Iranian resistance demands Clinton remove it from terrorist list

The Washington Times

July 19, 2011

By Marieke van der Vaart

Delay said to appease Tehran

Iranian opposition activists are accusing the State Department of flouting a federal court’s year-old ruling ordering the removal of the Iranian resistance from the U.S. list of international terrorist organizations.

Supporters of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) called on Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to comply with the court order as they rallied outside the State Department last week to mark the anniversary of the ruling.

The State Department says it is still reviewing evidence about the group.

“Until the [MEK] are removed from the list, the U.S. policy is appeasing the current Iranian regime,” said Mohamad Alafchi, an Iranian-American protester from New York.

“The Iranian people see that. That’s the only reason they’re on the list — to appease the Iranian regime.”
The State Department said it most recently received evidence from the MEK legal team in June.
“Were currently reviewing this new material,” said State Department spokesman Mark Toner. “So, no decision has been made.”

High-level support for removing the MEK from the terrorist list range from former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge from the Bush administration to Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

President Clinton placed the resistance on the terrorist list in 1997 to meet a key demand of the Iranian government when he was trying to open relations with Tehran. Before that, the resistance operated openly in the United States with a Washington office.

The MEK first petitioned to get off the terrorism list in 2009, but the State Department rejected its appeal in early 2010. A year ago on Saturday, the federal court of appeals in Washington overturned that decision, but the MEK has remained on the list ever since.

Resistance members are demanding that Mrs. Clinton either present more evidence to prove the group is engaging or has recently undertaken terrorist activities or drop the accusation entirely.

The current legal debate is only the latest controversy in the MEK’s turbulent relationship with the United States since its founding in 1963. Led by a group of leftist Iranian university students, it carried out several bombings, abductions and hijacking operations in the 1970s that resulted in the deaths of six Americans in Iran, according to the State Department.

After the Iranian revolution, the MEK emerged as a key opposition group to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his brutal theocratic regime. In the 1980s, MEK leaders fled into exile to Camp Ashraf, 50 miles from Iran inside neighboring Iraq.

Then-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein allowed the resistance to carry out attacks on Iran, his enemy in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

In 2003, the MEK signed an agreement with U.S.-led coalition forces to hand over all of its weapons. Bruce McColm, president of the Institute for Democratic Strategies, said that each of the 3,400 refugees was guaranteed security. The United States handed over the camp to Iraqi forces in 2009.

Since then, Iraqi security forces have raided the camp twice, killing between 41 and 46 Iranians and wounding about 800 more.

“[Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki] put in writing that he would protect the people at Camp Ashraf, according to the Geneva Convention,” Mr. McColm said. “Clearly, he hasn’t.”

MEK members said that until the United States takes the group off its terrorist-organizations list, the Iraqi government will continue to use that terrorist designation as a justification for violence.

“You have a situation that creates a humanitarian disaster,” Mr. McColm said.

In 2009, a European court ordered the European Union to remove the resistance from its own terrorist list, after finding the MEK had committed no acts of terrorism.

Empower Iranians vs. Tehran

National Review

July 19, 2011

Iran ’s most prominent opposition group should not be labeled a terrorist organization.

How should Western governments deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which Washington labels “the most active state sponsor of terrorism”?

Iranian aggression began in 1979, with the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and the holding of some of its staff as hostages for 444 days. Major subsequent attacks included two bombings in Beirut in 1983: at the U.S. embassy, killing 63, and at a U.S. Marine barracks, killing 241.

More recently, U.S. secretary of defense Leon Panetta stated, “We’re seeing more of those weapons going in [to Iraq] from Iran, and they’ve really hurt us.” Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added, “Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shiite groups, which are killing our troops."

American responses fall into two main camps: tough and diplomatic. The first sees Tehran as irredeemable and counsels a policy of confrontation and even force; it assumes that diplomacy, sanctions, computer viruses, and threats of military strikes have no chance of dissuading the mullahs from going nuclear, and it speaks of regime change or a military option against the Iranian bomb. The diplomatic camp, which generally controls U.S. policy, accepts the permanence of the Islamic Republic of Iran and expects Tehran to respond to diplomatic overtures.

