Hypocrisy: Mojahedin-e-Khalq

[Rhah]

For those not familiar with this group, they are an Iranian Marxist dissident group whose aim is to topple the Ayatollahs, and it has been officially designated a terrorist organisation by the US, UK, the EU, Canada and (unsurprisngly) Iran.

Here's the Wikipedia article, if you require further information

Problem is, some high ranking politicians in the US want (or wanted) the MEK's terrorist status revoked, and the group has enjoyed overt support for a number of years, from people as varied as John Ashcroft to Saddam Hussein. Its worth bearing in mind that this group has been accused of murdering American personnel during the 70's (They originally fought against the Shah)

Here's an article on the Ashcroft/MEK links. I should point out as well that there are politicians from both major US political parties that have supported the MEK. Ashcroft is just the highest profile example I could find.

Only two years ago, these arguments won sympathy from Ashcroft--and more than 200 other members of Congress. When the National Council of Resistance staged a September 2000 rally outside the United Nations to protest a speech by Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, Missouri's two Republican senators--Ashcroft and Chris Bond--issued a joint statement of solidarity that was read aloud to a cheering crowd. A delegation of about 500 Iranians from Missouri attended the event--and a picture of a smiling Ashcroft was later included in a color briefing book used by MKO officials to promote their cause on Capitol Hill. Ashcroft was hardly alone. Among those who actually appeared at the rally and spoke on the group's behalf was one of its leading congressional supporters: Democratic New Jersey Sen. Bob Torricelli.

So, what I was wondering is whether these 200 members of Congress can now be tried under the new US laws (PATRIOT act etc) as supporters of Terrorism? Surely, since the MEK is recognised by the US State department as a Terrorist group, that has previously been involved in actions against US forces then these congressmen are traitors to their country and presumably should be held indefinitly without trial, and quite possibly tortured for good measure?

I'll be the first to admit that I have fairly limited understanding of these new laws, so I'll ask anyone who does have more insight to look at this subjectively. Hypothetically, have these people committed a crime?

[VALIS]

as the saying goes,
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

[Rhah]

as the saying goes,
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Even when there is evidence that they have deliberately targetted and killed your own citizens?

Unfortunately, the nature of Realpolitik dictates that this cliched phrase is often true, but thats not really what I was getting at when I started this topic. The US's involvement with groups of dubious intent and method is oft discussed around here.

What I want to talk about is the legal implications, particularly concerning the new anti-terror legislation in the US

[Freddie]

Even when there is evidence that they have deliberately targetted and killed your own citizens?

When you dance with the devil, don't cry foul when he trips you up.

[danzig]

Unfortunately, the nature of Realpolitik dictates that this cliched phrase is often true, but thats not really what I was getting at when I started this topic. The US's involvement with groups of dubious intent and method is oft discussed around here.

What I want to talk about is the legal implications, particularly concerning the new anti-terror legislation in the US

World isnt perfect black and white, sometimes reality dictates you deal with a lesser enemy to combat with one you view as a bigger. Not talking about this specifically group since I dont know enough about them to comment but in general that its not necessarily a 'bad' thing nor is it uncommon thru out history.

[Erik]

World isnt perfect black and white, sometimes reality dictates you deal with a lesser enemy to combat with one you view as a bigger.

So Osama Bin laden is a lesser enemy than the Soviet Union?
And Saddam Hussein is also a lesser enemy than Iran?
Why then did America end up going to war with their "lesser enemies" not the "great enemies".

I think it's not a matter of lesser or bigger evil, just the short-sightedness of supporting your enemies enemy without thinking what will happen once your enemies enemy succeeds.
Or do you really think Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban was better than Afghanistan ruled by the Soviets?

[Freddie]

So Osama Bin laden is a lesser enemy than the Soviet Union?
And Saddam Hussein is also a lesser enemy than Iran?
Why then did America end up going to war with their "lesser enemies" not the "great enemies".

I think it's not a matter of lesser or bigger evil, just the short-sightedness of supporting your enemies enemy without thinking what will happen once your enemies enemy succeeds.
Or do you really think Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban was better than Afghanistan ruled by the Soviets?

