Investigate the human rights abuses inside Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, NCRI, Rajavi cult) camp Ashraf (Report from Camp Ashraf – March 2011)
Why are the human rights abuses taking place
inside Mojahedin Khalq (Rajavi cult) Camp Ashraf
not being investigated?
... One young woman in a white ‘Chanel’ headscarf weeps for her lost father. He has been, she explains, in Camp Ashraf for23 years. He was captured as a POW in Iraq 25 years ago and after two years was among those transferred to the MEK camp where he has been ever since. She hasn’t seen him for 25 years. She wants him to come home with her, and, she says, she will not leave until she can take him out of the camp. Still the families wait and call out to their long-lost relatives in the hope of reaching them. Although the gates of Camp Ashraf are now open, there is still no access to the people held hostage inside. The MEK have simply withdrawn into a smaller circle ...
Since February 2010, the families of Mojahedin-e Khalq members inside Camp Ashraf have been encamped at the front gate of the camp demanding to have news and visits with their long-lost relatives. From elderly parents to the children, grandchildren, sisters and brothers of MEK members, all are seeking information about their relatives. They call out from the front of the camp hoping their voices will be heard by the people inside. They stand on dirt embankments around the perimeter of the camp to call out to their relatives.
The Mojahedin response has been sadly predictable and in line with the cult nature of the group. From the outset they have refused all contact between the members in the camp with the outside world, not only with the families but also human rights agencies and other independent observers.
As the MEK leaders withdrew the rank and file into the centre of the camp so they would not be within sight or sound of the families, the families used loudspeakers to try to project their voices to reach their relatives.
They played music and even the sound of children’s laughter to penetrate the stultifying atmosphere inside Camp Ashraf. In response, the MEK brought its own loudspeakers to prevent the families’ voices reaching the inner parts of the camp. After a while excruciating parasite noise began to be broadcast from American supplied equipment, harmful to all who are exposed to it.
The families have no choice but to sit it out and wait and hope. Where at first the MEK were sent to the gate to shout insults and reject the families, they are no longer brought in view of the outside world. The MEK now are made to shout ‘Death to Khamenei’, ‘Death to the Dictator’ from inside the depths of the camp and their voices projected by loudspeaker to the outside of the camp where the families wait and weep for their lost ones.
One young woman in a white ‘Chanel’ headscarf weeps for her lost father. He has been, she explains, in Camp Ashraf for23 years. He was captured as a POW in Iraq 25 years ago and after two years was among those transferred to the MEK camp where he has been ever since. She hasn’t seen him for 25 years. She wants him to come home with her, and, she says, she will not leave until she can take him out of the camp.
Still the families wait and call out to their long-lost relatives in the hope of reaching them. Although the gates of Camp Ashraf are now open, there is still no access to the people held hostage inside. The MEK have simply withdrawn into a smaller circle, surrounding themselves with barbed wire, embankments and barriers. They have stationed trucks to hide their broadcasting equipment, and covered others with sacking to pretend they do not exist. But worst of all is that now, Massoud Rajavi’s special suppressive forces are patrolling the perimeter of the camp and aggressively engaging with and attacking the families, swearing at them, throwing stones and even catapulting metal missiles at the defenceless families. Several of them have been hit and hurt by these missiles.
The MEK’s backers in Europe and North America continue to raise false alarms and problems concerning the camp and to introduce false information in their various parliaments. In response, government officials have continued to put the record straight. The MEK are not protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The UNHCR has not granted them refugee status in Iraq. The camp continues to be monitored weekly by UNAMI with a separate American presence.
The Iraqi authorities are ensuring that the camp is safe and secure and that the MEK inside receive regular supplies of food, medicine and other essentials, while preventing non-essentials such as barbed wire and weapons being imported into the camp.
But what no one can explain, whether MEK backers or government officials, is why these families are not being helped and why the MEK continue to be allowed to hold 3500 people hostage inside the camp with no recourse to help or rescue. Why are the human rights abuses taking place inside Camp Ashraf not being investigated?
Wondering at those Americans who stand under the flag of Mojahedin Khalq (MKO, MEK, NCRI, Rajavi cult) only to LOBBY for the murderers of their servicemen
... Massoud Rajavi was on the stage and while he had his hands on his waist he began a war cry against the USA, and in his admiration for Osama Ben Laden and his organization, Al Qaeda, he said, ”This was fanatical Islam which trembled and shacked the basis of US Imperialism and they destroyed the twin towers which were the symbol of their power, and successfully reduced it to rubble through their successful mission”. Then he (Massoud Rajavi) with a smile on his face continued his war cry and said, ”What will happen to the USA if revolutionary Islam with our Ideology and Maryam’s leadership comes to power, then this paper tiger (the USA) will be destroyed as a whole.” ...
