“Material Support” for Terrorism
Posted by
Bill Anderson on January 6,
2011 07:10 AM
The
Glenn Greenwald post today is important if for nothing else it
reminds us of the dual standard of “law” in the USA. How many times have
we seen someone prosecuted by the U.S. Department of “Justice” for
“material support of terrorism” when it was clear that the charges
themselves were false or greatly exaggerated? Yet, we see in Greenwald’s
column that the very person -- Michael Mukasey, former U.S. Attorney
General -- who was instrumental in bringing these prosecutions goes
overseas to engage in behavior that would land mere “mundanes” (as Will
Grigg so aptly puts it) in prison for life.
It is instrumental to note that not only are these people trying to drag
this country into even more war, but that they do it by working openly
with a group listed by the U.S. Government as a “terrorist” organization.
This is something that Mukasey’s people would have loved to prosecute,
since there could be no real defense, and many innocent people have found
themselves being charged and imprisoned for much, much, much less than
what Mukasey openly is doing. (Read about the
Sami Al-Arian imprisonment
and you will
get a better understanding of the DOJ double standard at
work.)
xxx
Monday, Jan 3, 2011 09:04 ET
Leading conservatives openly support a Terrorist
group
By
Glenn
Greenwald
(updated below - Update II)
Imagine if a group of leading American liberals met on foreign soil with
-- and expressed vocal support for -- supporters of a terrorist group
that had (a) a long history of hateful anti-American rhetoric, (b) an
active role in both the takeover of a U.S. embassy and Saddam Hussein's
brutal 1991 repression of Iraqi Shiites, (c) extensive financial and
military support from Saddam, (d) multiple acts of violence aimed at
civilians, and (e) years of being designated a "Terrorist
organization" by the U.S. under Presidents of both parties, a
designation which is ongoing? The ensuing uproar and orgies of
denunciation would be deafening.
But on December 23, a group of leading conservatives -- including Rudy
Giuliani and former Bush officials Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, and Fran
Townsend --
did exactly that. In Paris, of all places, they appeared at a forum
organized by supporters of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) -- a group
declared by the U.S. since 1997 to be "terrorist organization"
-- and expressed wholesale support for that group. Worse -- on foreign
soil -- they vehemently criticized their own country's opposition to
these Terrorists and specifically "demanded that Obama instead take
the [] group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and
incorporate it into efforts to overturn the mullah-led government in
Tehran." In other words, they are calling on the U.S. to embrace
this Saddam-supported, U.S.-hating Terrorist group and recruit them to
help overthrow the government of Iran. To a foreign audience, Mukasey
denounced his own country's opposition to these Terrorists as
"nothing less than an embarrassment."
Using common definitions, there is good reason for the MEK to be deemed
by the U.S. Government to be a Terrorist group. In 2007,
the Bush
administration declared that "MEK leadership and members across
the world maintain the capacity and will to commit terrorist acts
in Europe, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, and beyond,"
and added that the group exhibits "cult-like characteristics."
The Council on Foreign Relations
has detailed that the MEK has been involved in numerous violent
actions over the years, including many directed at Americans, such as
"the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by Iranian
revolutionaries" and "the killings of U.S.military personnel
and civilians working on defense projects in Tehran in the 1970s."
This is whom Guiliani, Ridge, Townsend and
other
conservatives are cheering.
Applying the orthodoxies of American political discourse, how can these
Terrorist-supporting actions by prominent American conservatives not
generate intense controversy? For one thing, their appearance in France
to slam their own country's foreign policy blatantly violates the
long-standing and rigorously enforced taboo against criticizing the
U.S. Government while on dreaded foreign soil (the NYT
previously noted that "nothing sets conservative opinion-mongers
on edge like a speech made by a Democrat on foreign soil"). Worse,
their conduct undoubtedly constitutes the crime of "aiding and
abetting Terrorism" as interpreted by the Justice Department -- an
interpretation recently upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court's
5-4 decision last year in
Holder v. Humanitarian Law. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole
represented the Humanitarian Law plaintiffs in their unsuccessful
challenge to the DOJ's interpretation of the "material support"
statute, and
he argues today in
The New York Times that as a result of that ruling, it is a
felony in the U.S. "to engage in public advocacy to challenge a
group's 'terrorist' designation or even to encourage peaceful avenues for
redress of grievances."
Like Cole, I believe the advocacy and actions of these Bush officials in
support of this Terrorist group should be deemed constitutionally
protected free _expression_. But under American law and the view of the
DOJ, it isn't. There are people sitting in prison right now with
extremely long prison sentences for so-called "material support for
terrorism" who
did little different than what these right-wing advocates just did.
What justifies allowing these Bush officials to materially support a
Terrorist group with impunity?