A main battleground in this dispute is the question of whether or not the most prominent Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MeK), should remain on the U.S. government’s terrorism list. The tough camp generally views the MeK, founded in 1965, as a lever against the mullahs and (with a minority dissenting) wants it delisted. The diplomatic camp argues that delisting would anger the Iranian leaders, hampering efforts to improve relations, or (contradictorily) would limit Washington’s ability to reach out to the Iranian street.

The pro-MeK side argues that the MeK has a history of cooperating with Washington, providing valuable intelligence on Iranian nuclear plans and tactical intelligence about Iranian efforts in Iraq. Further, just as the MeK’s organizational and leadership skills helped bring down the shah in 1979, these skills can again facilitate regime change. The number of street protestors arrested for association with the MeK points to its role in demonstrations, as do slogans echoing MeK chants, e.g., calling Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei a “henchman,” Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “dictator,” and shouting “down with the principle of Velayat-e Faqih” (that a religious figure heads the government).

A number of fomer high-level American officials advocate delisting the MeK, including a national-security adviser (James Jones), three chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Hugh Shelton, Richard Myers, Peter Pace), a secretary of Homeland Security (Tom Ridge), an attorney general (Michael Mukasey), and even a State Department coordinator for counterterrorism (Dell Dailey). A chorus of prominent Republicans and Democrats favor delisting, including a bipartisan group of 80 members of Congress.

The anti-MeK faction does not address the benefits of delisting but argues that the U.S. government must continue the listing on the basis of allegations of terrorism. Their indictment notes that the MeK killed six Americans in the 1970s. Whether or not these allegations are accurate, a terrorist incident must have occurred within two years to continue with the terrorist-group designation — rendering discussion of the 1970s completely irrelevant.

What about the past two years? The pro-MeK side points to three main U.S. terrorist databases — the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI), the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), and the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS) — and notes that in each one the MeK comes up clean since 2006 or earlier.

What about capabilities and intentions? The State Department’s 2006 “Country Reports on Terrorism” accused the MeK of maintaining “capacity and will” for terrorist acts but the 2007, 2008, and 2009 reports omitted this statement. Britain’s Court of Appeal derided proscription of the MeK as “perverse,” and the group was removed from the U.K. terrorist list in 2008. The European Union cleared the group of terrorism charges in 2009. The French judiciary dismissed all terrorism-related allegations against the group in May 2011.

In brief, the argument to maintain the MeK’s terrorist designation is baseless.

Following a court-mandated review of the MeK’s terrorist designation, the secretary of state must soon decide whether to maintain this listing. With one simple signature, the Obama administration can help empower Iranians to seize control over their destiny — and perhaps end the mullahs’ mad nuclear dash.

— Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. © 2011 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Prominent Former U.S. Officials Call for Expeditious Review of MEK Status and Its Removal from State Department's Watch List, Urge U.S. Protection for Camp Ashraf

PRNewswire

July 18, 2011

 

WASHINGTON, July 18, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is being released by the Iranian American Community of Northern California:

In a symposium, coinciding with the anniversary of the ruling by a U.S. Federal Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the main Iranian opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/MEK), former senior U.S. government officials called on the Department of State to expeditiously complete its review and remove the group from its list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO).

The bi-partisan panel expressed dismay over the administration's failure to resolve the humanitarian crisis in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, home to 3,400 members of the MEK and their families.

General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1997-2001), General James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps (2006-2010); Governor Howard Dean, former Chair, Democratic National Committee; Louis Freeh, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Togo West Jr., former Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania (2003-2011); Prof. Sarah Sewall, Director of Mass Atrocity Response Operations, Harvard Kennedy School of Government; and Professor Anita McBride, Chief of Staff to First Lady Laura Bush (2005-2009) spoke at the conference, moderated by Ambassador Mitchell Reiss, Director of Policy Planning of the U.S. Department of State (2003-2005).

"Whatever our political affiliation, it has no bearing today, as we are unified shoulder to shoulder in our effort to help right this wrong, to de-list the MEK and to help the people at Camp Ashraf," Ambassador Reiss said in his opening remarks.

