MEK a terrorist cult
This letter is in response to the June 15 article "MEK sense" by Rep. Tom Tancredo and Rep. Bob Filner. The Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK) is a known terrorist organization that has committed atrocities in Iran and in the region for more than four decades and has a dark history of aligning itself with the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein, which used it as a mercenary army against the Kurds and to invade Iran from its bases in Iraq. Prior to September 11, MEK was in the initial stages of aligning itself with the Taliban and al Qaeda but its plans to set up bases in Afghanistan vanished with the developments in Kabul.
The authors have not done a proper scrutiny of the MEK's violent record, which includes the assassination of a president, a prime minister and 80 lawmakers as well as thousands of innocent civilians.
This is a terrorist cult which gave up its weapons only after U.S. troops attacked its base in Iraq, at which point it began a process of adaptation to a post-September 11 era where there is little tolerance for terrorism, and this led it to claim democratic values.
The appellation "democratic" for the MEK terrorist is a definite misnomer.The MEK has an eclectic ideology that blends Stalinist Marxism and militant leftism with ossified interpretations of Islam, (like al Qaeda), espousing the idea of urban guerrilla warfare.
The authors fail to mention that it is not only the U.S. government but also the European Union which has branded the MEK as terrorist, based on an anti-democratic cult of leadership who systematically purge and even torture their internal critics, per a recent report by the Human Rights Watch.
Iranian efforts against such a terrorist group are not a sign of itssize and/or importance, as the article claims. Rather, they reflect the seriousness of terrorism as the main problem to the international peace and security, which the international community should refuse in consensus and to avoid double standards.
It is also a contradiction to refer to MEK as a"relatively small group based largely in the Iranian diaspora" which has proved a "reliable source of intelligence" and a useful "tool" to deal with Iran and, on the other, as a viable "Iranian democratic opposition group." The proud Iranian people never embrace such armed cliques propped up by outside forces.Have the authors never seen the images of MEK leaders and members on Iraqi tanksbrandishing theirweapons?
At a time when the Iraqi government has demanded the expulsion of MEK terrorists from their territory, the authors' call for the use of MEK as a political tool against a democratic, electedgovernment is a giant leap in the wrong direction.
Mission of Iran to the United Nations
New York City
Why the discrepancy?
The Washington Times reported on Tuesday that a campaign worker for Sen. Barack Obama has been involved in the common and completely legal practice of compiling an opposition research document for use in Mr. Obama's campaign for the presidency ("Obama blames staff for memo," Page 1, Tuesday).
The 25-paragraph article, in which Mr. Obama was identified prominently as an "Illinois Democrat" by the second paragraph, was given front-page, above-the-fold placement, complete with a picture of the senator.
On Wednesday, The Times shared with readers the fact that a campaign worker for Rudolph W. Giuliani had been indicted by a federal grand jury for felony distribution of cocaine ("Official indicted on cocaine charge," Nation).
The three-paragraph story was located at the bottom of page A8, in the American Scene section, tucked among 12 other newsy tidbits. The word Republican never appeared in the item, and Mr. Giuliani was not mentioned until the penultimate sentence of the final paragraph. Why the discrepancy?
Get border security right
One statement the president uses repeatedly in reference to terrorists can be said about him and our legislators: We have to get it right 100 percent of the time; they have to get it right only once.
That is just the way things seem to go in the Senate. When our legislators are caught trying to sneak through disastrous legislation, they just wait a few weeks and try again. Thankfully, the flawed immigration bill was killed because vigilant citizens voiced their anger. Now senators are trying to shove this bill through after breaking it up "into a series of smaller bills" and adding some very unimpressive amendments that offer no more proof of their intention to secure the border than before ("Democrats mull dividing House immigration bill, Page 1, Tuesday).
With 80 percent of Americans polled requesting a secure border now, and consideration of these other items later, it is obvious that the lawmakers just don't care what they will be doing to the citizens of this country. We want proof that our border has been secured.
Sen. Lindsey Graham recently called those of us being vocal about our extreme opposition to the amnesty bill — and I do mean amnesty bill — the "loud folks." Well, isn't that funny. A few years ago, we were called the silent majority and told that we got the government we deserved because we did not take part in our government. Now the government wants us to stay out of it. The legislators believe that they somehow will be immune from the coming disaster.
Disregarding American interests
The article "GOP sees Democrats split over immigration" (Nation, Tuesday) offers an interesting hypothesis about the split over immigration, but rather than a divide within either or both parties, it's actually a matter of individual conscience.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, analyzed the current Senate immigration bill and found 20 loopholes; for example, an allowance for "probationary benefits" that effectively deactivate the enforcement provisions in the bill, thereby shielding criminal and terrorist aliens from deportation and gifting them literally overnight with irrevocable permanent residency/paths to citizenship, Social Security cards and more.
Undaunted in the enormity of their blatant disregard for American citizens, the members of the Bush-Kennedy open-borders cabal — like warlords in illusory castles — undoubtedly think they are above that which they intend to visit upon us, all evidence to the contrary. History repeats itself — just as its outrages and wars bring about the downfall of those who lead them.
Unlike their purported pawns — who outnumber them and certainly call the constitutional moves — these wannabe amnesty overlords of ours risk being swept from the board of their medieval game if they continue to break the law.
Bush plays to pro-lifers
In again vetoing legislation that would provide federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, the president has renewed the common belief that he stands far apart from the American people and Congress, both of which support this bill ("Bush vetoes stem-cell funding," Nation, Thursday).
In rejecting the legislation, Mr. Bush stated, "Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical." This disregards the fact that the embryos that would be involved in this potentially lifesaving, life-altering research are destined to be discarded anyway and that human lives are very much at stake in this debate: those who are desperate for cures for dreaded diseases and those who seek to diminish the suffering of the sick. To those people, the president says, tough luck; I am playing to my pro-life base. I suspect that the president has never had a relative or close friend whose life has been threatened by serious illness and might have been saved through the promise of this type of research.
It is audacious and absurd for a president who launched a disastrous war that has brought calamity to Iraq to refer to destroying human life as if it is something he seeks to avoid at all costs.
OREN M SPIEGLER
Upper Saint Clair, Pa.