Why Is the former Propaganda Minister of a Terrorist Group on FoxNews Staff? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 04-05-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rm/2003/20072.htm
On-the-Record Briefing
Ambassador Cofer Black, Coordinator for Counterterrorism
Remarks at On-the-Record Briefing on the Release of the Annual Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002 report
Washington, DC
April 30, 2003

.....QUESTION: What does the State Department think about the ceasefire that was signed between the MEK and the U.S., U.S. CENTCOM, in Iraq?

Since this group is still on the terrorist list, as I understand it, Americans are not supposed to deal with them at all. <h3>And that's always been kind of a -- there is a problem in Washington, D.C., because they keep an office open here.</h3>

So can you tell me how this squares with the MEK's terrorist status?

AMBASSADOR BLACK: Sure, I'll be happy to, happy to try. The Secretary has recommended that the President determine that the laws that apply to countries that support terrorism no longer apply to Iraq. The President's determination to provide greater flexibility in permitting certain types of trade with and assistance to Iraq; thus, we can treat Iraq like any other country not on the terrorist list.

I think it's important to underscore some facts here. <h3>MEK is designated by the U.S. Government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. This organization mixes Islam and Marxism in their battle to establish what they claim would be a secular state in Iran.

Until the recent war in Iraq, they were allied with the government of Saddam Hussein and received most of their support from this regime. They have assisted the Hussein regime in suppressing opposition within Iraq, and performed internal security for the Iraqi regime.</h3> MEK, or as some recently referred to as the People's Mujahedin, <h3>has also attacked and killed Americans.</h3>

<h3>The MEK and its many aliases, including the political NCRI, are designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.</h3> The United States Government does not negotiate with terrorists. MEK's opposition to the Iranian Government does not change the fact that they are a terrorist organization. We understand the agreement on the ground in the field is a prelude to the group's surrender. Commanders make tactical decisions to end conflict with enemy combatants successfully.

There's a lot of activity in various areas underway in Iraq -- of which this is one -- I would refer you to CENTCOM and their briefers to get better insight to the decision-making and the actions of our commanders, coalition commanders on the ground.

<h3>This is a pretty special group. They are a Foreign Terrorist Organization.</h3> They are not well liked in Iraq; they could not be put with the general prisoner population. They are following the orders of the coalition commanders, and their situation will be addressed in the coming days and weeks.

Yes, sir. .......

Not only is he a long time Fox News "foreign policy consultant", this man who was the spokesperson and Washington lobbyist for the terrorist group MEK for
12 years, until the US shut it's DC office down in Aug., 2003, but, in this article (He writes about one per week and makes regular Fox News broadcast appearances) he quotes his successor at the terrorist group, in the article:

(How is Alireza Jafarzadeh even permitted to live and work in the US?)

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346091,00.html
Ayatollahs’ Quest for Nuclear Weapons

Thursday, April 03, 2008

By Alireza Jafarzadeh

.....CIA Director Michael Hayden on Sunday became the third major Bush administration official to assert that Iran has been pursuing a nuclear weapons program all along. Echoing statements made by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Hayden told NBC's Meet the Press: “Why would the Iranians be willing to pay the international tariff they appear willing to pay for what they're doing now if they did not have, at a minimum… the desire to keep the option open to develop a nuclear weapon and, perhaps even more so, that they've already decided to do that?”

Critics were quick to point to December's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which declared with “high confidence” that “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” But the director of National Intelligence, Vice Adm. Mike McConnell, appeared to disavow the NIE conclusion in congressional testimony in early February. McConnell said the wording of an unclassified version of the Estimate released to the public had been careless. “So if I'd had until now to think about it, I probably would have changed a thing or two.”

Apparently, the Brits would have changed a thing or two, as well. On March 5, the British government joined in the fray. A senior British diplomat claimed there was no serious evidence that Iran's efforts to build a nuclear weapon had halted: "I haven't seen any intelligence that gives me even medium confidence that these programmes haven't resumed. It's an uncertain picture." His comments appeared to reflect the findings of an independent British assessment of intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, completed after the American assessment was published.

For one thing, the NIE's authors noted that in deciding whether Iran was in fact pursuing a nuclear weapons program, they did not consider the uranium conversion and enrichment activities Iran declared to be for “civilian purposes.” That is almost laughable. Tehran's entire modus operandi is concealment, via shell companies or “civilian” enrichment projects.