General Shelton remarked, "The State Department has failed to provide any, either classified or declassified, information that states why the MEK should have been placed on the list in the first place. They also last week, exceeded the 180 days that they had been given by the Court to produce evidence to substantiate their reasons why the MEK is on the list. I say, Wake up, State Department, take the MEK off the FTO list today."

"We should not forget that the MEK is the best organized, it is the most formidable opposition to the current Iranian regime. It has challenged the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism for the past 32 years," he added.

Governor Dean described the April 8, 2011 massacre at Camp Ashraf by the Iraqi forces as a war crime. "What looms in front of us is a far bigger war crime, and that is the massacre of the remainder of the 3,400 residents. And it is very clear there can be no assurance by the Iraqi Government that would have the credibility that we could rely on or that the people of Ashraf could rely on."

Referring to the recent heightened campaign by the Iranian regime and its U.S.-based lobby to overshadow the growing consensus in the U.S. Congress and among policy and political circles on the need to immediately de-list the MEK, Governor Dean stated, "These people are not terrorists. You see in the paper the pro-Iranian lobbyist saying, well, they're a cult and they're this and they're that. Well, first of all, I don't believe that's true, but even if it were, does that justify the murder in cold blood of people who are under American protection? I think not. Let's stop the name calling and the foolishness and look at this for what it is. This is genocide, and we will not have it."

Director Freeh emphasized, "The MEK… is not a terrorist group. Do you think for a moment that the likes of the people on this panel would be here if there was even a remote possibility that this organization was a Foreign Terrorist Organization? By the way, we all keep contacts with our associations and our agencies. No one has come up to me or any of my colleagues from their current agencies and said, you know I don't think you should be doing this; this is a bad organization; this is an organization that has terrorists' intent or capability. That's not happened."

Referring to the year-long use of delay tactics by the State Department in finalizing its review of the MEK status as "an absolute legal disgrace," the former FBI Director said. "It's a slow walk to nowhere, intended to frustrate the litigants and defy the order of the Court."

"The fact that they have maintained this organization improperly without legal or factual basis on the Foreign Terrorist Organization List has given the Iranian regime, through its proxy in Baghdad, a license to kill… So the indecision here is not just an indecision. It is a facilitation of this regime through its proxy in Baghdad, unfortunately, murdering and killing….," he added.

Former Secretary of Veterans Affairs Togo West Jr., said that he expected the Secretary of State "to do the right thing with respect to the MEK listing and to de-list the MEK. That is not our question. Our question is when? How long? How much more information needs to be reviewed? The State Department has not even responded to the Court of Appeals' ruling of last year just yet."

In regards to the dire humanitarian crisis imposed on Camp Ashraf, Mr. West stated, "I am less than clear on what our Government is going to do about Camp Ashraf, and it troubles me greatly… I agree with what has been said about the disaster that arises if they are forced to relocate inside Iraq. I agree that the United States continues to have a responsibility for that, and I urge the United States to step up to that responsibility."

Dr. Sewall described the Iraqi army's actions in Camp Ashraf on April 8 as "mass atrocity" and "slaughter of unarmed civilians" and warned, "We are at risk of an extraordinary humanitarian crisis by the end of this year unless we are able to rally the international community to step up to the plate. And here, I do think the United States bears a special responsibility. I do not think that we can, regardless of the legality, hide behind [Iraqi] sovereignty to escape the moral obligation that comes from the history that we have had with Camp Ashraf."

General James Conway, former Commandant of the Marine Corps, began his remarks about the MEK and Camp Ashraf based on his "own observations and experiences" as "the only member of the panel that has had physical responsibilities for their security." "As I dispatched some of my commanders to sit down and talk with these folks, as I visited myself, these people are not terrorists. They're no more terrorists than the people here on the panel... We asked those people to disarm. They're the only people in Iraq who are disarmed. And yet, these people complied willingly and have done what we asked them to do," he said.

"Now, it seems to me the oppressive events [at Camp Ashraf] are such today that we have got to reconsider our national posture towards the people at Camp Ashraf and the MEK in general… And I've got to tell you what happened recently should be a national outrage and, unfortunately, I don't see it," Gen. Conway added.

