Specter of Forced Repatriation

Death no longer stalks the White House gates. The hunger strike of more than two dozen Iranian-Americans (as part of a vigil of hundreds of concerned people) came to a close Thursday with the news that 36 Iranian dissidents forcibly taken by Iraqi forces had been allowed to return -- most in emaciated condition -- to their enclave at Camp Ashraf, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

For more than 70 days, the hunger strike and vigil continued with the demand for the release of the hostages and protection for the 3,400 members of the Iranian opposition group Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), stationed at Camp Ashraf.

But it would be a mistake of enormous proportions to believe that the problem of Camp Ashraf and the specter of forced repatriation of its members to Iran or forced displacement inside Iraq (where the dissidents would be exposed to terrorist attacks by Tehran's operatives) are no longer a matter of grave humanitarian and national security concern. We should not be lulled into a false sense of safety that the problem has gone away.

At stake are the lives thousands of MEK members who are dedicated to the overthrow of Iran's mullah regime and its replacement by a democratic pluralistic government.

On July 28 and 29, Iraqi forces -- undoubtedly heeding the call of Iran, which wants nothing as much as the eradication of the camp and the repatriation of its residents to Iran -- forcibly entered the enclave. The operation against the unarmed and defenseless residents left 11 dead, hundreds wounded and 36 arrested.

The State Department maintains that sovereignty over all of Iraq, including Camp Ashraf, belongs to the government of Iraq and brushes off serious concern by pointing out that in any event, the MEK remains on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations.

But Iraqi sovereignty does not entitle neglect of the U.S. promise to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf. This concerns a solemn pledge made by U.S. forces early in 2004, when they entered the enclave and signed written agreements stipulating that the residents would be granted protected-persons status under the Geneva Conventions until their final disposition.

The MEK terrorist designation, as concerns Americans, revolves around its purported role in the death of six American service members and military contractors 35 years ago.

As corroborated by former Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk, the designation in 1997 came about largely as a result of President Clinton's efforts to induce Iran's then-president, Mohammed Khatami, to adopt a more moderate posture. (It didn't work.)

In this context, it appeared on an internal State Department determination, which held that terrorism against our foes (even if directed against judges issuing death sentences without recourse to legal process) should be of as much concern to the United States as terrorism directed against American citizens.

The highest court in the United Kingdom recently overturned the terrorist designation in Britain as totally without merit. A similar conclusion was reached by the European Union. Interestingly enough, when the MEK filed a petition for revocation of its designation in July 2008, the State Department's top counterterrorism official, Gen. Dell L. Dailey, recommended that the petition be granted.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, however, overruled him -- ostensibly because of the department's zeal not to allow anything to undercut its efforts to negotiate directly with Tehran.

Having been involved as an attorney for the PanAm 103 families in their quest to hold Libya accountable for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, I had dealt with the conditions for removal of Libya from the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Clear criteria for designation of an organization as a terrorist entity, and its corollary -- clear criteria for de-designation -- are essential if we are to remain a country of laws rather than one where diplomatic whim controls despite severe legal consequences. Yet, in dealing with MEK designation, the State Department refuses to specify applicable criteria. Such a posture degrades the terrorist designation to a mere political tool.

Clearly, neither Iraqi sovereignty nor the unwarranted U.S. terrorist designation can justify turning a blind eye to the fate of 3,400 people at Camp Ashraf who have dedicated their lives to ending the mullah regime in Tehran.

This is not only a matter of grave humanitarian concern, but also one that bears serious implications for U.S. national security interests. What lesson, after all, would Iran draw if we were to allow repatriation of the residents of Camp Ashraf?

What lesson would the world draw if it witnessed the U.S. government's inability to curry any influence with Iraq, a country in which we have invested so much of our resources and human treasure?

What is to be done? I recommend that two steps be taken immediately:

1.) President Obama or a high-level envoy needs to forcefully tell Iraq's leadership that the U.S. government will not countenance repatriation of the residents of Camp Ashraf or their forcible displacement within Iraq. The only safe place for them is Ashraf. Muted State Department assurances cannot suffice. In any event, no European or other nation seems prepared to welcome the residents of Camp Ashraf to its own shores.

2.) The U.N. secretary-general needs to express the United Nation's concern and work to set up a monitoring post at Ashraf to ensure that they are protected.