In a news conference in Brussels on February 20, Mohammad Mohaddessin, <h3>the Chairman of the NCRI's Foreign Affairs Committee,</h3> announced that in April 2007, the Iranian regime's nuclear project had entered a new phase. A command and control center, known as Mojdeh site, had been established to head up the drive to complete a nuclear bomb. Many of the activities at the site are disguised as part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps'(IRGC) Malek Ashtar University.....

Foxnews is not even trying to conceal the terrorist resume of their "man", look at the bottom of his article:

Quote:

Until August 2003, Jafarzadeh acted for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesman for the U.S. representative office of Iran's parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

The background for this is in my recent post here, in post #248
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...91#post2426791

How, during a "war on terror", is Fox News able to get away with employing a former terrorist who seems to be doing exactly what he was doing when his MEK group was fighting side by side with Saddam's regime, against Iran?

Could this reporting offer a clue as to how the FCC and FBI and DHS permit a former, high level member of a foreign terrorist group to be employed by Foxnews and write articles contradicting the NIE determination on the status of Iran's nuclear weapons development, blatantly quoting a current spokesperson of their common terrorist organization, in his Foxnews article?

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7902719/...playmode/1098/
Terror Watch: A Strange Source of Intelligence on Iran
The State Department says MEK is a terror group. Human Rights Watch says it’s a cult. For the White House, MEK is a source of intelligence on Iran.

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
updated 6:51 p.m. ET, Fri., May. 20, 2005...

.....Despite the group's notoriety, Bush himself cited purported intelligence gathered by MEK as evidence of the Iranian regime's rapidly accelerating nuclear ambitions.
At a March 16 press conference, Bush said Iran's hidden nuclear program had been discovered not because of international inspections but "because a dissident group pointed it out to the world." White House aides acknowledged later that the dissident group cited by the president is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), one of the MEK front groups added to the State Department list two years ago.....

Strange Famous · 04-05-2008, 11:00 AM

surely it's a case of poacher turned gamekeeper?

Daniel_ · 04-05-2008, 11:38 AM

Works for the former IRA terrorist leader turned Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Martin Maguinness.

Also the convicted terrorist turned President of RSA, Nelson Mandella.

Just out of intrest, when was Methyl Ethyl Ketone declared terrorist?

Ustwo · 04-05-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Jafarzadeh, NCRI and the Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS)

Alireza Jafarzadeh, has been particularly singled out and targeted by Iran's government for his unique historical role in revealing Iran's attempts to obtain nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction. Numerous web sites associated with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security have launched a coordinated smearing attack and false information propagation against him. According to the interrogation records of several Iranian spies arrested in Europe, as revealed by Holland's Interior Security Service,[9] "Iranian intelligence "distributes negative information" on dissidents", including Jafarzadeh, "and "strives to portray a Satanic view" of them." This operation is funded at tens of millions of dollars per year and is considered vital to Iran's Intelligence Ministry. As part of this operation, ex-members of dissident groups who have been turned by Iranian intelligence write diatribes against exile groups. As well as using threats and intimidation to turn espionage targets, bribes are also employed.

In reference to the Iranian Government activities against Alireza Jafarzadeh and other prominent dissidents of the Iranian regime living in the United States, one Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security spy revealed details of his operations in an affidavit he submitted to the US courts.[9] Jamshid Tafrishi said: "I pretended that I was an opponent of the Iranian regime, while I was in fact advancing the assignments given by the Iranian Intelligence Ministry." He says he "actively participated in the Iranian regime conspiracy" to blacken the names of exiles. This included relaying false information to foreign governments, including claims that dissidents had the support of Saddam Hussein.

Clare Lopez, a high-ranking CIA officer of 20 years standing and now a senior adviser to the Iran Policy Committee, a Washington-based think-tank which advocates democracy in Iran, says: "The Iranian regime deploys its intelligence agents and assets in a very sophisticated campaign to infiltrate and influence Western academia, media, non-governmental organizations and policy-making structures. "They make extensive use of the internet and fund or manage dozens of online websites. The MOIS are masters of disinformation, denial and deception - all crafted to lull the international community into acceptance of the terrorist regime in Tehran, compel us to abandon any serious punitive action at the UN Security Council over their nuclear weapons program, and smear the reputation of Iranian dissidents and exiles who oppose the clerical clique that rules Iran today".[9]

The conservative daily newspaper in Iran revealed in 1999[6] that Jafarzadeh's name has been in the hit list of Saeed Emami the deputy minister of intelligence (under Ali Fallahian), and an intelligence officer under Ghorbanali Dorri-Najafabadi, who was charged with assassinations of dissidents inside and outside Iran.

