Congressional Record
112th Congress (2011-2012)
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
Print Subscribe Share/Save
Congressional Record article 13 of 33 Printer Friendly Display – 12,593 bytes.[Help]
HONORING MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI — (Extensions of Remarks – March 29, 2012)
[Page: E503] GPO’s PDF
—
SPEECH OF
HON. MARIO DIAZ-BALART
OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2012
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I have great admiration for Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He is a courageous American leader who speaks with authority when it conies to the safety and security of the American people. On Saturday, March 24, 2012, on the occasion of the Iranian New Year, Nowrouz, Mayor Giuliani addressed a conference in Paris attended by nearly 1,000 people to discuss ways to counter the Iranian threat and standing with the people of Iran and their organized opposition.
His remarks are crucial since they were preceded just a few days before by a campaign by unidentified U.S. Government officials who wanted to silence him and other senior former U.S. Government officials who had called for regime change in Iran and support for the Iranian opposition. Mayor Giuliani was flanked by other former officials including Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Homeland Security
[Page: E504] GPO’s PDF
Secretary Tom Ridge, Ambassador John Bolton, Congressman Patrick Kennedy and others who called for the removal of the main Iranian opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
They also called for the U.S. Government to uphold its written commitment to the safety and security of the 3,400 Iranian dissident residents of Camp Ashraf as well as those who relocated to Camp Liberty.
Mayor Giuliani and his colleagues have extensive support in the U.S. Congress who commend their work. In this respect, nearly 100 of my colleagues have co-sponsored H. Res. 60, which calls on the Secretary of State to remove the MEK from the terrorist list. I am pleased to submit Mayor Giuliani’s remarks in Paris.
Mayor Rudy Giuliani: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. I want to begin by joining Madam Rajavi in expressing my deep sympathy and empathy and prayers for the families of the victims of excessive fundamentalism here in France. As mayor of a city that suffered that fate over ten years ago, I think I have particular understanding of how much pain and suffering that causes. I also want to join Madam Rajavi in her pointing out that this is an example not of Islam or the Islamic religion, but an example of how any religion or ideology can be taken to excess by people who misuse it. And I think the people of France understand that as the people of America did.
I also want to assure you, speaking for myself and so many of my colleagues, that anonymous, cowardly sources in the State Department or elsewhere who unknowingly are doing the bidding of the mullahs don’t frighten me, won’t stop me, won’t stop any of us, ever.
It would seem–thank you. It would seem to me that the resources of my government could be better used to try to figure out who these anonymous leakers are in the State Department who seem to be doing the bidding of the Iranian regime, rather than fighting for freedom and democracy and decency in Iran. But if anything, this will just make us more determined. I also want to congratulate all my colleagues who have shown great courage in dealing with this, as I knew they would. And really, it doesn’t take a great deal of courage. It just takes doing the right thing. We believe we are right. We are aware of the pressures. And I’m going to tell you what I believe and I’m also going to tell you how I think this can be easily resolved in sort of a common sense, sensible way.
First of all, I believe that, I believe that Camp Liberty is an inhumane and indecent place. I don’t believe it’s a detention facility at all. I think it’s a prison camp. The amount of space that’s being given to the people there is a couple of feet per person, well below the minimums for American prisons, significantly below what’s given to accused terrorists at Guantanamo, for example. I believe it’s a place in which there are prison guards and police that menace the people who now are at Camp Liberty.
I believe that they are in danger, the people of Camp Liberty are in danger of possibly having the same fate as the people at Ashraf , of whom some 47 have already been killed, 11 in 2009 and 36 in 2011. And I believe that there is no facility in Camp Liberty for processing these people the way you would process people if, in fact, in good faith, America and the UN were living up to their promise.
Now, I believe all these things in my heart. I’ve seen proof of it. I’ve seen indications of it. I’ve seen evidence of it. But I guess I could be wrong. Here’s the way to find out. If the anonymous sources in the State Department are so convinced of the validity of what they’re saying, and I say this with greatest respect also for the Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, for whom I have a great deal of respect; send me there. Let me go there. Let me see it with my own eyes. I have eyes. I have a brain. I have senses. If you bring me back, you can put me under oath and ask me to tell the truth about it. I can bring a camera with me so that we don’t have to dispute whether I’m right or you’re right. Let’s see how much space they have. Let’s see how decent or indecent these facilities are. Let’s see if there are provisions being made to relocate people or there are not. In other words, let’s see if my country that I love, the United States of America, is living up to the promise that it made to the people of Ashraf to protect them and to treat them decently or it’s breaking that promise. I promise you, I will tell the truth about it if you let me go there.