So are you’re saying the US should adopt the strategy of going after the bigger enemy first? So let’s assume your right and Iran is a bigger threat then Iraq, what your saying is if the US was going to invade one middle eastern country it should have Iran as it posed a greater threat then Iraq?

Logically speaking it makes sense but if you want to invade Iran it makes better sense that you control Iraq as gives greater tactical flexibility. My point being not everything is as straightforward as it seems, sometimes you have to fish for tuna to catch the sharks.

[danzig]

So Osama Bin laden is a lesser enemy than the Soviet Union?
And Saddam Hussein is also a lesser enemy than Iran?
Why then did America end up going to war with their "lesser enemies" not the "great enemies".

I think it's not a matter of lesser or bigger evil, just the short-sightedness of supporting your enemies enemy without thinking what will happen once your enemies enemy succeeds.
Or do you really think Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban was better than Afghanistan ruled by the Soviets?

Here we go again with this, the US didnt support the Taliban in Afganistan...it supported those opposing the Russians regardless of who they were. The most effective commanders against the Russians in Afganistan were not 'taliban' types and the US supported them as well...the problem was the US didnt continue to support them after the Russians left leaving a war between them and the fanatics. Ill agree it is short sighted view of things because one enemy that exist is viewed as a bigger threat then the possibly future enemy. No doubt the US knew some of the people they were supporting in Afganistan at the time were hardly friendly towards the US but as humans lack the ability to see in the future probably didnt think they would turn into what they did. Had the US followed thru and supported Afganistan after the war who knows maybe it would be the 'jewel' of the Near East and that is where the short sighted view comes from, the US got what they want and left. Its why its important to not make the same mistakes with Afganistan and Iraq NOW...pulling out isnt a solution finding a real solution somehow is no matter how painful it is.

As far as who is the bigger enemy, sorry Im not running the goverment I dont get to decide who is a bigger risk. During the Afgan war however its clear the Russians were a threat, Bin Laden was just rich kid playing soldier at the time.

[Aristophanes]

So Osama Bin laden is a lesser enemy than the Soviet Union?
And Saddam Hussein is also a lesser enemy than Iran?
Why then did America end up going to war with their "lesser enemies" not the "great enemies".

I think it's not a matter of lesser or bigger evil, just the short-sightedness of supporting your enemies enemy without thinking what will happen once your enemies enemy succeeds.
Or do you really think Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban was better than Afghanistan ruled by the Soviets?

I doubt anybody would suggest going to war against a vast nuclear arsenal and extremely potent conventional forces as an efficient way to achieve one's objectives. Or do you know something I don't?

[Erik]

Nothing new here.
America has always supported their enemies enemies, no matter who they are.
Osama Bin Laden (USSR's enemy) Saddam Hussein (Iran's enemy), Contras to name a few.

[Blokhoofd67]

From what I understand all these people did was propose that the MEK should no longer be considered a terrorist group. I don't see how that could be considered as supporting of terrorists.

[Tom Paine]

But they're locked in Iraq and don't have flexibility to now invade Iran, though that may be a matter of pure bad planning.

[JP226]

Yes.
They couldn't even conquer Afghanistan.
How could they even dream of conquering America?

it's more of a willingness rather than a capability. You kow this obviously and are just trying to stir up trouble... surprise, surprise

[JP226]

no because +40.000 nukes in the hands of your worst enemy is never a threat

please that's just US propoganda...

[Bwaho]

please that's just US propoganda...

oh yeah, sorry about that... carry on!

[JP226]

They believed that the capitalistic countries would collapse automatically

which was based off of marxist ideology that was flawed along it's initial assumption of the labor theory of value

[VALIS]

the "soviet threat" was just a bit of an illusion.

the united states were scared of the soviet union and thought the SU wanted world domination.
and
the soviet union was scared of the united states and thought the US wanted world domination.

and they both thought the other wanted to invade each other!




EDIT: yeah,what erik said before me.