Captain Gambara to be particularly interesting.

I wonder whether they were there of their own free will as citizens?

If so, is it possible that Cantwell a case of being charmed to death by his charges, or did he actually start to feel a sense of belonging to the cult? Or maybe one of those gung-ho type guys who appreciates the passionate in a warrior?

Compare what these reporters recently desribed:

http://agonist.org/story/2005/3/19/12514/4022

What do you think this means, Nick: recognize the security possibilities that the MEK represented?

Also, I am wondering about the wisdom of criticizing politicians for attending this event as long as it was/is publicly known that they were doing so. Even though the group is categorized as terrorists. Did they try to hide the fact of their attendance in your opinion?

Saddam Hussein's Iraq and by France - from 1981 to 2003.  This is almost as good as Viera attacking Justice Kennedy as Marxist, Leninist, Satanist - and in the next breath praising Stalin as the greatest politician of the century and suggesting that the right should follow his political wisdom of "[Death solves everything]no man, no problem" Sometimes you can only laugh.

The man is a nutjob and that tells me everything I need to know about this.

WaPo

Iranians Rally to Support Resistance Group

Waving flags amid red, white and green balloons, about 300 Iranian exiles staged a campaign-style convention yesterday at DAR Constitution Hall. Their primary call was for the United States to drop an Iranian resistance group from its list of terrorist organizations.

Members of Congress, legal scholars and the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, Maryam Rajavi, outlined support for a peaceful revolution to create a democratic, secular republic in Iran. Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.) told the crowd that a peaceful revolution spurred by the people of Iran is one of the ways to create lasting peace in the Middle East. "Unless we deal with Iran, there will never be a solution in Iraq," he said.

Iranian opposition challenges Bush

LONDON, April 15 (IranMania) - Hundreds of Iranian exiles linked to an opposition group Washington considers terrorist gathered Thursday to demand US President George W Bush support them in their efforts to unseat the Islamic regime in Tehran.

The next one isn't about the convention per se, but I question the timing

Iran's 'terrorists' helped disclose nuke program

By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

TEHRAN, Iran -- Tall and handsome, Arash Sametipour could be living a very different life in Northern Virginia if he hadn't joined the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK).

Lake overstates what Gembara said her role was, but the rest of the article is legit:

Iranian Group Asks State To Lift Terror Designation

ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun

WASHINGTON

Three hundred supporters of an Iranian opposition group characterized by the State Department as a terrorist organization gathered here yesterday to pressure the Bush administration to lift the designation.

Supporters of the Mujahedin e-Khalq, or MEK, gathered just four blocks from the White House at Constitution Hall, where a handful of congressmen and two former military officers praised the group as the vanguard of a democratic opposition to the reigning mullahs in Iran.

Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Cantwell, the former military police commandant of Camp Ashraf, a facility in northern Iraq where some 4,000 fighters associated with the MEK are under military supervision, expressed solidarity with fighters he used to guard. To cheers of support, he told the audience, "If there is a terrorist group in Ashraf, where are the terrorists?"

After his speech, the colonel told reporters that, in his interactions, he believed the MEK fighters were sincere in their pledge to cooperate with American soldiers after they voluntarily disarmed in 2003. "Our assessment was that the Mujahadin represented a minimal threat to U.S. forces. There were no incidents of violence. They complied with everything we told them to do," he said.

The MEK and its political arm, known as the National Council of the Resistance in Iran, are considered terrorists by the State Department for their role in a string of successful attacks on Iranian regime targets in the country throughout the 1990s. The organization, which initially supported the Islamic revolution in 1979, was purged by Ayatollah Khomeini in the early 1980s.With many of its leaders in prison, the MEK sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war by 1985.

In 1991, MEK fighters were on the front lines of Saddam's brutal counterinsurgency campaigns in the Shiite south and Kurdish north. "Up until the fall of the regime, they were part and parcel of the Iraqi military. And they were heavily involved in suppressing the Kurdish uprising of 1991," the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan representative in Washington, Qubad Talabani, said yesterday.

Nonetheless, before the Gulf War, the group reached out to America and shared intelligence on a clandestine Iranian nuclear centrifuge program in Natanz. President Bush this year acknowledged that the first bit of information on the Iranian program came from the group.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, American special forces initially encountered MEK military units equipped with tanks, artillery, and armored personnel carriers. According to reserve Army Captain Vivian Gembara, the military lawyer who negotiated the deal for the MEK fighters to hand over their arms in 2003, the MEK was highly disciplined and knowledgeable about military affairs.

