1 - 3
Political executions and torture serve only to drive opponents to extremes.
msa, I agree that the designation should not be a political tool. I think that in trying to get countries to change their ways, one cannot fight them with the same methods that we oppose (i.e. terrorism). It should not simply be a decision to take sides. The U.S. courts have recognized that the FTO list involves questions of national security which they consider outside their jurisdiction. The MEK have engaged in attacks on U.S. soil as well as Iranian soil. It seems that Tom Tancredo accurately perceives that the MEK has the will to resume attacks in Iran if given the opportunity. If the U.S. facilitates this eventuality it sets a dangerous precedent.
Mr. Tancredo is two faced. In 2002 he co-sponsored the House resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. That war was fought for various reasons including the fact that Iraq sheltered the terrorist MEK. The MEK was considered a terrorist organization by the State Department long before Congress required the Secretary to prepare an official list under the 1996 Anti-terrorism Act. Judging by Tom's words, he would like nothing better than that the MEK resume their terrorist activities (as long as they are directed at Iran). BTW, where is Massoud Rajavi? Wasn't he located in Camp Ashraf?
1 - 3