My diary yesterday was prompted by allegations that Howard Dean and others, including Ed Rendell, were in violation of Holder v Humanitarian Law. This 2010 Supreme Court decision prohibits material support to groups designated as terrorists. Material support is defined as not only cash and other tangible aid, but also speech coordinated with a “foreign terrorist organization” for its benefit. For example, filing an amicus brief on behalf of such an organization or publicly advocating for removing an organization off the FTO list are prohibited activities.
Leading the charge is a Glenn Greenwald column in Salon. While Greenwald acceded that the ruling was "one of the most severe erosions of free speech rights in decades" he nonetheless advocated
But whatever else is true, the activities of Townsend, Rendell, Dean, Giuliani and the rest of MEK’s paid shills are providing more than enough “material support” to be prosecuted under the Humanitarian Law decision and other statutes.
In a triumph of stenography, Greenwald's column was cited uncritically by other sites such as
Mother Jones and
TalkingPointsMemo.
Yesterday, Laura Goldman, who writes the Naked Philadelphian blog, posted a conversation she had with a source who was in a position to know who said
"Every week or two for the last three months, I have been on the calls with Ambassador Dan Fried, who was appointed by the State Department to deal with MEK, asking for our help in moving members of the MEK from the camp in Ashraf to Camp Liberty."
This raises a good question: Can group be prosecuted criminally by the government if they are acting at the behest of a US government official? I've been in Washington long enough to know that anything is possible but what a clusterphuck that prosecution would be.
Today, Goldman has more information that a) show the US promised protections to the MEK members and b) strongly suggest the Treasury investigation of Ed Rendell is highly suspect.
Goldman links to two documents in which the American government promises protection to each individual MEK member if he disarmed. "While some have accused the MEK of being a cult, the United States Government will not be able to negotiate future cease fires if they do not keep their word to the MEK," she writes.
Goldman links to a third document, which is a 2004 letter from Major General Geoffrey D. Miller, deputy commander of the multinational forces in Iraq, reiterating the US government promise that MEK members are protected under the Geneva conventions.
Again, what is the deal with the Treasury investigation into Ed Rendell? Timing is everything.
It appears that the Treasury Department has opened this investigation because of a March 26 Court of Appeals deadline. The court orders the US Government to respond to MEK's petition to delist by that date.
As Goldman points out--and I agree--it's hard not to be suspicious of the timing.