As a result, Jafarzadeh's association with the National Council of Resistance of Iran in which one of the main member organizations is Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) has been a source of controversy. Jafarzadeh was the public spokesperson for the National Council of Resistance of Iran until its office in Washington was closed by the US State Department on the grounds that it was too closely associated with Mujahedin-e Khalq, by then listed as a terrorist organistion.[10] It is broadly believed that inclusion of NCRI and MEK in the list was a token offered to the theocratic regime of Iran rather than based the facts of the matter. According to the Wall Street Journal:[11] "Senior diplomats in the Clinton administration say the MEK figured prominently as a bargaining chip in a bridge-building effort with Tehran." The Journal added that: In 1997, the State Department added the MEK to a list of global terrorist organizations as "a signal" of the U.S.'s desire for rapprochement with Tehran's reformists, says Martin Indyk, who at the time was assistant secretary of state for Near East Affairs. President Khatami's government "considered it a pretty big deal," Mr. Indyk says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alireza_Jafarzadeh

Hes either an excellent double agent, or a very good guy on our side.

Either way the OP is just a smear campaign against him and completely pointless.

Strange Famous · 04-05-2008, 11:50 AM

changing the subject a bit... I'd love to be a fly on the wall for some of the first meetings working together between Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness.

Two hard men, both guilty and upright in their own ways: and pretty much as odd a couple as you could imagine.

I dont know a lot about the guy in the original post, but if you want someone to be an expert on extremism in the middle east, finding someone with a background in it is kind of the idea.

host · 04-05-2008, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alireza_Jafarzadeh

Hes either an excellent double agent, or a very good guy on our side.

Either way the OP is just a smear campaign against him and completely pointless.

Ustwo, I can go into Wiki with the facts I've put in the OP and take the puff piece that is displayed there now, completely apart. Doesn't it appear to you that the guy wrote the WIKI piece himself?

Here is what we know. This guy has made a large number or claims about Iran that were contradicted in the NIE released last november, a document that was challenged, second guessed, and delayed for a year before it was reluctantly distributed.

We know that he was NCRI spokesman and Washington lobbyist for a dozen years....for an organization that fought alongside Saddam, and helped Saddam repress his own people, a state dept. designated....specifically by name "NCRI" terrorist organization accused by State Dept. of killing Americans. The result was that his office in Washington was shut down in Aug., 2003, because we are in a "WAR ON TERROR".

He walked over to Foxnews, got a job doing the same thing he was at NCRI, propagandizing against Iran, and he manipulated Bush into quoting him in a March 16, 2005 speech.

Two days ago, he wrote an article published at Foxnews website, contradicting the US NIE, and quoting his terrorist org successor, at NCRI, in the article, as support for his contentions.....

,,,,,nope, yer probably right....we'll go with what it sez on his Wiki bio!!!!!!!!

Strange Famous · 04-05-2008, 12:45 PM

the bigger question is what are CIA operatives doing being quoted in the media?

Is the concept of secret service lost on them?

I guess this is what comes of a body recruiting on the basis of meritocracy, rather than soundness.

We didnt even admit that MI5 and MI6 even existed in public till 10 years ago. We still dont talk about MI7.

Seaver · 04-05-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

the bigger question is what are CIA operatives doing being quoted in the media?

We agree on something. Another question is why newspapers/television news publish secrets leaked by said operatives.

Strange Famous · 04-05-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

We agree on something. Another question is why newspapers/television news publish secrets leaked by said operatives.

Absolutely.

I think most people believe in freedom of speech, but not to the point that it compromises the state.

It is bizarre that a recently serving officer would be in the media talking about a current world event. I agree it should not be allowed to be published unless there is an utterly massive public interest argument, which goes through the courts first.