Gov. Rendell  said, "I will send a letter to President Obama and to Secretary Clinton telling them, one, that the United States is morally bound to do everything we can to ensure the safety of the residents of Camp Ashraf and, two, if, Director Freeh and General Shelton and General Conway and Governor Dean and the rest of these great panelists say that MEK is a force for good and the best hope we have for a third option in Iran, then, good Lord, take them off the terrorist list. Take them off the terrorist list."

"The fight being waged to de-list the MEK, the fight to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf, this fight is not their fight alone. It's not your fight alone. It is America's fight as well. Both our interests and our values are inextricably linked in this case. To the residents of Camp Ashraf, we stand with you, we will continue to work to change U.S. policy, and we will not rest until we succeed," Ambassador Reiss said in his concluding remarks.

SOURCE Iranian American Community of Northern California

US Policy Helping Iran Regime

The Atlanta Journal Constitution

Monday, July 18, 2011

by Bob Barr

Over the last several months, peoples in several Middle Eastern countries have taken to the streets in protest of oppressive governments — reflecting a profound desire for reform and an end to corruption. Many politicians in Washington have hailed these protests and openly encouraged government leaders in the countries affected to take meaningful steps to transition to democratic rule. Except for Iran.

When the Iranian people rose up in June 2009 and began a wide and continuing protest against the Ahmadinejad administration and its religious leaders, all we heard from Washington was a modest degree of lip-service. Meanwhile, scores of Iranian youths wearing green, the color of the opposition, were killed, tortured, or imprisoned.

Iran remains the elephant in the room in terms of U.S. foreign policy. While sanctions have been placed on the country and other punitive diplomatic initiatives imposed, there has been no serious focus on or support for the Achilles Heel of the regime in Tehran — the Iranian people and their organized opposition.

In fact, the past three U.S. administrations have seriously and expressly weakened the ability of opposition forces in Iran to effect positive change. All three have done this by abusing U.S. law that permits the State Department to designate entities as “terrorist organizations” and thereby deny them recognition and access to resources. This is precisely what the federal government for 14 years has done to the single most important and best organized Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK).

The MEK is not in fact a terrorist organization, but was so designated in 1997 by the Clinton Administration to curry favor with Tehran. This ill-placed “goodwill gesture” effectively destroyed the ability of MEK to develop support and raise resources in the U.S. and elsewhere. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama continued the policy, despite its obvious lack of success at producing any positive changes to the repressive regime in Iran. In fact, a strong argument can be made that continuing to placate Tehran by designating the most important opposition group in the country as a “terrorist organization,” has actually strengthened the regime.

Ramifications of this policy extend also to military and national security concerns. Iran’s continued development of nuclear and missile capabilities very well could be slowed by strengthening, rather than weakening, civil opposition groups. Groups like the MEK are more concerned with increasing freedom within Iran than with saber-rattling and wasting resources on dangerous nuclear weaponry.

To be sure, the MEK is controversial, and other Iranian opposition groups, including those associated with the former Shah, despise it. But being “controversial” is hardly a basis on which to black ball a legitimate political entity whose goals – freeing the Iranian people from the grip of religious zealots – coincide with official U.S. policy.

This view is shared by many leading military, intelligence and diplomatic experts in the United States. Earlier this year, three former Bush Administration officials – Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, Frances Fragos Townsend – along with Rudy Giuliani, wrote in the National Review that “MEK is not a terrorist group.” They noted also that the organization had, in fact, proved to be an asset to the United States by “provid[ing] valuable intelligence to the United States on Iranian nuclear plans.” John Bolton, Bush’s former UN Ambassador, concurs in this assessment.

Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle also see the value in helping rather than hurting the MEK — 83 members of the House have co-sponsored a resolution encouraging the State Department to delist the organization.

Ironically, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made statements publicly supporting “all Iranians who wish for a government that respects their human rights, their dignity and their freedom.” But the gulf between her public statements and official administration policy continuing the unfair and counterproductive punishing of MEK, belies Washington commitment to “human rights, dignity and freedom” in Iran.

by Bob Barr — The Barr Code

Iranian opposition group pushes to be removed from U.S. terror list

CNN

Friday, July 15, 2011

By Jamie Crawford, CNN National Security Producer

Backers of an Iranian opposition group rallied outside the U.S. State Department on Friday demanding it be removed quickly from the U.S. list of terrorist organizations, pointing to a court ruling issued a year ago that found its rights had been violated.

