether the MEK will be to iran as chalabi was to iraq.

2) is there anyway to follow the money trail to find out how all this money was thrown at the lobbyists and these whores?

3) how will they explain that iranians don't like the MEK since the MEK allied with saddam in the war against iran which ended up costing 1 million iranian lives. like, seriously? are they going to try to sell the MEK as the official iranian opposition?

Edited September 26, 2012 by bud

[bleeding heart]

giuliani? sure. he's as dirty and slimey as they get. i'm kind of surprised that dean is in the same group.

Collusion with terrorists has always been a bipartisan effort, to my knowledge. I doubt the Republicans are one bit worse than the Democrats on this score.

1) one question is whether the MEK will be to iran as chalabi was to iraq.

They're worse, certainly.

2) is there anyway to follow the money trail to find out how all this money was thrown at the lobbyists and these whores?

If anyone ever had a stomach for prosecutions--which they never, ever, ever will--then no doubt it could be easily discovered.

After all, these politicians have not exactly been hiding their activities.

3) how will they explain that iranians don't like the MEK since the MEK allied with saddam in the war against iran which ended up costing 1 million iranian lives.

Hell, that was pointed out in the White House quote I offered...from the Bush administration, as part of their justification for war against Iraq.

And now, suddenly, it's not faintly an issue.

like, seriously? are they going to try to sell the MEK as the official iranian opposition?

Who knows? Stranger things have happened.

[kraychik]

The article makes some worthy points. Assuming the MEK is still what it was in the past, the hypocrisy and/or stupidity of those who are now speaking out in favour of it now is clear. It seems like some of these characters advocating on behalf of the MEK (which the USA has delisted as a terrorist organisation) are simply aligning with it because of its opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is what I hated about Romney's statements during the debate about working with "democratic organisations" in Muslim-majority countries in order to bring about positive social change. People need to be very cautious about who they support when it comes to groups from Muslim-majority countries, because subscription to basic values of freedom is not widespread in these societies. Almost always, we are picking between one devil and another (or between two djinns). If these tyrannical societies are to join free civilisations, I'm not sure it can be done via the direction of America and the West.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a very shortsighted attitude.

[VitruvianMan]

The article makes some worthy points. Assuming the MEK is still what it was in the past, the hypocrisy and/or stupidity of those who are now speaking out in favour of it now is clear. It seems like some of these characters advocating on behalf of the MEK (which the USA has delisted as a terrorist organisation) are simply aligning with it because of its opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is what I hated about Romney's statements during the debate about working with "democratic organisations" in Muslim-majority countries in order to bring about positive social change. People need to be very cautious about who they support when it comes to groups from Muslim-majority countries, because subscription to basic values of freedom is not widespread in these societies. Almost always, we are picking between one devil and another (or between two djinns). If these tyrannical societies are to join free civilisations, I'm not sure it can be done via the direction of America and the West.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a very shortsighted attitude.

As well as this, the MEK could never gain any traction in Iran. They are hated there because of their work with Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. They claim to be secular and leftist (that's about a moderate conservative in the West's standards), but who knows what they're really thinking.

The weakness of Obama is pretty clear in his failure to support the 2009 protests in Iran. In my opinion to have a popular revolution among the citzenry is better than some fringe group that claims to have secular values (MEK).

[bleeding heart]

I agree. Further, it's basically the old Leninist doctrine; a hierarchical group advocating their own leadership in a violent overthrow of an existing order. We're For the People...But Our Little Group Knows Best.

And to clarify, I'm not opposed on principle to a violent overthrow of any existing order. It is doubtless, at times, the only plausible scenario to improvement..

But this is not some democratic-minded movement; nor are they "secular" (an astonishing claim...the briefest history of the MEK shows they are actually a weird, hybridized religious cult, with all the trappings of Glorious Leaders and oppressed followers, as well as the favoured coterie of Commissars, etc.)

So the old "here comes the new boss, same as.." bit probably applies in this case: tyranny replacing tyranny.

As if Iran hasn't had its share of that nonsense already.

Edited October 28, 2012 by bleeding heart