This documentary takes us beneath the surface of acts of terror against Iran and shows how Iranians have been targeted by various terrorist groups, some of which enjoying the support of human right organizations.
Did Giuliani And Co. Provide ‘Material Support’ To Terrorist Group?
(Mojahedin Khalq, MKO, MEK, NCRI, Rajavi cult)
... The group’s hatred of the Islamic Republic led it to ally with Saddam Hussein, and it fought on the Iraqi side of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Following the Gulf War, “the group reportedly assisted in the Iraqi Republican Guard’s bloody crackdown on Iraqi Shia and Kurds who rose up against Saddam Hussein’s regime; press reports cite MEK leader Maryam Rajavi encouraging MEK members to ‘take the Kurds under your tanks,’” according to the State Department. The group’s alliance with Saddam made it widely despised among the Iranian community at large, as it remains to this day ...
The Washington Post reports that four prominent Republicans — former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani, former Bush administration homeland security adviser Fran Townsend, former homeland security secretary Tom Ridge, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey — told “a forum of cheering Iranian exiles” in Paris “that President Obama’s policy toward Iran amounts to futile appeasement that will never persuade Tehran to abandon its nuclear projects.”
The four “demanded that Obama instead take the controversial Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) opposition group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and incorporate it into efforts to overturn the mullah-led government in Tehran”:
“Appeasement of dictators leads to war, destruction and the loss of human lives,” Giuliani declared. “For your organization to be described as a terrorist organization is just really a disgrace.”
The four GOP figures appeared at a rally organized by the French Committee for a Democratic Iran, a pressure group formed to support MEK.
It should be obvious that describing Obama’s Iran policy — which includes a new set of both multilateral and unilateral sanctions — as “appeasement” indicates either a misunderstanding of the policy, or a misunderstanding of what constitutes “appeasement.” (Though, to be fair, conservatives tend to use “appeasement” loosely as a general term for “foreign policy I don’t like.”)
As for the MEK, after the GOP’s victory in November I predicted that we’d be seeing more efforts by pro-war conservatives to set the group up as an Iranian version of Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. Very much like the INC, the MEK has no genuine base of support in their own country — its real base is found among American neoconservatives.
Founded as a militant group with an ideology combining aspects of Islam and Marxism, the group is frequently described today as “cult-like,” built around a personality cult centered on leader Maryam Rajavi. [...]
The group’s hatred of the Islamic Republic led it to ally with Saddam Hussein, and it fought on the Iraqi side of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Following the Gulf War, “the group reportedly assisted in the Iraqi Republican Guard’s bloody crackdown on Iraqi Shia and Kurds who rose up against Saddam Hussein’s regime; press reports cite MEK leader Maryam Rajavi encouraging MEK members to ‘take the Kurds under your tanks,’” according to the State Department. The group’s alliance with Saddam made it widely despised among the Iranian community at large, as it remains to this day
Luban notes that the MEK’s “militant anti-Iranian stance has made it a favorite of hawks in Washington”:
The MEK’s neoconservative supporters continue to push for it to be taken off the State Department terror list, which it has been on since 1997. One of the many ironies about the MEK is that, for all the groundless allegations that hawks made about Saddam Hussein’s connections to terrorist groups during the runup to the Iraq war, the terrorist group with perhaps the closest links to Saddam was one that the hawks themselves supported.
Human Rights Watch also released a report in 2005 detailing the group’s record of subjecting dissident members to torture and solitary confinement.
Leaving aside the spectacle of prominent conservatives going abroad to criticize the administration’s foreign policy on behalf of an Iranian exile group largely despised by Iranians, there’s actually a real question here of whether Giuliani, Townsend, Ridge, and Mukasey have violated U.S. law in regard to “material support” for terrorism.
In a case that weighed free speech against national security, the court voted 6 to 3 to uphold a federal law banning “material support” to foreign terrorist organizations. That ban holds, the court said, even when the offerings are not money or weapons but things such as “expert advice or assistance” or “training” intended to instruct in international law or appeals to the United Nations.