"We have more reason to trust them than some of the other groups we worked with," Captain Gembara said. Specifically, she said she was mystified as to why coalition forces allowed the militia trained by Iran's revolutionary guard, known as the Badr Brigade, to remain intact while dismantling the MEK fighting unit. "We let the Badr Brigade keep their uniforms, but we disarmed people willing to work with us," she said.

Yesterday's event, which the organizers called a national convention, featured groups of regional supporters of the MEK, who were in the audience and identified with the vertical placards of state names normally associated with political conventions. The similarities ended, though, when a message from an MEK leader, Maryam Rajavi, was beamed to an audience that shrieked and applauded with rapturous fervor.

"Just as the time has come to abandon the appeasement of tyrants, so the time has come to remove the ominous legacy of that policy, namely the terror label against the Iranian resistance," Ms. Rajavi said to thunderous cheers. In 2003, members of the MEK immolated themselves in protest when French police briefly arrested Ms. Rajavi in Paris.

Some congressmen shared Ms. Rajavi's position on the terrorist designation. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican of Colorado, compared those gathered yesterday to America's Founding Fathers. Not all members of the Iranian opposition, however, have such fond words for the MEK. The organization has been left out of the nascent movement inside the country to press for a constitutional referendum.

An Iranian activist in Los Angeles, Roxanne Ganji, told The New York Sun yesterday, "They are definitely a cult, and that is a dangerous thing. If anyone goes to Iran and takes the pulse of the people, though, 90% would never allow them to go back. That does not mean the information they gave America was not good. But they are a terrorist organization. If the United States wants information, then they can get it from viable groups and not terrorists."

I received the following via email:

I read your story on the "National Convention" by Iranian-American delegates last Thursday at the Constitutional Hall.

I also read the many comments others posted in response to your article. It was surprising to me that all those who wrote took it for granted that the MEK is in fact terrorist.

Perhaps they should read this. Since I did not know how to post my comment, I would appreciate it if you do.

The Los Angeles Times wrote on October 9, 1997, "the inclusion of the group was a intended as a goodwill gesture to the newly elected moderate president Mohammad Khatami."

On July 27, 2004, the New York Times quoted senior U.S. officials as saying that a 16-month investigation by various U.S. agencies, including the State Department, the FBI and the CIA had found no basis to charge the members of the MEK with violation of U.S. law or links to terrorism.

Having said all of this, the event that I attended had nothing to do with the MEK, though most who were presented sympathized with the group.

I have attached below the NYTimes article. May be you can link it to my comment.

Alex

Nick's note:  Alex highlighted these paragraphs of the following article, which can be found on the web here.

New York Times,

July 27, 2004

PEOPLE'S MUJAHEDEEN

U.S. Sees No Basis to Prosecute Iranian Opposition 'Terror' Group Being Held in Iraq

By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, July 26 - A 16-month review by the United States has found no basis to charge members of an Iranian opposition group in Iraq with violations of American law, though the group is listed as a terrorist organization by the United States government, according to senior American officials.

...

But senior American officials said extensive interviews by officials of the State Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation had not come up with any basis to bring charges against any members of the group. In a July 21 memorandum, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the deputy commanding general in Iraq, said its members had now been designated "protected persons" by the United States military, providing them new rights.

...

In the case of the People's Mujahedeen, the United States does not appear to have evidence to charge individual members of the group with acts of terrorism, but it also appears unwilling to surrender its members to their enemy, Iran.

...

The formal American determination came after members of the group signed an agreement rejecting violence and terrorism, General Miller said in his July 21 letter, addressed to the "people of Ashraf." That agreement "sends a strong signal and is a powerful first step on the road to your final individual disposition," the general's letter said, according to a copy that was made available to The New York Times.

...

Muhammad Mohaddessin, a senior official of the People's Mujahedeen, said in a telephone interview from Paris on Monday that the absence of American charges against members of the group, after months in which they have been held, should raise questions about the organization's terrorist designation.

"I think the fact of the matter is that there is no reason for keeping the Mujahedeen on the terrorism list at all," Mr. Mohaddessin said, "because if these thousands of people who are in Iraq are not terrorists - when they all have been screened, and no terrorism link has been found - then really there is no basis whatsoever for accusing the Mujahedeen of being a terrorist organization."

The American military has kept the members confined to their camp since April 2003, when the organization signed an agreement with United States commanders. Their designation as "protected persons" reflects a final determination that they were not involved in acts of belligerence against the American military during the war, American officials said.

...

