EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Leading Conservatives Openly Support a Terrorist Group
Imagine if a group of leading American liberals met on foreign soil with -- and expressed vocal support for -- supporters of a terrorist group that had (a) a long history of hateful anti-American rhetoric, (b) an active role in both the takeover of a U.S. embassy and Saddam Hussein's brutal 1991 repression of Iraqi Shiites, (c) extensive financial and military support from Saddam, (d) multiple acts of violence aimed at civilians, and (e) years of being designated a "Terrorist organization" by the U.S. under Presidents of both parties, a designation which is ongoing? The ensuing uproar and orgies of denunciation would be deafening.
But on December 23, a group of leading conservatives -- including Rudy Giuliani and former Bush officials Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, and Fran Townsend -- did exactly that. In Paris, of all places, they appeared at a forum organized by supporters of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) -- a group declared by the U.S. since 1997 to be "terrorist organization" -- and expressed wholesale support for that group. Worse -- on foreign soil -- they vehemently criticized their own country's opposition to these Terrorists and specifically "demanded that Obama instead take the [] group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and incorporate it into efforts to overturn the mullah-led government in Tehran." In other words, they are calling on the U.S. to embrace this Saddam-supported, U.S.-hating Terrorist group and recruit them to help overthrow the government of Iran. To a foreign audience, Mukasey denounced his own country's opposition to these Terrorists as "nothing less than an embarrassment."
Using common definitions, there is good reason for the MEK to be deemed by the U.S. Government to be a Terrorist group. In 2007, the Bush administration declared that "MEK leadership and members across the world maintain the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond," and added that the group exhibits "cult-like characteristics." The Council on Foreign Relations has detailed that the MEK has been involved in numerous violent actions over the years, including many directed at Americans, such as "the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries" and "the killings of U.S.military personnel and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran in the 1970s." This is whom Guiliani, Ridge, Townsend and other conservatives are cheering.
Applying the orthodoxies of American political discourse, how can these Terrorist-supporting actions by prominent American conservatives not generate intense controversy? For one thing, their appearance in France to slam their own country's foreign policy blatantly violates the long-standing and rigorously enforced taboo against criticizing the U.S. Government while on dreaded foreign soil (the NYT previously noted that "nothing sets conservative opinion-mongers on edge like a speech made by a Democrat on foreign soil"). Worse, their conduct undoubtedly constitutes the crime of "aiding and abetting Terrorism" as interpreted by the Justice Department -- an interpretation recently upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last year in Holder v. Humanitarian Law. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole represented the Humanitarian Law plaintiffs in their unsuccessful challenge to the DOJ's interpretation of the "material support" statute, and he argues today in The New York Times that as a result of that ruling, it is a felony in the U.S. "to engage in public advocacy to challenge a group's 'terrorist' designation or even to encourage peaceful avenues for redress of grievances."
Read the full article at Salon.com
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
35 Comments so far
Show AllDon't forget that in the 80's Mandela (and the ANC) was labeled a terrorist organization by Reagan/Bush. So the term terrorist becomes amorphous. Today's terrorist is yesterdays freedom fighter and vice versa.
Exactly. The MEK engaged in "hateful anti-American rhetoric" and was designated as a terrorist group when Iran was ruled by the Shah. The "takeover of a U.S. embassy" casually tossed in by Attorney Greenwald was the famous 1979 takeover triggered by the perception of continued U.S. support for the Shah.The support from (and assistance to) Saddam was the time-honored 'enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend' tactic. The apparent acceptance of covert U.S. assistance (which Giuliani and company want to be overt) is the same tactic. As for "multiple acts of violence aimed at civilians" , the same abuse could have been thrown at the ANC as well as numerous revolutionary organizations (the IRA? the United Irishmen of 1798? the American revolutionaries of 1776?) throughout history.Glenn Greenwald reveals the limits of his liberalism when he throws the 'terrorist' label at a foreign organization which is fighting it's oppressive government.
"Glenn Greenwald reveals the limits of his liberalism when he throws the 'terrorist' label at a foreign organization which is fighting it's oppressive government."
This misses the point of the article which is the absolute hypocrisy of conservatives. As someone else pointed out, if this were Howard Dean (I think Nader was used as the example)and a group of liberal Democrats doing this they would be attacked by these same conservatives. That's not to say liberal Democrats aren't capable of, and are often guilty of, hypocrisy.
The point of the article IS the absolute hypocrisy of conservatives and to make that point, Greenwald is happy to label the MEK as terrorists and toss in all the bull I pointed out. Thus he can call Guiliani and the others "terrorist supporting". Liberals are right up there with conservatives when it comes to demonizing Marxism. Liberals also have a tough time when it comes to armed revolutionary groups fighting oppressive regimes.Op-eds are more their thing.So he uses this to score his point and the hell with the MEK and the Iranian people for that matter.