My grandfather was the Air Trafic Controller at a RAF/USAF base in the East of England in the 70's and 80's... which happened to have a (I think now believed to be a hoax) UFO incident at his station (RAF Woodbridge) and he would NEVER talk about something even as irrelevant as that no matter how much I bugged him when I was a kid. He just wouldnt talk about it as a matter of principle because everything was under the official secrets act and he took that seriously.

host · 04-05-2008, 01:01 PM

Can you condemn this Fox "mouthpiece", Seaver, now that there is info that this is a terrorist with bi-partisan support?

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200209301...3579.asp?cp1=1
Ashcroft’s Baghdad Connection
Why the attorney general and others in Washington have backed a terror group with ties to Iraq
By Michael Isikoff
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
Sept. 26 — When the White House released its Sept. 12 “white paper” detailing Saddam Hussein’s “support for international terrorism,” it caused more than a little discomfort in some quarters of Washington.

THE 27-PAGE DOCUMENT—entitled “A Decade of Deception and Defiance”—made no mention of any Iraqi ties to Osama bin Laden. But it did highlight Saddam’s backing of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), an obscure Iranian dissident group that has gathered surprising support among members of Congress in past years. One of those supporters, the documents show, is a top commander in President Bush’s war on terrorism: Attorney General John Ashcroft, who became involved with the MKO while a Republican senator from Missouri.

The case of Ashcroft and the MKO shows just how murky fighting terrorism can sometimes get. State Department officials first designated the MKO a “foreign terrorist organization” in 1997, accusing the Baghdad-based group of a long series of bombings, guerilla cross-border raids and targeted assassinations of Iranian leaders. Officials say the MKO—which originally fought to overthrow the Shah of Iran—was linked to the murder of several U.S. military officers and civilians in Iran in the 1970s. “They have an extremely bloody history,” says one U.S. counterterrorism official.

But the MKO, which commands an army of 30,000 from bases inside Iraq, has tried to soften its image in recent years—in part with strong backing from politically active Iranian-Americans in the United States. The MKO operates in Washington out of a small office in the National Press Building under the name the National Council of Resistance of Iran. According to the State Department, the National Council of Resistance is a “front” for the MKO; in 1999, the National Council itself was placed on the State Department terrorist list. But National Council officials adamantly deny their group has earned the terror label and have aggressively portrayed itself to Washington lawmakers as a “democratic” alternative to a repressive Iranian regime that itself is one of the world’s leading sponsors of terrorism. “You’re talking about a really popular movement,” says Alireza Jafarzadeh, the National Council’s chief Washington spokesman, who insists that the MKO “targets only military targets.”

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.

That same year, Senator Ashcroft wrote a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno protesting the detention of an Iranian woman, Mahnaz Samadi, who was a leading spokeswoman for the National Council of Resistance. The case quickly became a cause celebre for the MKO and its supporters in the United States.

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service agents had arrested Samadi at the Canadian border, charging her with failing to disclose her past “terrorist” ties as an MKO “military commander”—including spending seven months in a MKO military-training camp inside Iraq—when she sought political asylum in the United States several years earlier, according to court documents obtained by NEWSWEEK.

Senator Ashcroft saw the case differently. In his May 10, 2000, letter to Reno, the Missouri lawmaker expressed “concern” about the detention, calling Samadi a “highly regarded human-rights activist” and a “powerful voice for democracy.” (As part of a later settlement with the INS, Samadi admitted her membership in MKO but denied that she personally participated in any “terrorist activity.” While her grant of political asylum was revoked, the INS dropped its deportation proceedings and she was permitted to remain in the United States.)

Alireza Jafarzadeh, the National Council’s top Washington lobbyist, said he had “several” meetings with Ashcroft aides about the matter and that he “certainly” viewed the Missouri senator as a supporter of his group. But backers of the MKO acknowledge the real lobbying was done by Iranian-Americans in Missouri who wrote letters and made repeated phone calls on Samadi’s behalf. How much Ashcroft got personally involved isn’t clear. A Justice Department spokeswoman told NEWSWEEK that Ashcroft’s letter to Reno was the result of a “straightforward, constituent-type inquiry,” adding that the current attorney general would never “knowingly” back any terrorist group. When he signed the joint statement with Bond that was read at the National Council rally at the United Nations, Ashcroft did not “intend to endorse any organization,” the spokeswoman, Barbara Comstock, said. “He was supporting democracy and freedom in Iran,” she said. Comstock said Ashcroft currently has “no problem” prosecuting all U.S.-based terror groups, including the MKO.