Some opponents of Iran, including dozens of members of Congress, have argued that the People's Mujahedeen serves as an effective source of pressure on the Iranian government and should be rewarded, not punished, by the United States.

...

But privately, senior American officials noted that it has been more than 25 years since members of the People's Mujahedeen were last believed to have been involved in attacks against the United States, and that most of its recent violent acts were directed at Iran.

...

Ollie North just made 30 grand talkin' to a bunch of tight assed white folk in my neck of the woods, who were only too happy to hear his blather.  They were giddy about it.  No Iran Contra, no death sqauds,  no missles for Iran, no dealing with terrorists...same crowd; same result.  Selective memories.  They don't care.  It's as simple as that.

Both said they were there as their own free will as citizens.  Both said they were unpaid.  Both said they had not cleared their comments with the government or even told the government about their comments.

Gambara meant that she found the MEK to be a highly organized and competent force that could, in her mind, help secure the Iranian border.

They figure bang for buck (He was even good at it way back when, before he got experience--even Fawn Hall testified to what delightful character he was....the 2 of them were the height of the infotainment world at the time, I recall. Beautiful white patriotic people, good hair, fruit salad on chest.)

I don't quite get your reference, tho, can you elaborate? zz9Is it that you are down on the electorate not being informed, is that the meme? Well, duh, has ever been so, mho; the majority vote on instinct about character and general agreement on political principles. I thank my lucky starts that at least most of our voters are literate, we're way ahead of many countries on that. Your average person cannot keep up with all the government scandals in any democracy.)

My last comment was more along the lines of thinking on how a pol going to a Communist workers party meeting should be handled, or the like. Granted, the terrorist listing is a problem, at the same time, we label groups terrorists to watch them, hopefully, not to indict members simply because they belong. You want to know where pols are going and what they are saying there, but do you want to make them feel like they are barred from going? What if they disagree about a designation of a political group? Don't you want to know about that rather than having them hiding it?

Hey, here's the real point: some others, I am sure, want war with Iran. Those who attended this may in fact be looking into how to avoid it. Stupid, sure, but at least it's not warmongering.

And I appreciate knowing that they were doing it, what they are up to, and who they were. That's why I asked Nick. I hope he's not the only one covering it--to me, that would be the worst.

about him is that he seemed to be nervous the whole time, even when answering questions.  He refused to go on camera with CNN and framed most of his answers in military jargon or book-ended with disclaimers.

My last comment was more along the lines of thinking on how a pol going to a Communist workers party meeting should be handled, or the like. Granted, the terrorist listing is a problem, at the same time, we label groups terrorists to watch them, hopefully, not to indict members simply because they belong. You want to know where pols are going and what they are saying there, but do you want to make them feel like they are barred from going? What if they disagree about a designation of a political group? Don't you want to know about that rather than having them hiding it?

'Terrorist' is not a party affiliation.  We label groups for all kinds of reasons.  I would hope that label of terrorist means that we want to imprison them, not watch them. Otherwise it becomes synonymous with malcontent, or civil belligerent.

...WRT how much juice the MEK folks have in terms of backdoor political support is whether these two get hammered by their higher for speaking out like this. To my mind, based on what I've heard so far, their conduct is entirely inappropriate -- the notion that a soldier should be out there shilling for a group that their government has designated as a terrorist group is utterly amazing to me. Politics and soldiering just don't mix well -- soldiers serve policy, they don't shape it. The fact that their judgement is so bad is to my mind grounds for a pretty serious look at their conduct as officers.

they actually do something criminal.

Here's the State Dept. definition:

http://www.answers.com/topic/u-s-state-department-list-of-foreign-terrorist-organizations

Scroll down to

Legal Ramifications of Designation.

Actually, I'm glad you brought it up, as it made me check it out. Seems like an argument could be made that an outsider American like a congressperson or ex-military attending a meeting could be said to be lending "material support or resources," say, if their appearances are worth money? As to non-citizen members themselves, it sounds like the law is not about prosecuting them before they have executed any act, but simply to be able to deny entry to the country or deport them even though they have not done anything criminal. But I'm no expert.

so if I read you correctly, you are against the FBI "watching" groups like the Ku Klux Klan? How is "intel" supposed to work if they don't "watch" or even infiltrate? Are you saying you don't like the idea of "intel," just believe in using open source info.? Of course it can be abused, we all know that.

(I'm sure I myself am on some lists and in some files from a misspent radical youth, but what my parents warned me about/threatened with never came to pass--there was no black mark on me and the only way my future got ruined is to become addicted to the news. :-) )

It is unlawful for a person in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to knowingly provide "material support or resources" to a designated FTO. (The term "material support or resources" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b) as "currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.)