"Applying the orthodoxies of American political discourse, how can these Terrorist-supporting actions by prominent American conservatives not generate intense controversy? For one thing, their appearance in France to slam their own country's foreign policy blatantly violates the long-standing and rigorously enforced taboo against criticizing the U.S. Government while on dreaded foreign soil"
That only applies to the left. The right can do whatever they please, wherever they please, as they rule the planet.
Leading conservatives openly support the World's biggest terrorist group : the fascist amerika government !
That's the truth.
If Ralph Nader or other left of center leaders went to Paris and pulled this stunt they would be labeled ENEMY COMBATANTS, deprived of due process, and left to rot in a jail in one of the rogue nations that the US contracts with to warehouse political prisoners.
"Leading Conservatives Openly Support a Terrorist Group" IOKIYAR (It's OK if you're a republican). Get used to it folks you're going to be seeing a lot of it over the next few years. Hypocrisy is a considered a virtue by Republicans, and a fair amount of Democrats to, I should add.
News Bulletin
The u.s. citizens openly support two terrorist organizations: politics and capitalism.
Yep.
Birds of a feather, flock together.
This support certainly follows historical precedent. Whenever the US wishes to overthrow some government or another that we don't like, we always turn to terrorist groups or dictators to make it happen.
According to some Republicans the definition of a terrorist is simply one who opposes their policies. Giuliani et al apparently have their own agenda and from 9/11 onward have been focused only on achieving that. Overthrowing the government of Iran (democratically elected no less) is simply the next stage in their game of imperial domination of a region. It is clear that they will stop at nothing, including killing thousands of innocent people around the world and at home.
From two different sites on the 'Net:
"The roots of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) reach back to the early 1960s formation of the Liberation Movement of Iran, a nationalistic, liberal party formed by supporters of then Prime Minister Mohammed Mossaddeq. The failed June 1963 uprising in Iran prompted younger members of the party to start considering violent means to challenge the Shah, and a discussion group, formed by some of these younger members, became the nucleus of the MEK. From 1963 onward, development of ideology and study of contemporary Iran proceeded, and then the organization started to send members to train in PLO camps in Lebanon and Jordan. was allied with the Iraqi regime and received most of its support from it."
"The MEK assisted the Hussein regime in suppressing opposition within Iraq, and performed internal security for the Iraqi regime."
The back story on MEK has CIA fingerprints all over it. No wonder these clowns (Rudy Giuliani, Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, Fran Townsend) are falling all over themselves to support them.
Afterall, the only good terrorist is the one you have bought and paid for...
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
The hostage takers were bribed to hold them by Repugs and Carters rescue mission was sabotaged from the inside.
Remember how the MSM had a bold hostage day number headline for many, many days, in order to bring Carter down?
"Remember how the MSM had a bold hostage day number headline for many, many days, in order to bring Carter down?"
All too well.
Not to mention that Carter's briefing books for his debate were obtained by the CIA prior to the presidential debate in 1980. Carter said later that the CIA was "out of control", but actually, I think in control was more apt.
Rudy, Tom, Mikey, and Fran are the Real terr'ists. Be very afraid.
Leading CON- servatives have been supporting terrorists for years; its called the MIC!
I have been followed stalked and harassed by fusion center gang stalking torture freaks in the Tampa Area for the last 4 years 24/7. They wont leave me alone, because they have lied so much about me, that their credibility and the money they spent on my stalking torture can not be justified , cause I am an innocent , and a good America. Their titys are caught in a ringer of deceit, and they cant be wrong, so my destruction and continued character assignation will not stop till they can force me into doing something stupid.
Can some one tell this group of leading conservatives -- including Rudy Giuliani and former Bush officials Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, and Fran Townsend ,Too come down here and clear my name, tighten the leashes on their rabid sick dogs, .and stop wasting money on my warrant less surveillance.
Infowars.com , the Resistance is growing, and every treasonous dog gets his day, including warrantless surveillance torture stasi freaks.
I wonder what lucrative "business" these guys have with MEK. It could also be the fact that those leading "conservatives" have found out just how much they have in common with MEK that is so anti-woman at the core. Either way, they make no bones about their real support and intentions.
"I wonder what lucrative "business" these guys have with MEK..."
I dunno. Wait and watch for something tied to US industry in the area to go 'boom'. Then dig into who owns it, whether they stand to profit massively from insurance by it's destruction, or if the owners opposed the neo-con's (Guiliani, et al.) policies.