Ashcroft isn’t the only one now distancing himself from the MKO. The Senate’s most aggressive promotor of the MKO for years has been Bob Torricelli, who in recent years has circulated numerous letters among his colleagues—including one as recently as last year—describing the MKO as a “legitimate” alternative to the repressive Iranian mullahs and urging that the group be taken off the State Department terrorist list. Torricelli told NEWSWEEK he saw his support for the group as a way of putting pressure on the Iranian regime. “They [the MKO] were the only game in town,” he said. But Torricelli also said last week said he would no longer push the group’s cause after getting hammered over the issue by his GOP opponent, Doug Forrester, who accused Torricelli of receiving more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from Iranian-Americans who supported the group. (Torricelli aides say the amount is exaggerated and that others, including some leading Republicans, have also received contributions from some of the same Iranian-Americans.) As a result of the September 11 attacks and new concerns about any allegations of terrorism, Bond also has put his backing for the group “in abeyance,” an aide said.

Much of the new skittishness among MKO’s congressional backers also stems from the decision by the Bush White House to emphasize the connections between MKO and Saddam. It isn’t the first time this was done. Former Clinton administration official Martin Indyk, who served as assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs in 1997, told NEWSWEEK that one of the reasons the group was put on the terrorism list in the first place was part of a “two-pronged” strategy that included ratcheting up pressure on Saddam. Like the Bush White House, the Clinton administration was eager to highlight Iraqi ties to terrorism and had collected extensive evidence of Saddam providing logistical support to the MKO in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq War. (The MKO’s headquarters are located on a heavily guarded street in central Baghdad.) But the United States could find no other hard evidence linking Saddam to terror groups, Indyk said. “That was about all we had on [Saddam] when it came to terrorism,” Indyk told NEWSWEEK.

National-security adviser Condoleezza Rice said in an interview Wednesday on PBS’s “The NewsHour” that the United States had new evidence from “high-ranking detainees” that Iraq has provided “some training to Al Qaeda in chemical-weapons development.” But a top U.S. law-enforcement official recently cast some doubt about the strength of the evidence connecting Saddam and Al Qaeda, telling NEWSWEEK there is far more substantial evidence that Iran was harboring top Al Qaeda leaders.)

The other “prong” in the Clinton strategy that led to the inclusion of the MKO on the terrorist list was White House interest in opening up a dialogue with the Iranian government. At the time, President Khatami had recently been elected and was seen as a moderate. Top administration officials saw cracking down on the MKO—which the Iranians had made clear they saw as a menace—as one way to do so. Still, Indyk said the basic decision to label the MKO as terrorists could be justified anyway. “Yes, they’re bad guys,” he told NEWSWEEK. “But no—they’re not targeting us.”

Indyk’s comments lend partial support to one of the main contentions of MKO and its congressional supporters: that geopolitical strategy—a tilt toward Iran—was an important factor in the State Department decision to accuse MKO of terrorism. “They wanted to appease the Iranian regime,” said Jafarzadeh, the National Council of Resistance lobbyist
.
Still, the Justice Department appears only to be stepping up investigations into MKO members. Early last year, the FBI broke up a ring of Iranians who were raising money at the Los Angeles airport under the guise of helping suffering children when, according to a court complaint, they were routing the funds to the MKO. (A federal judge recently tossed the case out of court, but the Justice Department is appealing.) Then, last December, FBI agents showed up at the home of Jafarzadeh. Armed with a search warrant, the agents hauled away boxes of documents, including files on the group’s dealings with members of Congress. One in particular must have gotten the agents’ attention. It was labeled ASHCROFT.

Strange Famous · 04-05-2008, 01:04 PM

I personally wont take any source seriously that is written by someone who doesnt even know that you spell "Usama" with a "U"... sorry.

Seaver · 04-05-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Can you condemn this Fox "mouthpiece", Seaver, now that there is info that this is a terrorist with bi-partisan support?

Based on my very little amount of information? Sure.

I know the MKO is a terrorist organization. It's love/hate relationship with the Kurdish resistance in Iraq blended with Saddam was a major topic of a paper in college. Yes they worked with, and with the support of Saddam, yet also fought and worked with the Kurds against him... it gets really weird for a while there. To be honest, the more I researched it the more I realized no one really could keep track on all the nuances and I just basically ran out of time and had to summarize with little thesis involved.