And if you don’t want to send me, you can send Judge Mukasey or Tom Ridge or Patrick Kennedy or four or five of us and then you can put us before Congress and put us under oath and I assure you, we’ll tell the truth about it and we’ll get this resolved. Are we being misled or is the State Department breaking its promise to the people of Ashraf ? Let’s get an answer to it once and for all.
I hope they take us seriously. And I hope they want to get this resolved because this is truly a humanitarian issue of gravest importance, above and beyond all of the other political issues. Twelve hundred people have now been moved to Camp Liberty. We are aware of what happened to the people in Camp Ashraf in 2009 and in 2011, where Maliki, doing the bidding of the Iranian government, had them killed. We have grave fears that somehow that may happen again and we have grave fears that this is not a decent, legitimate attempt to relocate people.
This has to be resolved. This is beyond all of the other issues that are involved. Delisting, how to deal with the Iranian regime. This is just a matter of common decency and I am so disappointed. I can’t express to you how disappointed I am in my government and the way they’ve acted here. They made a promise to protect these people and they are unwilling to live up to that promise. And we are going to fight very, very hard to make sure that they do.
The second point that I would like to make is that I fear that this is all part of a dangerous and misguided approach that will yield many, many more problems beyond this. I believe that my president and my country, at least with regard to this policy, has a serious and dangerous misconception that you can negotiate with the mullahs, that you can negotiate with Ahmadinejad.
I believe the President still is attempting to do that. He’s still writing letters to the Ayatollah. I can’t imagine what’s in those letters. I don’t even know how you begin a letter to an ayatollah. Dear Ayatollah, your eminence, your holiness, or I don’t know what you call them, but in any event, President–Somehow I don’t think letters are going to persuade him to become humane, decent, to embrace democracy, and to stop trying to develop nuclear weapons. I have a feeling that the only thing that will stop him and the only thing that will stop Ahmadinejad is if they see strength, if they see power, if they see determination, if they see an America that is willing to support the people that want to overthrow the regime of Iran.
We are for–America is and has participated and has been for regime change in Egypt, regime change in Libya. We now talk of regime change in Syria. All of which is fine, particularly Syria. But much worse than all three combined is the regime in Iran for the last 20 or 30 years. So how can we possibly be for regime change in these three places, but we’re not for regime change in the worst actor in the region, the biggest supporter of state sponsored terrorism in the world, and the biggest opponent of the United States of America, at least since 1980? So, how about we now are for regime change in Iran and we side with the people like you who hopefully can bring that about?
There are people that say that you have no influence inside Iran. The same anonymous sources from the State Department then say that you’re responsible for identifying Iranian nuclear scientists that the Israeli agents are killing. Well, you deny that. The Israelis deny that. But somehow I can’t figure out if these anonymous sources are talking to each other. Either you have no influence inside Iran, in which case you couldn’t possibly be responsible for fingering and identifying these scientists, or you have a lot of influence inside Iran, which is something, you know, we should take into consideration. So, these sources are so contradictory that I don’t know how anybody can rely on them.
Here’s what I know. You, Madam Rajavi and all of you, stand for democracy. That’s an American value. You stand for freedom of religion. That’s an American value. You stand for a secular government. That’s an American value. You stand for due process of law. You stand for a non-nuclear Iran. You stand for the rights of women. And these place that hates you the most is the Iranian government. The EU has delisted you. The United Kingdom has delisted you. I can’t find any other place that lists you as a terrorist group but two. Iran, and they are executing people in Iran who they believe are members of the PMOI. One is up for execution right now. That shows how dangerous Iran thinks you are. I kind of get encouraged by groups that Iran finds dangerous.
So, I think it’s about time that the Secretary of State make a decision. Almost a year ago, she was ordered to make that decision. It’s supposed to be made in 180 days. Again, from what I see, from the facts that I see–I don’t have possession of all the secret facts–but so far every single fact that I’ve seen is that this organization stands for everything that gives us hope of a decent life and a decent future in Iran. And if there are any facts to the contrary, then why is it taking so darn long to make this decision that should have been made eight or nine or ten months ago? If you have facts that are contrary to that, it’s really easy to write them and it’s really easy to put it out there and it’s really easy to file the decision.
