Salon.com:
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?
That sets the scene for this diary, in which I will make a rather open and shut case that CNN, one of the leading names in news, provides a platform for and funding to a terrorist supporter and felon, as per the Supreme Court of the United States.
That terrorist supporter’s name is Frances Townsend, former Homeland Security Advisor in the Bush-Cheney administration.
And now paid CNN contributor on issues of national security.
Come along for the ride...
What First Amendment?
First, it is important to lay the groundwork as it relates to the SCOTUS decision referenced above. The case is known as Holder V. Humanitarian Law (warning: PDF file).
This is a very brief and cursory background to bring readers up to speed:
In the Humanitarian Law Project case, human rights workers wanted to teach members of the Kurdistan PKK, which seeks an independent Kurdish state, and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which sought an independent state in Sri Lanka, how to use humanitarian and international law to peacefully resolve disputes, and to obtain relief from the United Nations and other international bodies for human rights abuses by the governments of Turkey and Sri Lanka. Both organizations were designated as FTOs by the Secretary of State in a closed hearing, in which the evidence is heard secretly.
The basic premise of the court’s decision is as follows:
Despite the non-violent, peacemaking goal of this speech and training, the majority of the Supreme Court nonetheless interpreted the law to make such conduct a crime. Finding a whole new exception to the First Amendment, the Court decided that any support, even if it involves non-violent efforts towards peace, is illegal under the law since it "frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends," and also helps lend "legitimacy" to foreign terrorist groups. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts, despite the lack of any evidence, further opined that the FTO could use the human rights law to "intimidate, harass or destruct" its adversaries, and that even peace talks themselves could be used as a cover to re-arm for further attacks. Thus, the Court’s opinion criminalizes efforts by independent groups to work for peace if they in anyway cooperate or coordinate with designated FTOs.
Many will recall that this is the SCOTUS decision the FBI, under the Obama DoJ, has been using to carry out raids in places like Chicago and Minneapolis. Indeed, the government has been quick to round up those they deemed to have provided "material support" to FTOs. That is, when those are members of peace groups.
MEK as FTO
Next, it is important to understand MEK’s designation by the US State Department as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO). In consideration of the actions by the group to include, but not being limited to...
- During the 1970s, the MEK killed U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians working on defense projects in Tehran and supported the takeover in 1979 of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
- In 1981, the MEK detonated bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier's office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, President Mohammad-Ali Rajaei, and Premier Mohammad-Javad Bahonar.
- In 1991, the MEK reportedly assisted the Government of Iraq in suppressing the Shia uprisings in southern Iraq and the Kurdish uprisings in the north.
- In April 1992, the MEK conducted near-simultaneous attacks on Iranian embassies and installations in 13 countries, demonstrating the group's ability to mount large-scale operations overseas.
- In April 1999, the MEK targeted key military officers and assassinated the deputy chief of the Iranian Armed Forces General Staff.
...they were added to the State Department list of FTOs in 1997, under President Clinton, where they have remained listed as such ever since...under presidents from both political parties.
Speech As Support
Just to make sure I had the correct understanding of the SCOTUS decision, I went directly to information from the lawyer who argued the case for the defense. That lawyer was Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, and he had this to say in an op-ed piece in the NY Times called "Chewing Gum for Terrorists":
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. And, according to the Justice Department under Mr. Mukasey himself, as well as under the current attorney general, Eric Holder, material support includes not only cash and other tangible aid, but also speech coordinated with a "foreign terrorist organization" for its benefit. 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.
I want to focus on that last part, and repeat it so that it’s clear:
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.
As per the United States government, to "engage in public advocacy to challenge a group’s "terrorist" designation" is to be a terrorist supporter and felon.
A terrorist supporter and felon; which brings us to CNN’s Frances Townsend.
The kicker here is that Fran Townsend herself, while on CNN, praised the SCOTUS decision that makes her a felon for having violated it:
BLITZER: So it's a major decision, a 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court. 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.
TOWNSEND: It is more than just voicing support, Wolf. It is actually the notion of providing material support, significant material support.
BLITZER: But they're saying that if material support, they're defining as expressing support or giving advice or whatever to that organization.
TOWNSEND: That's right.
Fran Is Right
"That’s right", Fran.
"Expressing support or giving advice or whatever" to a group listed as a FTO is a felony for which the "government can come down hard on you, and the Supreme Court said the government has every right to do so".
Fran should not have even thought about "voicing support for a terrorist group".
Yet, she topped that by actually doing it.
Moreover, in "voicing support for a terrorist group", Fran committed the specific felony of engaging in "public advocacy to challenge a group’s ‘terrorist’ designation".
(...)
Frances Fragos Townsend ... demanded that Obama instead take the controversial Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) opposition group off the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations and incorporate it into efforts to overturn the mullah-led government in Tehran.
A video of the conference can be found here:
http://www.mojahedin.org/...
Recapping Facts:
- MEK is a US State Department listed foreign terrorist organization
- It is a felony to engage in public advocacy to challenge a group's terrorist designation
- Fran Townsend engaged in public advocacy to challenge MEK’s designation as a foreign terrorist organization
- Fran Townsend is a paid contributor at CNN
Therefore: CNN funds a felon and terrorist supporter.
Known Knowns
CNN is well aware of her speech felony actions and terrorist supporting. They even carried a report about it on their own website:
Recently some officials from the George W. Bush administrations admitted that the government made a horrible mistake in continuing to blacklist the MEK. Frances Townsend, the former White House Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, described it as a "bad judgment" during a speech in Paris earlier this month, and added, "I know we were wrong not to delist the MEK, because of Iran's reaction... The tyrannical regime in Iran believed that the failure to delist the MEK was a weakness not strength."
That report makes it clear that CNN knowingly provides a ongoing platform for and funding to, per the SCOTUS, a felon and terrorist supporter.
Which begs the question: "Why?".
Perhaps we can get an answer from CNN by asking them?
Suggested ACTION ITEM for those so inclined:
Contact CNN.
Ask them why they provide a platform for and funding to a SCOTUS-described felon who sympathizes with and provides material support to a State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of Americans.
Contact DoJ.
Tip them off to further lawbreaking under a law they are presently using to prosecute others.
Do I expect much to come of that line of questioning and focus? While it should not stop us from taking action, not really.
After all, we live in the Land of Double Standards:
The actions of the Paris Four should create a dilemma for President Obama. Consistency in applying the law demands that he make sure that Giuliani, Ridge, Townsend and Mukasey are treated in the same way his Justice Department is treating people in Chicago and Minneapolis. Will he do so? If Obama runs true to form. he will not treat the Paris Four in the same fashion. It is to be noted that the President has already refused to pursue criminals associated with the previous Bush administration. The Paris Four will most likely be folded into this category of people exempt from prosecution. Why the double standards? Well, the president is very big on political consensus. The folks in the mid west who may or may not have given "material support" to designated "terrorists" in Palestine or Latin America have no political power, they cannot block or forward legislation, they can demand no national press time. But those just back from Paris can. In other words, if you are influential enough, you are protected from the same laws that are actively applied to other less powerful people.
And more than that, if we’re to be completely honest with ourselves, as Greenwald nails in his closing:
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.
"Arrow. Zing. Bullseye."!
So, lowly members of peace groups will continue to face arrest and trial while prominent conservative Republicans felons and terrorist supporters tour the globe... in part on CNN’s dime.
Because CNN funds a felon and terrorist supporter named Fran Townsend.