So yes, with the very little amount of knowledge about what really went on I can denounce it. However, the disclaimer is we were also involved in the MKO and do not know the extent they may have helped us (somehow).

dc_dux · 04-05-2008, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Another question is why newspapers/television news publish secrets leaked by said operatives.

seaver...how about First Amendment rights?

see: Supreme Court, 6-3, Upholds Newspapers on Publication of Pentagon Report

The media obviously should exercise some restraint in revealing any details that could harm national security....but they also have an obligation to report on illegal activities of the government.

Most recently, the NSA employee who provided general information to the NY Times on Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping program is a good example.

now back to MEK

Strange Famous · 04-05-2008, 01:21 PM

Is there any equivalent of the D-Notice in the US?

Seaver · 04-05-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

seaver...how about First Amendment rights?

Washington hung people for spying during the war. Revealing secrets was deemed illegal by even one of those who agreed with the freedom of speech.

nice try.

dc_dux · 04-05-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Washington hung people for spying during the war. Revealing secrets was deemed illegal by even one of those who agreed with the freedom of speech.

nice try.

spying and media revealing classified information......apples and oranges.

USSC....NY Times vs United States by vote of 6-3.

Quote:

The United States, which brought these actions to enjoin publication in the New York Times and in the Washington Post of certain classified material, has not met the "heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such a [prior] restraint."

Thats not to say that there are not situations where the US govt could show just cause...but not a blanket restriction.

nice try!

Strange Famous · 04-05-2008, 01:58 PM

A recently serving intelligence officer being allowed to comment on a serious international situation in the world media should not be allowed.

It really has nothing to do with the first amendment.

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with some supposed right of military personal to cash in on their jobs by selling intelligence to the media.

dc_dux · 04-05-2008, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

A recently serving intelligence officer being allowed to comment on a serious international situation in the world media should not be allowed.

Intel officers (or members of the military) should not have been allowed to reveal US torture of Iraqi prisoners at abu ghraib prison?

I dont think they "cashed in" on it.

Strange Famous · 04-05-2008, 02:47 PM

It would have been better for everyone if they had not.

If they had simply reported their findings the sadists involved could have been quietly dealt with, without harm to the US military morale, or the Iraqi people.

Of course, torturers should be punished... but there is no need to run around in public waving a red flag at a bull.

I wonder how many people have died as a result of the outrage caused by the mistreatment of prisoners there?

But I suppose the whistle blowers have a clean conscience, and they dont have to pay the price.

host · 04-05-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

It would have been better for everyone if they had not.

If they had simply reported their findings the sadists involved could have been quietly dealt with, without harm to the US military morale, or the Iraqi people.

Of course, torturers should be punished... but there is no need to run around in public waving a red flag at a bull.

I wonder how many people have died as a result of the outrage caused by the mistreatment of prisoners there?

But I suppose the whistle blowers have a clean conscience, and they dont have to pay the price.

You're naive Strange Famous.....torture and rendition were policy, institutionalized SOP....no accountability or investigation possible without massive publicity, no accountability for those who gave the orders, then or now:

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002779
<img src="http://harpers.org/media/image/blogs/misc/abughraib2.jpg">

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...yoo/index.html

Strange Famous · 04-05-2008, 03:06 PM

Publicity of these crimes is a hinderance to justice.

Now it is in the open the state has to keep face.

If it have been kept undercover the people responsible would have been punished.

I dont suppose it makes much difference to the victims of torture: but that is the reality of war. War is the application of violence, and the suffering of innocent and guilty people is bound to occur. If you dont want to see such things, you shouldnt declare war on someone for the sake of grabbing their oil.

hiredgun · 04-06-2008, 05:41 PM

Minister of a terrorist group... that's an interesting label.

Jafarzadeh is no better and no worse than any other guy who tries to pick up US support in pursuit of his own narrow political agenda. The MEK is a pseudo-Marxist militant group that takes a hard stance against the current government in Tehran. This quality has led a number of American hardliners to put Jafarzadeh front and center as a 'good guy' sounding the alarm about Iranian nukes and other topics. But as was the case with Iraqi exiles, you cannot understand any information that comes from this group without making a serious attempt to understand why they might be saying what they say.