These steps are in America's interest. It cannot afford to ignore the potential for atrocities against the residents of Camp Ashraf. To abandon the MEK in their hour of need, especially when they are staunch opponents of the regime in Tehran, would only serve to encourage Iran to pursue its militaristic policies at home and abroad and to dispel the trust of America's allies.

*Allan Gerson, a former senior State and Justice department official, is chairman of AG International Law in Washington and represents the MEK. He is the author of "The Price of Terror: How the Families of the Victims of the PanAm 103 Bombing Brought Libya to Justice" (HarperCollins, 2002).

 

 

Comments

[blondie78]

I would be a "terrorist" too if I lived under a government that is renoun for its human rights violations and the denial of basic human rights. It is the natural response by people who crave freedom to meet their oppressor with some law breaking... look at the millions who took to the streets. Are they terrorists? NO.

The Iranian government's documented execution of children, pregnant women, raping of political prisioners, stoning women to death, and public hangings of their citizens... makes them the criminals. Iranians who meet this govenment with resistance, or form organizations to fight this regime can not be terrorists... or all despots would stay in power forever with our blessing. Iranians that meet this kind of anti-human regime must use force, as this regime is soooo brutal. These MKO people should not be classified as terrorists when their attacks were focused on the regime only.

If you believe people living under brutal terrorist regimes have the right to resist then let your Senator know. Because many despots rule countries, and how can these people create democracy without the right to resist?

[Ali Azad]

After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, PMOI members disarmed in exchange for protection by American troops. Weary of occupation, the U.S. military last December transferred policing duties to Iraqi Security forces.

An Amnesty International account, dated August 13, 2009, states that Iraqi Security brutally used tear gas, water cannons, live ammunition and batons against protesting Iranians residing in Camp Ashraf .

In video footage of the raid, Iraqi Security appears to drive military vehicles into crowds of residents. Cellphone videos show makeshift emergency rooms filled with bleeding, maimed, disfigured and murdered individuals. A Facebook page shows photographs of the deceased. According to Amnesty International, 11 residents were killed, hundreds were injured and 36 residents were detained by Iraqi Security.

.
FYI #1: Video of attack by Iraqi Security against residents of Camp Ashraf http://www.youtube.com/watch?w=T4fQ9-W10uw; Video of wounded being treated at makeshift clinic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v-Q1bKngVzLO8;

FYI #2: To curry favor with previous Iranian governments, the U.S. State Department labeled Mujahedin Khalq a “Terrorist Organization” (because it aims to overthrow Islamic Fundamentalist regimes that legitimize stoning people to death). But Senior U.S. District Judge Robert M. Takasugi defied the State Department and dismissed several indictments against members of Mujahedin Khalq, because, he explained, the classification was made without due process of law and because national security “should not serve as an excuse for obliterating the Constitution.”

[Wozzeck]

"But Senior U.S. District Judge Robert M. Takasugi defied the State Department and dismissed several indictments against members of Mujahedin Khalq, because, he explained, the classification was made without due process of law and because national security “should not serve as an excuse for obliterating the Constitution.”"

And his decision was overturned.
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/412/1071/544648/

[Noushin]

The Iranian Mojahedin (PMOI/MEK) has been a *VAST* misinformation target of the Iranian government and its many lobbying groups.

The root of many of the allegations against the PMOI/MEK has been the brutal Ministry of Intelligence. During each and every court hearings in Europe, it was shown that the allegations were pure falsification.

The US law enforcing and intelligent agencies (e.g., FBI, CIA, ...) interviewed and investigated every member of the group in Iraq and were unable to find a single individual guilty of any terrorism or any other illegal act.

The US State Dept listing of the group in the FTO list, as stated by the author, has been and contrinues to be a pure political tool for dealing with Iran and has nothing to do with terrorism.

[Jubin]

I hope more people can engage in an honest review of this movement's roots, history, political influence, and role in current Iranian society, inside Iran and abroad. They have enjoyed stunning successes in the courts which have one after another struck down terrorist listings of them, shown rather astounding resilience in face of Iran regime's military-political arm-twisting to have them destroyed or isolated, and stood by democratic principles for change in Iran. They deserve a better deal.

[Wozzeck]

"They have enjoyed stunning successes in the courts which have one after another struck down terrorist listings of them"

Is this one of the stunning successes?