So, I hope that over the course of the next several months, we can accomplish two things. We can protect the people in Ashraf who are moving to Camp Liberty. We can get there. We can get to see it and we can allow them to make the changes that might be necessary to make it a decent and livable place. We can get them relocated to places where they can be safe.
And we can finally see a delisting of a decision that was the wrong decision in the first place. It was a decision that was intended to placate. It was a decision that was intended to appease. It was a decision that was intended to try to set up a dialogue years ago that never worked. And right now, the enemy, the enemy of stopping a nuclear Iran is appeasement. That’s the enemy. That’s the false notion that has made Iran bolder, stronger, and more determined to become nuclear. Let’s stop the appeasement. Let’s stop trying to negotiate. Let’s stop writing
[Page: E505] GPO’s PDF
letters to the ayatollah. And let’s stand up, united as Americans in saying we are for regime change in Iran and we will take any step necessary to stop Iran from becoming nuclear. Thank you.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
Congressional Record
112th Congress (2011-2012)
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
Print Subscribe Share/Save
Congressional Record article 8 of 33 Printer Friendly Display – 5,699 bytes.[Help]
REMOVE THE FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DESIGNATION FROM THE MEK — (House of Representatives – March 06, 2012)
[Page: H1161] GPO’s PDF
—
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, for nearly a decade the United States has invested money, sweat, blood and tears, all in the name of a free and democratic Iraq.
Before the war, Iraqis suffered from the oppressive dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, and recent events have led me to believe that perhaps the new government does not value freedom any more than the last one did.
As a Member of Congress, I’ve been fortunate to go to Iraq several times to visit with our troops. And during my last visit with a bipartisan congressional delegation, we also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki. During the 2-hour-long discussion covering many things, I asked one question: “Can we go see Camp Ashraf ?”
Now, Madam Speaker, Camp Ashraf houses Iranian dissidents who are called the MEK, and I represent a good number of Iranian Americans who have family members in this camp. They are particularly worried at this point in time, since Iraqi forces had recently killed 36 residents at the camp just a few weeks before. Here are the pictures of those real people that were killed by the Iraqi forces that came into the camp.
Here is an example. You notice this is an American-made HUMVEE coming into the camp. And over here on this far picture, you see an Iranian dissident being run over by one of those HUMVEES driven by an Iraqi soldier.
So that is why the question was asked: can we go see the camp and see these Iranian dissidents? And of course, Maliki said, “no way that’s going to happen.” It left me wondering why he would refuse to let us see and talk to these people and get the other side of this invasion by the Iraqi soldiers. So we didn’t get to go. And later I learned that one reason we were actually told to leave the country is because we asked to go see this camp and what happened to these 36 Iranian dissidents.
And now we have Camp Liberty. Camp Liberty, Madam Speaker, is the result of the fact that in Camp Ashraf , the Iraqi government is moving these dissidents to another camp called Camp Liberty. These dissidents are commonly referred to as the MEK, and Camp Liberty, ironically, should be symbolic of a name of freedom, but it’s anything but that.
Now the Iraqi government, having moved these dissidents from Camp Ashraf to Camp Liberty, is still oppressing these Iranian dissidents. The reality is Camp Liberty is worse than Camp Ashraf .
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said it best: “This isn’t a jail, it’s a concentration camp.”
[Page: H1162] GPO’s PDF
Even in prisons, we allow lawyers to see their clients and their family to see their loved ones. But not in Camp Liberty. And remember, these people in Camp Liberty, these Iranian dissidents, have committed no crime. They have violated no law. You can’t help but think that good old Maliki has something to hide again.
But word is leaking out that there’s not enough drinking water in the camp, there are ruptures in the sewage system, and they’re having to be fixed by hand by the residents.
Iraqi guards have their will at the camp, and they wander around with no rules. They violate the privacy of these Iranian dissidents, many of whom are women.
What’s more, no one, not even the U.N., is confident that once political refugee determination is made by other countries, those countries will accept these dissidents into their country. Why?
Because our State Department incredibly, has the MEK, these folks in this Camp Liberty, designated as a foreign terrorist organization. In fact, Maliki told Members of Congress, one reason he treated the residents in Camp Ashraf so poorly is because our own State Department designates them as a foreign terrorist organization.