More than 100 supporters of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, also known as MEK, congregated in northwest Washington to accuse the State Department of dragging its feet in deciding whether to keep them on the list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations."

Specifically, they alluded to a ruling issued last July by a federal appeals court in Washington. The three-judge panel found that Mujahedeen-e-Khalq's right to due process had been violated, because the State Department had not allowed the group to contest certain information used to justify its designation on the terror list.

"President Obama keeps saying he is with the Iranian people, he needs to show it right now," Shirin Nariman, a supporter of the group, told CNN at Friday's rally. "If he is really with the Iranian people, he needs to allow the main opposition group" to work inside Iran and around the world to push for the ouster of Iran's ruling hard-line government.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Friday that the U.S. agency is currently "undertaking a review" as to whether Mujahedeen-e-Khalq should be on the terror list. The final decision, as to whether the designation will be kept or rescinded, will be made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"Now, my understanding is that the MEK Council provided additional information related to this review on June 6th," said Toner. "And we're currently reviewing this new material."

Mujahedeen-e-Khalq was put on the list by President Bill Clinton's administration in 1997 as part of an effort to engage what was thought to be a more liberal leadership than the current powers in Iran, including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The group has many supporters in Congress, and several former high-ranking government officials have supported its removal from the terror list.

The group maintains a presence at a location called Camp Ashraf in northern Iraq, where more than 30 people were killed and several hundred injured in clashes with Iraqi security forces earlier this year.

The group was offered sanctuary in Iraq under former President Saddam Hussein, after his government waged an 8-year war with Iran. It was then protected by American forces after Hussein's regime fell. Camp Ashraf's status has become a source of international friction since it was transferred again to Iraqi government jurisdiction.

Iranians protest US ban on opposition group

Iran Focus

Friday, 15 July 2011

Washington, DC, Jul. 15 – Hundreds of Iranians rallied Friday outside the US State Department on the anniversary of a US Federal Court of Appeals ruling in favour of the main Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), urging the Obama Administration to revoke the group’s status as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.

A spokesperson for the demonstrators said they were protesting against the Administration’s delay in announcing a decision on the MEK’s status and to demand the group’s de-listing.

The State Department recently missed the statute-mandated 180-day deadline for a decision.

Iranians who attended the protest included representatives of Iranian-American communities, subjected to the adverse consequences of the MEK’s designation, including those with relatives in the MEK’s main base, Camp Ashraf, Iraq, and in Iran.

Over the past few weeks, senior Iranian officials, including commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) have been urging the US to maintain the MEK on its terrorist list.

On 16 July 2010 the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled unanimously that the Secretary of State had erred in refusing to grant a petition by the MEK to have its terrorist status revoked. The Washington Post reported that the judgement had strongly suggested that the State Department should remove the group from the FTO list.

In addition to a growing roster of former senior US government officials, some 130 Members of Congress have endorsed resolutions calling for the removal of the MEK from the FTO list, emphasising that any decision to the contrary would violate the statutory criteria.

At one point in the colourful rally, children held birds symbolising 36 residents of Camp Ashraf who were killed by Iraqi armed forces in an attack on the camp in April.

Iranian opposition “executed” in America before trial

United Press International

Thursday, July 14, 2011

By JAVAD MIRABDAL and JAVID SHENASI

SAN FRANCISCO, July 14 (UPI) -- Almost exactly a year ago, on July 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the U.S. State Department to re-evaluate the "terrorist" designation of Iran's main dissident movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq.

After an inexplicable yearlong delay, the State Department continues to drag its feet even as the biggest state sponsor of terrorism -- the Iranian regime -- sardonically uses the label as a pretext to kill MEK members and supporters in Iran and through its proxies in Iraq.

Many are left wondering why Washington is so conciliatory toward Tehran's demands despite the regime's rogue behavior.

The inclusion of the MEK -- an organization dedicated to establishing a democratic Iran -- on the U.S. terrorist list has a murky history and even more intriguing are the motivations.

In essence, terrorism is the last thing it's about. What it is and has always been about is placating the tyrannical regime in Iran.