Yeah, that's the money shot right there. The bolded sections are of interest - I'm surprised that "PR" isn't specifically mentioned. Whoever helped organize the conference must have offended in spades - financial services, lodging, communications equipment, facilities...

The Bush administration itself sponsored them, of course - unless you believe that every single person or entity that supplied lodgings or facilities or services either a) neglected to check out that a substantial Iranian group was on the watch list - in this climate of paranoia, or b) having checked them out, decided independently to take the risk and breach the law. No, little grey men with little grey briefcases visited them first.

This wasn't overlooked - no blind eye was turned. It was sponsored directly or indirectly. Welcome to your tax dollars at work. I get no points for stating the obvious, do I?

Nick - I know this has occurred to you already but the people that got their names on a separate little grey watchlist for attending are not supporters of these, the administration's new best friends, but folks like you. You're the threat. And you can take it to the bank that every single person who attended that conference has been tagged and flagged.

Just think of the correlation of military, industrial and political forces who have an investment in the outcome of America's situation vis a vis Iran. There's a lot at stake, stay aware of how close to the fire you just danced.

...but based on what I know of the history of this sort of thing, these two areas: "(The term "material support or resources' is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2339A(b) as 'currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, and other physical assets, except medicine or religious materials.)" in particular would be easy to end being involved in criminal activity.

Me, personally, I'd love to know how much debate there is going on in government over these guys and support for them. Some of the names that I see mentioned in this matter worry me, in the sense that I thought they'd have far better sense (particularly having seen the Chalibi debacle) than to get involved with a bunch of wingnut lightweights like the MEK. I very much hope that this is a low rent attempt at astroturfing that's going to fare much worse than the INC did.

Only the several-th of many-a-flaggings if what you say is true.  Hell, I heard today from a WaPo reporter that an Arab-language version of The Washington Post is the newspaper of record for Iraqi insurgents.

the notion that a soldier should be out there shilling for a group that their government has designated as a terrorist group is utterly amazing to me

This is one of many red flags on this.

These soldiers not active duty, but are both in the reserve component now.  I don't know if that makes any difference in your mind, I just wanted to put it out there.

GMTA

... an organization that knows it's designated a terrorist organization. And they're just going to blithely run the financial risk of floating a convention in a country that has them on what is essentially a "kidnap if you can" list... and then get on a plane and fly to New York and assume that all the other attendees will take the risk too. Why would anyone do this? What guarantees must they have had? Low level political cover - to cover them from falling afoul of DHS???

Could they be that stupid as to put important members at risk like that? Who on Earth would take that risk?

Straight from the top, baby. Straight to the White House. That's the only folks that can effectively muzzle DHS. That's the only invite I'd trust if I were them.

who appeared to be working on such a story.  One enterprising journalist kept asking targeted questions only about the debate in the Administration.

And hey, did you note the link between Livingstone -- a speaker at the event -- and Chalabi's group?

seems like the link was by live video feed... were there any Iranian MEK folks there? I can't seem to find much info on the actual composition of the convention - mainly expats?

i.e. Could they be that stupid

They have been known to do such things as set themselves on fire.

Some do think of them as very close to the Jim Jones Koolaid gang.

I would say just keep that as part of the equation.

Bush did in the past rule that the designation should stay intact when the Pentagon and outside neo-cons were lobbying heavily for it to be dropped. I remember following that closely on the thread on the bulletin Board. Vis-a-vis those in Iraq, he said no to dropping the designation, and I also recall that he separately said no to allowing them arms at another time.

I heard mostly American English being spoken in the hallways and outside, with some Farsi mixed in.  And the organizers were not about to tell me that Iranian MEK members were there, I'm certain of that.  I think most of the MEK -- the military-wing guys -- are either detained in Camp Ashraf in Iraq or have long since dropped their weapons as they aged.

but his ruling also designated several other organizations as front organizations for the MEK.

It's one of the things that caused me to pay less mind to his interpretations, generally. Looks to me like there's a lot of politics shaping what folks are saying, rather than honest cold-blooded assessments of national interests (or reality, for that matter). The whole notion that someone can get up with a straight face, having studied terrorism for as long as he has, and advocate support for these whack jobs as a means of furthering the interests of the United States drives me about right around the bend.