This designation is an old, failed State Department foreign policy that designated these people as an FTO as a favor to the Iranian government. That hasn’t worked out too well with our foreign relations with Iran, has it?
Since then, we’ve seen that the real terrorists in Iran are the extreme mullahs and the tiny tyrant of the desert, Ahmadinejad, not the opposition groups that want democracy in Iran.
Both the EU and the United Kingdom have removed the foreign terrorist designation from the group, the MEK, but not the State Department. As Iran defiantly marches toward nuclear weapons, the best hope for the world is the people of Iran pushing for a regime change of their own government. The longer we keep opposition groups who want to do just that on the foreign terrorist organization list, the less likely it is that the light of liberty will have a chance to shine in Iran.
The Federal courts have even ordered the State Department to review this FTO designation, but the State Department continues to delay, to delay, delay making a decision. The State Department must remove the MEK from the foreign terrorist organization list immediately, and then let liberty prevail in Camp Liberty and let these people leave Iraq in a peaceful manner.
And that’s just the way it is.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
Congressional Record
112th Congress (2011-2012)
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
Print Subscribe Share/Save
Congressional Record article 7 of 33 Printer Friendly Display – 12,825 bytes.[Help]
SUPPORTING GOVERNOR ED RENDELL’S REMARKS REGARDING CAMP LIBERTY — HON. STEVE COHEN (Extensions of Remarks – March 28, 2012)
[Page: E472] GPO’s PDF
—
HON. STEVE COHEN
OF TENNESSEE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed by recent press reports attacking former Pennsylvania Governor, Ed Rendell for taking a stand in support of the residents of Camp Ashraf as well as Iran’s main opposition movement, the MEK.
Mr. Rendell is not alone, and he is backed by several dozen senior former U.S. Government officials who have taken the same position because they feel that position actually serves the national security interests of our country. Some 21 senior officials from past administrations, whose job it was to keep this country safe, agreed with Mr. Rendell when they filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals-DC Circuit in February in support of delisting the MEK. Among the former officials were a CIA Director, a FBI Director, an Attorney General of the United States, a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a State Department coordinator for counter-terrorism, and a Marine Corps Commandant.
Governor Rendell spoke at an event in the Cannon Caucus Room on February 3, 2012 and eloquently made the case for why the MEK should have been delisted long ago.
[Page: E473] GPO’s PDF
Governor Rendell’s views are in line with almost 100 Members of Congress who co-sponsored H. Res. 60 “Urging the Secretary of State to remove the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran from the Department of State’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” I would like to submit Governor Rendell’s comments for the RECORD.
REMARKS OF FORMER GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA ED RENDELL, U.S CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, D.C.–FEBRUARY 3, 2012
Good afternoon. I want to start out by saying I have come to many of these things. I have come to too many. It’s not that I don’t like you. You are a wonderful people. As Alan Dershowitz said, this has a feel of a civil rights movement.
I have been told how much myself and our other officials have helped this cause. But I look at where we are and I’m not sure that all of our speaking out, all of our rallies in front of the White House, Geneva, Paris and Brussels, here in Washington and in the Cannon Building, I’m not sure we have accomplished much.
And it is terribly frustrating to me. I want to stop coming to these meetings. I want to see you all in Teheran someday. (Applause)
We talk about how difficult it is to be at the end of the row speakers. So much has been said that we want to say ourselves. And today it’s been said in resoundingly good fashion. Senator D’Amato talked about the fact that what our country has done here is a disgrace. And I echo those sentiments. When I first got involved with this issue and started learning about Ashraf and learning about the fact the United States Government in general, United State’s forces contracted with each and every one of the residents of Ashraf , if they relinquished their weapons, we promised them we would protect them.
Have we lived up to our promise? Absolutely not. Maybe until 2009 we did a pretty good job thanks to General Phillips and Colonel Martin, who is not with us today, we did a fine job of protecting them.
But all of a sudden in 2009, when we turned it over to the Iraqis, all responsibility for military action and police action was turned over to the Iraqis we essentially washed our hands on that promise. And yes, Senator D’Amato is right. In 2009 and in 2011, not only did this attack occur with the use of vehicles and weapons that had been given to the Iraqi police by the United States of America, but United States forces in both instances were withdrawn from the immediate area so they could not do anything to stop the carnage.
Is that what the promise was? Of course not. It’s diametrically opposed to the promise we made. And that General was speaking for the United States of America and for all 300 million of our citizens.