If you answer 'yes' to those two questions, there's your answer.
Non Serviam - I will not serve.
The U.S. government has been supporting Al Qaeda for years too. What else is new? Terrorists supporting terrorists who do their bidding.
America is the largest terrorist group in the world. Obama our Leader says he can have anyone assasinated that he wants anywhere anytime, anyone ! Other countries fear us far more than we fear them !
Not for long! China should surpass us in both military and technological advancement, in addition to GDP dominance, in as short a time as 2030. India should be there right around 2050.
Wonder what resentments and hatreds we've sown into the global fields over the years, because harvest time is getting uncomfortably close.
Please don't let us experience "freedom" one day just as helped others to experience it: in the form imposed freedom from an external occupier/conqueror, under economic compulsion, and finally at the delivery-end of the barrel of a gun. Hope that won't involve the assassination of any of our leaders of state by foreign intelligence operative from around the globe.
Let Bill O'reilly sort it all out.
As other comments pointed out already, the larger picture:
The USA has been the most dreaded terrorist state since WWII. The direct results of US foreign policy has resulted in the deaths of several millions of innocent people, women and children included, since WWII.
The slaughter continues. The wars continue, the kleptocracy continues and both Ds and Rs vote to shovel ever more debt money at the MIC, and the Banksters collect the ever-rising debt service.
Living under a kleptocratic oligarchy is such a pleasure.
We cannot avoid blowback either
Remember when we had to allow Turkey to invaded PKK country in Iraq?
Illegal arms shipments by Blackhawk/Us Liaisons were discovered only after the weapons shipped began turning up in PKK terrorist and Turkish Mafia possession. The Turkish outrage is what forced the US to allow Turkish cross-border raids into Iraq. Needless to say, the Turks are still verrry unhappy.
The Turkish military provided weapon serial numbers to the US government which was able to trace them back to manufacturer.
This incident is separate from the one that took place when US arms were delivered to PKK terrorists. The US forces thought they were delivering them to the PJAK - Iranian PKK terrorist equivalents.
But I could be wrong !
This IS like the support---not accidental---given to the PKK. The PKK and the PJAK are actually one organization, a Kurdish nationalist organization with Marxist roots. When they fight the Turkish government, they are PKK; when they fight the Iranian government,they are PJAK. They now use the Kurdistan region of Iraq as a base area and apparently get U.S. assistance when they fight Iran. The U.S. similarly gives covert assistance to the MEK which has fought the Mullahs for 3 decades and also has Marxist roots (and,yes,a history of "anti-U.S. activity" when Iran was under the US backed Shah).These opportunist U.S. politicians want to make the "covert" into "overt" when it comes to the MEK. Why should the MEK or the PKK refuse help from whatever quarter, be it Saddam then or the U.S. now? Both these groups are fighting against oppressive regimes and to designate them as "terrorists" is something that should turn every progressive's stomach.
Glenn Greenwald....another phony voice of "opposition".
Your conclusion is not even related to your argument."
Okay, let's review: Greenwald is bashing the Mujaheddin-e-khalq as "terrorists" and tossing in any argument he can to back it up so he can score cheap points against the Republicans. I mean..."hateful anti-American rhetoric"! ! ? ? ! Maybe that works for you but I would have thought the people on this site would exercise critical thinking on ALL the articles.
move
Visiting professor,
Couldn't agree with you more.
Myself, I have my own simple definition. I would consider a terrorist group to be one who's target isn't the government or the military or security agencies of the government they are trying to change (or even overthrow), but innocent bystanders in hopes of pressing the government to change.
Blowing up a bus or shopping mall for instance. Or what the founding leaders of modern Israel did, blow up hotel lobbies - that they were targeting British soldiers didn't matter as they absolutely knew they were killing other innocents such as hotel staff.
As far as something like our military sending drone fired missiles into residential houses, knowing the blast radius will kill innocent civilian non combatants? I DO NOT consider this terrorist. They are WAR CRIMINALS.
In the result of innocent deaths, granted its not much of a distinction, but it would be the proper term to use.
If any of us here so much as accidentally gave money to a charity which later landed on the list of terrorist organizations we'd be prosecuted. If sought to speak with Hamas leaders even to attempt to dissuade them from using violence to further a political agenda we'd be prosecuted for it. These things have already happened - to people on the 'left'.
The U.S. Dept. of State has been protecting convicted terrorists on U.S. soil for a long time. The war on terror is bullshit, and to date there isn't even a static legal definition. All that is required to make you a terrorist is to oppose U.S. policies, or businesses.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17423572/The-Global-War-on-Terrorism