United States of America, Plaintiff-­appellant, v. Hossein Afshari, et al
http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/412/1071/544648/

[Jubin]

You very conveniently missed a much more recent one than the 2005 case, with full disclosure of all government "secret" evidence in 2007 and 2008 here:
http://www.siac.tribunals.gov.uk/poac/Documents/outcomes/PC022006%20PMOI%20FINAL%20JUDGMENT.pdf
The British court struck the terror designation fo the PMOI, described the government's order to list the PMOI as "perverse" and orderd the government to lay order before UK Parliament to remove PMOI from proscribed organizations list.
and also at European Court of Justice on Dec 4, 2008.
The terror listing of PMOI is totally discredited in court and based on facts because it is a politically motivated move as everyone knows. Furthermore, Iranians see it for what it is: a pitiful attempt by US and West to appease mullahs in Tehran.
See also here: http://www.ezilon.com/information/article_18729.shtml
If you need more sources more exists including in person interviews, witness testimony and amicus briefs filed in numerous courts since 2007.
Hope to see PMOI removed from FTO soon to close this embarrasing chapter of US relations to Iran's opposition and people. Currently US stands as only country to list PMOI alongside Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. Not a distinction to be proud of.

[Jubin]

I think this is a good article, but there is a lot of misinformation going around about the PMOI/MEK, much of it planted by the Iranian regime and picked up by honest people in the anti-war field.
There is a lot of uncritical rehash of false information about MEK, touting them as US supported at times, anti-American at others, largest Iran opposition group at times, hated by Iranians at others, etc. This puzzle needs critical review and an honest appraisal which cannot be obtained without engaging in dialogue with people who continue to support the PMOI and insist on its goals of democratic change in Iran.
This is group has a considerable following in Iranian Diaspora and Iran albeit it cannot be declared openly, yet their goals converge with policies and goals set by this group and its umbrella political front of NCRI.
At the end, whatever the history, there are clear markers to go by:
human rights of people supporting PMOI/MEK must be respected;
there cannot be forced repatriation or displacement;
Iran regime is illegitimate in Iran and therefore it is not our remit to deny Iranians right to resist it by methods deemed reasonable by international law, Geneva conventions, and universally accepted principles of human rights;
any political group supporting free elections and submitting to it should enjoy right of political activity;

[Wozzeck]

How can one represent the MEK without violating TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2339B
§ 2339B. Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

(a) Prohibited Activities.—
(1) Unlawful conduct.— Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years...

INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM
PREVENTION ACT OF 2004 defines "material support":

"the term ‘material support or resources’ means any
property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency
or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services,
lodging, training, EXPERT ADVICE or ..."

[Allan Gerson - Huffpost Blogger]

Legal representation is permissible under a license from OFAC- the Office of Foreign Assets Control, US Treasury Department.

[S1m0n]

"Terrorist attacks by Iran's operatives?" You're complaining that their terrorists are going to kill our terrorists? isn't that kind of the point? When the exact same folks were in the exactly same place, pre-invasion, the Bush administration claim the fact as proof positive that Saddam Hussein supported terror. Except they were being protected by US jets, of course, and there was nothign that Iraq could do. The US doesn't have that problem. SO, the problem is that the terrorists we're supporting don't want to go home, but the Iraqis want them gone?

[iranfreedom]

The terrorist label has been nothing more than a politicaly motivated act of appeasement that has given the regime the green light to suppress. During the recent show trials in Iran, protestors were sentenced to death for associating with the PMOI/MEK. Calling it a "good will gesture," Clinton administration's Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk told Newsweek September 26, 2002: "... [There] was White House interest in opening up a dialogue with the Iranian government. At the time, President Khatami had recently been elected and was seen as a moderate. Top Administration officials saw cracking down on the [PMOI], which the Iranians had made clear they saw as a menace, as one way to do so.”

The PMOI/MEK successfully defeated the EU and the UK in court and were removed from their terror lists. UK court called the label "perverse". The State Department's top counterterrorism official, Dell L. Dailey, wanted them off the list. .

The Iraqi people do not want the PMOI/MEK gone. Maliki is doing Khamenei's bidding. Tens of thousands of Iraqi's came together in Camp Ashraf in June of 2006 to announce the declaration of 5.2 million Iraqis in support of the PMOI/MEK's presence in Iraq and to condemn Iranian meddling.(http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/1791/70/). In June of 2008 three million Iraqi Shiites condemned Iranian regime and declared support for the PMOI/MEK( http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/5293/1/).