Subsequent to that have we stood by the residents of Ashraf . Did we take a stand and say, wait. Why can’t we do this right here in Ashraf ? Why does it have to be a closure of the camp. To what purpose? Iraqi Government, tell me the purpose, legitimate purpose, Iraqi security or anything else that is going to be served by closing down Ashraf . Well, the only excuse we ever heard was the belief that there’s intimidation in Ashraf and the individuals could not be free to speak their will about where they wanted to go.
Well, that would have been an easy problem to solve. Just set up, the General can tell me where, set up something outside the gates where individual residents one by one can talk freely right there.
There was no need to close Ashraf in the beginning. And the United States Government should have stood by and residents, stood by our promise and said, no.
And then how are we going to ensure protection of the residents? Well, it’s my belief that we should have done one of two things; one, we should have left a small number of United States Marines to protect the residents of Ashraf . (Applause)
We agreed to leave. Well, we agreed to leave South Korea. And, General, am I right, are there still U.S. military personnel in Korea. And how many years has that been? About 40. So we could have easily done that and lived up to our responsibilities. One of my proudest moments was when the President said, we aren’t going to let the residents of Benghazi be subject to genocide.
And U.S. military power and NATO power is going to stop that from happening. And we did. We toppled one of the worst dictators. We never contracted with the people in Benghazi. We never promised them anything. But we as America, we believed it was our right to do so and we did. We signed a contract with these residents. They are much better position to expect our help and protection than the residents of Benghazi were. One of the things the director will tell you is we get on almost weekly calls with Ambassador Freeh that was handling this for the State Department. It is stunning to me that the United States Government wants to disengage here.
They didn’t want to be part of signing of the MOU. They reluctantly agreed to, after pressure from us, to send the U.S. observers into so-called Camp Liberty, although it’s not clear when they are coming.
They can’t come unannounced. We have disengaged. We wiped our hands of an issue where we gave our word. So, yes, it’s time for the U.S. to stand up. It’s time for us to fulfill our responsibility. It’s time to not only fulfill our obligation to the resident of Ashraf . It’s time to fulfill our obligation to 4,000 plus United States soldiers who died in Iraq.
You have heard me say as Governor of Pennsylvania I was the commander in chief Pennsylvania National Guard. No national guard in the country lost more men and women in Iraq than Pennsylvania did.
I used to comfort the families, try to comfort the families, by telling them their sons or in one case their daughter, had died creating democracy and making Iraq a better place. I don’t know what I will say to them now knowing what I know about what is happening here.
So it’s time for us to act. What should that action be? First and foremost we should not let Camp Liberty be turned into a prison. We should not. That’s Job 1 for the United States. Job 1 for the UN.
Freedom of movement was essential. Everyone says this is a refugee camp. It’s meeting the standards of a refugee camp. What is the difference between the normal refugee camp and what is proposed in Camp Liberty?
The difference is the residents of the normal refugee camp can leave. They can go if they have the ability, if there’s a park or river down the road, they can go to the river, and bathe, swim, they can go to the park, if they have money, they can go to the local market.
They have freedom of movement. That makes a huge difference when you are talking about what goes on in a camp. Here the Iraqis have made it clear, as long as their position holds, freedom of movement, the people are going to be inside the small area forever. We should insist that, the U.S. should insist there be freedom of movement. We should insist the MOU be enforced. There is not one resident of Ashraf over there yet and the MOU is being put aside. The MOU clearly says the residents can take personal property and vehicles. The Iraqis now say that’s not the case.
It is time for us, the United States, to join the UN and be heard loud and clear, whatever the leverage is, I agree with Ambassador Ginsberg, we have got to have leverage, and we should enforce it. It’s time to be heard. Time to say no one is going. No on is leaving. (Applause)
And next it is time to de-list. If you have been coming to these regularly, you have heard me say I think we should put de-listing on the back burner. And the most important thing is the safety of the residents.
But I don’t believe that anymore. Let me tell you why. I was sent the Forest News Agency release. The Iranian Ambassador, and let me read you a couple of quotes from this release. The Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq stress that the representatives in Iraq in meetings they have had repeatedly stressed that the UN considers the MEK a terrorist group and will not support it under any circumstances.