I look at the names on this list, and I see a bunch of guys with enough experience that they should damned well know better than to advocate support for these nutbars: http://www.nci.org/05nci/02/IPC-feb7.htm

It all makes me have unpleasant suspicions about how much money there is floating about in all this, and whether the folks involved stand to benefit from said course of action. I don't like casting aspersions without specific knowledge at people who put in that much time serving Uncle, but this one seems way over the top to me.

...for that situation in the US Army in any great detail, but it doesn't make sense to me that a National Guard officer should expect as a practical matter to identify themselves as an officer, make specific reference to their official duties in Iraq as a basis for supporting these guys, and expect to be untouchable from a free-speech perspective if what they advocate runs contrary to policy. (My understanding is that if a National Guard soldier is not currently on active duty [i.e., federalized], they have the same rights WRT free speech as a civilian [i.e., they are exempt from the provisions of the UCMJ that restrict their free speech], though I don't know what their home state military authorities might think/could do -- I suspect it varies from state to state, but I don't know that for sure) There's always a tension with freedom of speech and part-time soldiers, but when one starts associating one's military rank with advocating a course of political action, particularly one that flies against official policy, I start having a lot less time for an absolutist interpretation of freedom of speech -- wearing the uniform is about a lot more than a potentially self-interested (in the sense of unconcious bias) interpretation of what letter of the regs permits.

is not "is one paranoid"; it's "is one is sufficiently paranoid?"

;)

paranoia rarely serves a reporter or journalist well, as it presumes a certain train of thought, in which one is looking for "clues" to prove something one already suspects. That is a skill good for a "private eye" who is trying to "prove" a case (ideally, "public eyes", i.e., police department detectives, should not be working the same way, but we know they do)---

anyhow, a reporter, following his paranoia bliss, as it were, really risks missing the real story, or a bigger story, or a different story, developing right under his nose? It is best to keep eyes and mind wide open, open to a story going in any direction, not in a particular direction? Is like putting horse blinders on?

Many similarities in science fields?

- there's little paranoia in suggesting that if you go to a convention of people on a terrorist watch list - invited guests or not - you'll wind up watched. That's more a "duh" sort of observation.

Nor in my observation that the MEK conference stands at the confluence of some very heavy - and very dangerous and ruthless - interests. Scientists with completely open minds still handle known dangerous substances with caution.

Well this quote tells me all that I need to know about how much faith I should have in the good Captain's grasp of the situation:

"'We have more reason to trust them than some of the other groups we worked with,' Captain Gembara said. Specifically, she said she was mystified as to why coalition forces allowed the militia trained by Iran's revolutionary guard, known as the Badr Brigade, to remain intact while dismantling the MEK fighting unit. 'We let the Badr Brigade keep their uniforms, but we disarmed people willing to work with us,' she said."

If that's truly a mystery to her, given the vastly different levels of popular support they receive from, say, Iraqis and the likely consequences of trying to disarm the Badr Brigade, I don't think the good Captain should anticipate a call to attend Command and Staff College any time soon.

...would be that it has always seemed to me that one of the basic precepts of strategy is that one discourages the use of tactics that one is particularly vulnerable to, even when those tactics are used against one's opposition. It's enough in my book to demonstrate that they've used the tactics of terrorism to designate the organization, and further, it's in our interests to do so because of the threat the unfettered use of that tactic represents, no matter against whom.

As to the lack of legal basis for charges, I don't know the American body of law in these matters well enough to be at all certain, but I'd guess that if one doesn't involve the United States in launching attacks against a third party, the law may well not cover that situation (i.e., the lack of legal basis for charges isn't that they can't prove that MEK's used terrorism, it's that they can't prove that it involved anyone that the body of US law pertains to).

Additionally, I rather suspect that the standards of evidence required for designating an organization as terrorist and those required for the conviction of an individual are vastly different. Just because individuals get the benefit of the doubt to protect them against the greater power of the state in criminal proceedings doesn't mean that an organization of this nature, in this situation, should be afforded the same protections.

As to this bit: "But privately, senior American officials noted that it has been more than 25 years since members of the People's Mujahedeen were last believed to have been involved in attacks against the United States, and that most of its recent violent acts were directed at Iran."

Well, I guess that makes it okay, then. As long as it's been 25 years since they killed US citizens (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm), let's let bygones be bygones. Sorry, I don't work that way, and I don't think that anyone should. As far as I am concerned that one act, be it beyond the direct control of their leadership or not, makes them untouchable, no matter how useful they might be in the short term -- it's a travesty that they weren't hunted down in the first place; it's an outrage to consider dealing with them as a matter of political expediency.