Iraq's Constitution Held Hostage by Foreign Terrorists

10/17/05

By: Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

 

When George W. Bush swapped excuses for invading Iraq and decided his mission was to spread gun-point democracy and eradicate terrorism instead of finding WMD he should not have given ‘protected person status’ to 3800 terrorists in Camp Ashraf. 

 

These terrorists now demand a say in the new Iraqi constitution – after all, they have buddies in Congress.

 

On October 7, 2005, the Mojahedin-e Khalg (MEK, MKO), took out a one-page ad in the New York Times demanding that Article 21C of the Iraqi draft constitution be revised.  Extraordinarily, they claim to have 1 million signatures from Iraqi citizens.  If only that many citizens would go to the poll to vote!

 

The MEK, this terrorist organization that participated in the murder of American citizens, that spearheaded the US embassy hostage takeover, a group that is on the State Department terrorist list, but has somehow, due to the support of 150 Congressional members, and the powerful AIPAC lobby group, has been blessed with the ‘special person status’ and enjoys protection under the Geneva Convention now speaks of Article 21C violating asylum and human rights and would like it changed…An Article that belongs to another country’s constitution.

 

Imagine 3,800 members of Hamas DEMANDING a change to the US Constitution! 

 

In a recent report, the reputable Human Rights Watch organization interviewed several MEK members who had been subjected to torture by the MEK cult.  These members recount of the methods the MEK used, and the time they spent in the infamous Abu Gharib prison of Saddam Hossein. [1]  It is surely a jest that this cult, which has perfected the art of torture, would like to shape Iraq’s constitution claiming it violates human rights. 

 

Perhaps the bigger irony and affront in the full page ad is the citation that certain British Lords and Members of Parliament support the modification of Article 21C of Iraq’s draft constitution.  It is mind-boggling that the British, in violation of international law, not only occupy Iraq, but more importantly, their immediate concern is not with the devastation caused with their action, the violence and insurgency that is rife, and the imminent civil war, but rather, the appeasement of 3800 terrorists!  They do like to fish in muddy waters, the British.  After all, they masterminded the infamous 1953 coup.

 

Equally outrageous is the accusation that Iran is meddling in Iraq.  Contrary to the MEK allegations,  it would be to Iran’s advantage to see a secure, Shiite dominated  Iraq which will see the American military leave, hence away from Iran’s borders.  Not only is the Iranian Government not paying for full page ads such as these to further its ambitions in Iraq, it is not necessary for it to do so.

 

As for the saga of the MEK’s future - it would be interesting to see how this one plays out.  Surely, there will be a sacrificial lamb just as there was with the Valerie Wilson case.  When the WMD story was found to be an outrageous exaggeration (?!), a CIA operative was put out of commission to take punishment for the whistle-blowing husband.  Since  the MEK terrorist cult demand to have a hand in the running of Iraq (as a bonus for the overthrow of Islamic regime), someone must pay for not having the foresight, or at least the lack of planning to see this coming. 

 

On July 26, 2005, Adam Ereli, State Department Deputy Spokesman, tried to explain away the status given to the MEK in a daily press briefing.[2]  He failed miserably.  Who will pay the price?  American soldiers, Iraqis, or some poor bureaucrat who thought Bush really did talk to God?