It goes on. Referred to U.S. officials support for the terrorist group. He referred to us and said, the terrorist MEK group in the past few years has been constantly supported by the U.S. and western elements. But it is interesting now that the U.S. Government has announced it’s not prepared to accept even one member of this terrorist organization and under no circumstances will allow them onto its soil. It goes further. It said the members of the terrorist group by the Government of Iran will not include and the amnesty will include individuals whose hands are not tainted in blood. Meaning that this idea that we relocate all the residents of Ashraf to Liberty and there will be no rest. He’s given fair warning here.
What was our response? We brought all this up for his response. His response was, oh, the Iranians they exaggerate all the time. They don’t really tell the truth. You can’t believe anything they say.
That’s not engagement. That is not us living up to our responsibility. It is time to de-list just because of these statements. (Applause)
We have sent a message. We think it’s time to act. It is time to stand up. If the State Department won’t de-list as it should voluntarily, it’s time to go back to court. It’s time to say to the Court we want you to mandamus. That’s a legal term in which the court requires an agency or an individual to do what they are statutorily required to do. The Court gave an order to the State Department to come back and show evidence why the MEK should not be de-listed. The Court can issue a mandamus to say to them come in here within 30 days and show us why the MEK should not be de-listed.
Now some people say, don’t issue, don’t go seek a mandamus. That means the State Department will say we are not de-listing them. If they say that, then the Court is asked to review the evidence. When they reviewed the evidence in 2008, when the Secretary Rice refused to de-list, they found there wasn’t any evidence.
If they review the evidence in 2012–guess what? No evidence. So it’s time to stand up and say, this is not a terrorist organization. No evidence to the contrary.
In the last decade no open source terrorist database, and they are all over the internet, has listed one single act by the MEK or any members of terrorism. And the statute says terrorist acts against the United States America. That hasn’t happened. Never going to happen.
So let’s de-list. Let’s give all the Congressmen who came in here and they have spoken up, they have passed resolutions. Those are all good things. Those are all increased pressure. But it is time–Senator D’Amato was saying there would be a bill along lines of what Ambassador Ginsberg said, the only
[Page: E474] GPO’s PDF
way to hit them is to hit them where it counts.
No military planes or any other equipment to the Iraqi Government until boom, boom, boom. Don’t say we are not a party to this. We were a party to stopping the slaughter in Benghazi. We never promised we would.
We are a party to this because, number one, we promised. And number two, because we are the United States of America.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
Congressional Record
112th Congress (2011-2012)
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
Print Subscribe Share/Save
Congressional Record article 6 of 33 Printer Friendly Display – 8,497 bytes.[Help]
REMARKS BY FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL MUKASEY — (Extensions of Remarks – March 29, 2012)
[Page: E497] GPO’s PDF
—
SPEECH OF
HON. DANIEL E. LUNGREN
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2012
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 24, 2012, former Attorney General of the United States Michael Mukasey spoke at an event in Paris about Iran and the Iranian opposition.
Judge Mukasey’s comments warrant our consideration in light of the events which are currently taking place in Iran and their potential impact on the global community. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to submit them to this Body:
Thank you very much. Thank you to the sponsors of this wonderful conference. Thank you David Amess for your clear, penetrating comments on what is going on.
You know it seems as though we’ve come together many times before to talk about the plight of the residents of Ashraf , and now the plight of the residents of both Ashraf and the ironically named Camp Liberty. And we were told on each of those occasions that these broadcasts, that these meetings were broadcast to Ashraf . And we haven’t been told it, but I wonder whether perhaps they’re being broadcast at Camp Liberty as well.
I would suggest to you, I would suggest to you that there’s someplace else that they should be broadcast. They should be broadcast to the United States State Department. Of course, based on what’s happened in the last couple of weeks, I can’t guarantee that the signal would get through. I mean it may very well be that at the State Department, just as in Cuba and North Korea and Iran, they jam broadcasts with which they disagree. I don’t know whether that’s true at the State Department or not. I sincerely hope so. But I would hope that a broadcast like this would get through, because then they would see. They would see Mrs. [Maryam] Rajavi open this session by extending her sympathy to the Jewish community of Toulouse. They would see and hear her discuss what her religion really means and what it has to do with terrorism, which is nothing. They would get a hint as to what kind of, quote, terrorist organization, unquote, this really is.