Then there's CNN. How can they possibly continue to employ someone --
Fran Townsend -- who so openly supports a Terrorist group? Less than six
months ago, that network abruptly fired its long-time producer, Octavia
Nasr,
for doing nothing more than expressing well wishes upon the death of
Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, one of the Shiite world's most beloved
religious figures. Her sentiments were echoed by the British Ambassador
to Lebanon, Frances Guy, who
wrote a piece entitled "The Passing of a Decent Man," and
by the journal Foreign Policy, which
hailed him as "a voice of moderation and an advocate of
unity." But because Fadlallh had connections to Hezbollah -- a group
designated as a Terrorist organization by the U.S. -- and was an opponent
of Israel, neocon and other right-wing organs demonized Nasr and CNN
quickly accommodated them by ending her career.
Granted, Nasr was a news producer and Townsend is at CNN to provide
commentary, but is it even remotely conceivable to imagine CNN employing
someone who openly advocated for Hamas or Hezbollah, who met with their
supporters on foreign soil and bashed the U.S. for classifying them as a
Terrorist organization and otherwise acting against them or, more
radically still, demanding that the U.S. embrace these groups as allies?
To ask the question is to answer it. So why is Fran Townsend permitted to
keep her CNN job even as she openly meets with supporters of a Terrorist
group with a long history of violence and anti-American hatred?
There is simply no limit on the manipulation and exploitation of the term
"terrorism" by America's political class. Joe Biden and Mitch
McConnell support endless policies that slaughter civilians for political
ends, yet with a straight face accuse Julian Assange -- who has done
nothing like that -- of being a "terrorist." GOP Rep. Peter
King is
launching
a McCarthyite Congressional hearing to investigate radicalism and
Terrorism sympathies among American Muslim while ignoring his own
long history of enthusiastic support for Catholic Terrorists in Northern
Ireland; as Marcy Wheeler says: "Peter King would still be in
prison if the US had
treated his material support for terrorism as it now
does."
And WikiLeaks this morning published
a
diplomatic cable from the U.S. summarizing the long-discussed meeting
on July 25, 1990, at which the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie,
talked to Saddam -- a month before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait -- about the
history of extensive American support for his regime, the desire of the
U.S. for friendly relations with Saddam, and her statement that the U.S.
does not care about Saddam's border disputes with Kuwait (Glaspie
recorded that she told Saddam: "then, as now, we took no positions
on these Arab affairs"). Months later, the U.S. attacked Iraq and
cited a slew of human rights abuses and support for Terrorism that took
place when the U.S. was arming and supporting Saddam and during the time
they had removed Iraq from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism in
order to provide that support.
The reason there isn't more uproar over these Bush officials' overt
foreign-soil advocacy on behalf of a Terrorist group is because they want
to use that group's Terrorism to advance U.S. aims. Using Terrorism on
behalf of American interests is always permissible, because the actual
definition of a Terrorist -- the one that our political and media class
universally embraces -- is nothing more than this: "someone who
impedes or defies U.S. will with any degree of efficacy."
Even though the actions of these Bush officials violate every alleged
piety about bashing one's own country on foreign soil and may very well
constitute a felony under U.S. law, they will be shielded from criticisms
because they want to use the Terrorist group to overthrow a government
that refuses to bow to American dictates. Embracing Terrorist groups is
perfectly acceptable when used for that end. That's why Fran Townsend
will never suffer the fate of Octavia Nasr, and why her fellow Bush
officials will never be deemed Terrorist supporters by the DOJ or
establishment media outlets, even though what they've done makes them, by
definition, exactly that.
UPDATE: Amazingly, Fran Townsend, on CNN,
hailed the Supreme Court's decision in Humanitarian Law -- the
Supreme Court ruling that upheld the DOJ's view that one can be guilty of
"material support for terrorism" simply by talking to or
advocating for a Terrorist group -- and enthusiastically agreed when Wolf
Blitzer said, while interviewing her: "If you're thinking about even
voicing support for a terrorist group, don't do it because the
government can come down hard on you and the Supreme Court said the
government has every right to do so." Yet "voicing support
for a terrorist group" is exactly what Townsend is now doing -- and
it makes her a criminal under the very Supreme Court ruling that she so
gleefully praised.
UPDATE II: In 2008, an Iranian-American woman
--Zeinab Taleb-Jedi -- was
convicted in a federal court of providing "material support for
terrorism" based solely on her membership in MEK. She argued
that MEK should not be deemed a Terrorist group and that she has the
First Amendment right to belong to it, but the judge rejected both
claims. While she joined the group as opposed to merely advocating
for it (the way these conservatives are doing), the Supreme Court in
Huminatarian Law made clear that both can be means of providing
"material support." Why should Taleb-Jedi be prosecuted
but not Giuliani, Townsend, Ridge and friends?
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/01/03/fran_townsend_terrorism/index.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
- Leading conservatives openly support a Terrorist group MJ
