I’m not using a Cavuto mark in the title there, I’m genuinely asking that question.
Long story short, a handful of prominent members of the conservative movement headed on over to Europe to sit down and chat with a Mujaheddin-e Khalq to offer support in their opposition to the current Iranian regime, and even called for Obama to stand up and stand with ‘em on that. Fair enough, until you realize that the MEK is a government-designated terrorist group.
“The problem is that the United States government has labeled the Mujahedeen Khalq a ‘foreign terrorist organization,’ making it a crime to provide it, directly or indirectly, with any material support,” he wrote in Monday’s edition of the New York Times. “It is therefore a felony, the government has argued, to file an amicus brief on behalf of a ‘terrorist’ group, to engage in public advocacy to challenge a group’s ‘terrorist’ designation or even to encourage peaceful avenues for redress of grievances.”
The Supreme Court has ruled that any “advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization” is a crime.
Keep in mind we’re not talking about “terrorist group” like the bunch of old ladies sitting around eating cookies that Michael Moore talked with in Fahrenheit 9/11. These are “helped murder civilians and take over a US embassy” terrorists.
“But Hanlon,” you may find yourself saying. “That was twenty years ago and these days they want to fight against the current Iranian regime who you yourself would like to see taken down! Can’t we apply a little ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ in this case?”
You’ve got a point, and I could certainly agree that a blanket law such as this becomes a hazy area when the group in question might not necessarily be bad with regards to something that is in the United States’ best interest, even if their prior activities have denoted them terrorists. After all, the word “terrorist” is bandied around so loosely that it’s not inconceivably for a legitimately pro-freedom group could get stuck with the label.
The problem here, though, is that we’ve got a gaggle of “TERRORISTS/DEMOCRATS BAD” right-wingers who are usually calling for anything faintly terrorist-ish to get people thrown into the gulags suddenly deciding that these terrorists aren’t so bad, all because they happen to fall on the right side of the Iranian debate, and as always offers them a chance to start talking shit on Democrats and liberals. As is so often the case, hypocrisy is as much of the issue as what exactly’s going on.
Actually, scratch that. Look at the shit they’ve been up to, even recently. They were allied with Saddam since the 1980s, got bombed by coalition forces in 2003, a couple thousand were captured, and later the Iraqi National Security Advisor barred them from being on Iraqi soil thanks to their fighting on Saddam’s side. They then used their position against Iran (not unexpected given their support of Saddam) as a bargaining chip, “revealing” Iran’s nuclear activities, to give them a little leverage with the US government. Sure, they might not like Iran, but they sure as shit don’t like us either, and any assistance they get from us is with the sole intention of getting themselves bolstered up to keep fighting against the west.
They are terrorists, plain and simple, and guys like Rudy Patootie want Obama to support them. Great work.
Hanlon’s Razor