Do I think he should be on Fox? It wouldn't bother me overmuch so long as his appearance was framed accurately and put into its proper context. When a news network (even Fox) brings a lobbyist on-camera to discuss the very issue on which he lobbies, everything he says is put through the lens of why he is appearing on-air in the first place. If we're lucky, the journalists even ask some hard-hitting questions. Jafarzadeh should get the same treatment.

host · 04-06-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiredgun

Minister of a terrorist group... that's an interesting label.

Jafarzadeh is no better and no worse than any other guy who tries to pick up US support in pursuit of his own narrow political agenda. The MEK is a pseudo-Marxist militant group that takes a hard stance against the current government in Tehran. This quality has led a number of American hardliners to put Jafarzadeh front and center as a 'good guy' sounding the alarm about Iranian nukes and other topics. But as was the case with Iraqi exiles, you cannot understand any information that comes from this group without making a serious attempt to understand why they might be saying what they say.

Do I think he should be on Fox? It wouldn't bother me overmuch so long as his appearance was framed accurately and put into its proper context. When a news network (even Fox) brings a lobbyist on-camera to discuss the very issue on which he lobbies, everything he says is put through the lens of why he is appearing on-air in the first place. If we're lucky, the journalists even ask some hard-hitting questions. Jafarzadeh should get the same treatment.

hiredgun, isn't it astounding that the man joined Foxnews because he became available because his 12 year "gig" as spokesperson and Washington lobbyist for NCRI ended when the State Dept. ordered his DC office shut down on the grounds that it was the DC office of a terrorist organization that has killed Americans and worked closely on repression in Iraq, with Saddam, yet Foxnews with no complete disclaimer permits him to quote the current NCRI spokesperson's views in an article he is permitted to publish on Fox's website?

In a long, long, war on terror, are spokesman/lobbyist/collaborators with a terrorist organization, journalist, sought after foreign affairs expert, or clandestine terrorist inflitrator, worthy of a one way trip to Guantonomo?

I am confused!

MSD · 04-07-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

I personally wont take any source seriously that is written by someone who doesnt even know that you spell "Usama" with a "U"... sorry.

Different spellings are regional. Osama, Usama, and Usamah are common versions and it depends on who translates it from where and whether it's literal or phonetic.

Rekna · 04-07-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSD

Different spellings are regional. Osama, Usama, and Usamah are common versions and it depends on who translates it from where and whether it's literal or phonetic.

You are correct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Quote:

Osama bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden (Arabic: أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن‎; born 10 March 1957),[1] most often mentioned as Osama bin Laden or Usama bin Laden, is an Islamic militant who is believed

hiredgun · 04-08-2008, 08:48 AM

host: I understand that the incoherence of the 'war on terror' and even the 'terrorist' label is deeply frustrating. But if one treats that bit of non-sense as the terminal point of one's thought, then he is no better than the other guy who uncritically throws the labels around without thinking about where they came from or more importantly what they even mean.

I'll say again that yes, he's affiliated with a pretty bizarre militant group. I'm aware of his various legal troubles - I've met the guy, actually. He and I agree on very little, but it is not his presence on TV that I find troublesome, only the cartoonish way in which most television news handles this and other issues.

Ustwo · 04-08-2008, 12:55 PM

Honestly I can't understand how an educated person could be a Marxist, at least after age 22 (assuming you graduate college at 21), unless of course they stayed in a University, sitting on their ass, getting nothing important done. That being said I would rather a Marxist state in Iran, than a religious fundamentalist one.

Looking at Mek, something I never bothered to before now, I seems they got a bit screwed. It seems their terrorist designation was a bargaining chip with Tehran, you stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and we will get rid of Western support for Mek. Not sure how well that worked, but apparently not to well in European courts...

Quote:

PMOI is– legally or at least well tolerated – active in Germany, Denmark and many other countries of the European Union. The NCRI maintained an Information Office in Washington DC, USA until August 2002, when US Secretary of State Colin Powell issued an order to shut down the offices.[53] Recently, Dick Marty, Swiss investigator working for the human rights body the Council of Europe, called this designation a violation of human rights.[54]

In April 2007, CNN reported that the US military and the International Committee of the Red Cross was continuing to protect the group, with the US army regularly escorting PMOI supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf.[55] On Nov 30, 2007 the British Court,The Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission(POAC) ruled to the annulment of the terrorist designation and ordered the British government to remove PMOI off the terrorist list.[10][11]

I suppose what perhaps amuses me most are these are Marxists, good old fashioned Reds, the communist menace, who are being supported by conservatives and smeared by leftists.