Of course this wasn’t the way it was supposed to be. In 2003 when coalition forces invaded Iraq and encountered the residents of Ashraf , the Ashraf residents peacefully surrendered their weapons, the weapons they had, the only thing they had to defend themselves, and received in return on a piece of paper a guarantee that they would be treated as protected persons under the fourth Geneva Conventions, a guarantee signed on behalf of all coalition forces by a United States general. And they received identity cards that carry the telephone number of the military police, commanded by another United States general who has appeared at these meetings before, General Phillips. As I’m sure you know, because we’ve told the story several times, the Clinton administration put the MEK on a list of foreign terrorist organizations really to appease the Iranians in the hope that that would invite a dialogue. Some dialogue. Some dialogue, with the regime that only a couple of months ago plotted to assassinate a Saudi diplomat in the United States. Those are the people they wanted to talk to.
The FBI went in 2003 and vetted each of the residents of Ashraf to make sure that none of them were a terrorist, and in each case it was certified that none were. The Iraqis, as we know, have been acting increasingly at the behest of the Iranian government, now that the United States has withdrawn. And Nouri al-Maliki himself is behind the pressure that is being brought and the persecution that is being brought against the residents of both Ashraf and Camp Liberty. This is how we get thanks for the sacrifices that were made by American troops and by the United States as a whole in freeing the people of Iraq.
The United Nations says transfer to Camp Liberty. We’ve had 1,200 people transfer to Camp Liberty. And we’re told each time, notwithstanding the completely inadequate conditions at Camp Liberty, that this is progress. We’re making progress. People are moving out of Ashraf into Camp Liberty and this is progress. You know, I had an uncle once who died of progress. He was–it’s true, he was in the hospital. And every day the doctor came and checked on him and said he was showing progress, until one day he was dead. And the family concluded he must have died of progress. Ambassador [Martin] Kobler reminds me of that doctor.
Of course, it’s even worse than that here because the potentially fatal disease that the residents of Ashraf have really comes from their designation as a foreign terrorist organization. The U.S. designation. And when I say the U.S. designation advisedly because we’re the only ones left in the civilized world who apply that designation. And it’s time to get rid of it.
So, how is this all going to end? Well, I suggest to you ladies and gentlemen that I’m very hopeful about how it’s going to end. I’m a lawyer, I deal in evidence. We have evidence. We have statements from anonymous sources that those of us who are here voicing our views are behaving illegally under U.S. law.
It’s a funny thing about anonymous sources, what are they afraid of? They must be afraid of something. They’re afraid to have their names used. Look at the timing. The MEK tells the State Department and the Justice Department, “You know, you’ve been dragging your feet long enough with this designation. We’re going to go into court.” They gave them not only advanced notice that they’re going to do it, they gave them an advanced copy of the papers they were going to file. And they disclosed the names of the people. Mayor Giuliani, Tom Ridge, others, many others, who would have also filed paper in court as friends of the court, telling them on the basis of our experience and our knowledge–many people on that brief directly involved in national security affairs–that there is no basis, no reason for that designation. They were told that in advance. And lo and behold a couple days later subpoenas get served on the speaker agencies that send those people out to express their views. I stopped believing in coincidences like that when I stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy, and that was a long time ago.
But how is it going to come out? Well, look at the behavior. The people who release information to the press are afraid to give their names. The State Department hears that papers are going to be filed on behalf of MEK, that papers are going to be filed by people who have spoken out in behalf of delisting, scurry to the Treasury Department, get them to serve subpoenas.
What are they afraid of? The people here aren’t afraid. Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Patrick Kennedy, Tom Ridge, they’re all sitting up there behind placards that have their names on them. We all use our names. The people who are not here, and who have been here before and who will be here again if necessary, Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, they used their names. They don’t get up as anonymous informants to speak at these meetings. They get up, they give their names and they express their views. So who’s going to prevail?
But can these people prevail in the face of the United States government? Let me repeat the words of a famous American industrialist, a man named Henry Kaiser who was once confronted by the U.S. government. And people asked him, “Do you think that you can prevail against the U.S. government in the view that you’ve expressed and the course of action that you want to follow?” And his response was, “You know what? There’s no such thing as the U.S. government. They’re just a bunch of people.” Some of them are smart and dedicated and some of them are stupid and lazy. And we know who’s on which side in the current dispute.
Ladies and gentlemen, I haven’t got any doubt about how this is going to come out. And the way this is going to come out is that eventually right will prevail in my country. And when right prevails in my country it is my sincere hope that it won’t be long before right prevails in your country and you restore Iran to the glorious civilization that it was and will be. Thank you very much.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