"Iranian officials for years have made suppression of the MEK a priority in negotiations with Western governments, according to several diplomats who were involved in those talks," according to The Wall Street Journal.

In 1997, Tehran got its wish. Enamored with the (spurious) "reformist" streak in Tehran, and in order to instigate a thaw in bilateral relations, Washington took several unilateral steps, most important among them restricting the MEK.

"The inclusion of the [MEK on the terror list] was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran," a senior U.S. official told the Los Angeles Times at the time. In 2002, another official described it as "'a signal' of the U.S.'s desire for rapprochement with Tehran's reformists."

Tehran interpreted the MEK's listing as a sign of American weakness, and in the ensuing months and years, it intensified its nuclear activities and terrorism.

Still, as several former high-ranking officials have said, the MEK was kept on the list even "during the administration of George W. Bush, in part out of fear that Iran would provide (improvised explosive devices) to our enemies in Iraq, which of course the mullahs are doing anyway."

Kowtowing to pressure from Tehran, in 2001 and 2002, Britain and the European Union followed suit both blacklisting the MEK but they were unable to produce a shred of evidence to actually back up the allegations against the organization.

Predictably, both the United Kingdom and the European Union were forced to delist the MEK in 2008 and 2009, respectively, following successive court rulings.

In 2007, U.K. courts concluded that the designation of the MEK was "perverse," a highly unconventional criticism of a government decision. And, the country's highest court noted that after seeing all the evidence, both open and classified, that it "reinforced" its view that the MEK is not a terrorist group.

Indeed, the MEK has explicitly and repeatedly rejected all forms of violence as far back as a decade ago. Its members in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, are unarmed civilians and are considered "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention. All members were investigated and interviewed thoroughly by agencies like the FBI and the State Department after the 2003 Iraq war during a 16-month investigation. According to the U.S. government itself, none had violated U.S. laws.

The July 16, 2010, appeals court decision said that the MEK's due process rights were violated and questioned the State Department's flawed evidence. The decision "strongly" suggested that the designation should be revoked.

The clock continues to tick on an issue that is not simply a political one, although its implications are strategically important. As seconds go by, the State Department's deliberate delay in implementing the court ruling helps raise the specter of another massacre against thousands of lives in Ashraf.

The pro-Tehran government in Iraq is using the label as a pretext to commit abhorrent crimes against humanity in Camp Ashraf. As recently as April, 36 residents in Ashraf were killed in a massacre that provoked international outrage and calls for an impartial investigation.

The U.S. government, which bears responsibility for the residents under international law, must spearhead an investigation and reassume protection of Ashraf.

A growing roster of prominent senior U.S. officials who have served in the administrations of presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton have also called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to delist the MEK.

At a conference on Capitol Hill in March, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey said, "There are many reasons, including MEK's close cooperation with the United States in exposing Iran's nuclear program for removing MEK from that list."

Nearly 100 members of Congress have also co-sponsored a resolution, calling on Secretary Clinton to revoke the MEK's designation -- and the list is growing, including U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who heads the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

In March, during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., told Secretary Clinton: "I asked for a classified briefing of the relevant subcommittee, the State Department refused because of the litigation, the intelligence community provided it. And frankly, after that classified briefing, I thought that perhaps there was nothing done this century that justified the MEK being on that list and it provided substantial ammunition to the belief that the MEK is on the list as part of the peace offering or concession to Tehran."

The appeals court judges reflected the same sentiment in their July 16 ruling. They observed that the State Department evidence "included in the secretary's analysis on their face express reservations about the accuracy of the information contained therein."

Former CIA Director James Woolsey made an apt observation when describing the July 16 court opinion, "What the Department of State has done is what the red queen does in 'Alice in Wonderland' … execution first, then trial."

In reviewing the MEK's designation, Secretary Clinton should base her decision on facts and evidence rather than on political considerations, either intended to mollify the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, or resulting from a lack of political fortitude to stand firm in the face of the Iranian regime's intransigence.

(Javad Mirabdal is a transportation engineer and a human rights activist. Javid Shenasi is an expert in Natural Pollution Discharge Elimination, working with California Department of Transportation.)