All of this because of Irans peaceful venture into nuclear power (pause for laughter).

04-05-2008, 11:00 AM	#2 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	surely it's a case of poacher turned gamekeeper? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-05-2008, 11:38 AM	#3 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	Works for the former IRA terrorist leader turned Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Martin Maguinness. Also the convicted terrorist turned President of RSA, Nelson Mandella. Just out of intrest, when was Methyl Ethyl Ketone declared terrorist? __________________ ╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗ Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

04-05-2008, 11:50 AM	#5 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	changing the subject a bit... I'd love to be a fly on the wall for some of the first meetings working together between Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness. Two hard men, both guilty and upright in their own ways: and pretty much as odd a couple as you could imagine. I dont know a lot about the guy in the original post, but if you want someone to be an expert on extremism in the middle east, finding someone with a background in it is kind of the idea. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-05-2008, 12:45 PM	#7 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	the bigger question is what are CIA operatives doing being quoted in the media? Is the concept of secret service lost on them? I guess this is what comes of a body recruiting on the basis of meritocracy, rather than soundness. We didnt even admit that MI5 and MI6 even existed in public till 10 years ago. We still dont talk about MI7. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-05-2008, 01:04 PM	#11 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I personally wont take any source seriously that is written by someone who doesnt even know that you spell "Usama" with a "U"... sorry. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-05-2008, 01:21 PM	#14 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Is there any equivalent of the D-Notice in the US? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-05-2008, 01:58 PM	#17 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	A recently serving intelligence officer being allowed to comment on a serious international situation in the world media should not be allowed. It really has nothing to do with the first amendment. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with some supposed right of military personal to cash in on their jobs by selling intelligence to the media. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-05-2008, 02:47 PM	#19 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	It would have been better for everyone if they had not. If they had simply reported their findings the sadists involved could have been quietly dealt with, without harm to the US military morale, or the Iraqi people. Of course, torturers should be punished... but there is no need to run around in public waving a red flag at a bull. I wonder how many people have died as a result of the outrage caused by the mistreatment of prisoners there? But I suppose the whistle blowers have a clean conscience, and they dont have to pay the price. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-05-2008, 03:06 PM	#21 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Publicity of these crimes is a hinderance to justice. Now it is in the open the state has to keep face. If it have been kept undercover the people responsible would have been punished. I dont suppose it makes much difference to the victims of torture: but that is the reality of war. War is the application of violence, and the suffering of innocent and guilty people is bound to occur. If you dont want to see such things, you shouldnt declare war on someone for the sake of grabbing their oil. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

04-06-2008, 05:41 PM	#22 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Minister of a terrorist group... that's an interesting label. Jafarzadeh is no better and no worse than any other guy who tries to pick up US support in pursuit of his own narrow political agenda. The MEK is a pseudo-Marxist militant group that takes a hard stance against the current government in Tehran. This quality has led a number of American hardliners to put Jafarzadeh front and center as a 'good guy' sounding the alarm about Iranian nukes and other topics. But as was the case with Iraqi exiles, you cannot understand any information that comes from this group without making a serious attempt to understand why they might be saying what they say. Do I think he should be on Fox? It wouldn't bother me overmuch so long as his appearance was framed accurately and put into its proper context. When a news network (even Fox) brings a lobbyist on-camera to discuss the very issue on which he lobbies, everything he says is put through the lens of why he is appearing on-air in the first place. If we're lucky, the journalists even ask some hard-hitting questions. Jafarzadeh should get the same treatment.

04-08-2008, 08:48 AM	#26 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	host: I understand that the incoherence of the 'war on terror' and even the 'terrorist' label is deeply frustrating. But if one treats that bit of non-sense as the terminal point of one's thought, then he is no better than the other guy who uncritically throws the labels around without thinking about where they came from or more importantly what they even mean. I'll say again that yes, he's affiliated with a pretty bizarre militant group. I'm aware of his various legal troubles - I've met the guy, actually. He and I agree on very little, but it is not his presence on TV that I find troublesome, only the cartoonish way in which most television news handles this and other issues.