≡ Menu

Justice Department Investigating Whether MEK Speakers Accepted Illegal Fees from Terror Group

Did Alan Dershowitz accept blood money (aka speaker’s fee) from the MEK, a designated terror group? If so, he may’ve violated federal law.

For the past several years, prominent public figures including leaders of both the Republican and Democratic parties have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from the Mujahadeen al Khalq (MEK), a designated U.S. terror group. One of the most recent such individuals is Alan Dershowitz, who spoke last month at a DC MEK conference alongside Rudy Giuliani and others. Now, finally the Justice Department is investigating how the MEK paid these people. If the funds are found to have come from the group that would be a violation of federal law since Americans are not allowed to receive funds or cooperate with terror groups. Of course, the MEK is pretty shrewd about these things and doubtless paid them through a subsidiary that supposedly would not be directly connected to MEK. But if Justice can tie the entity that paid them to MEK, then these people are looking at potential criminal charges.

What I think is really happening here is that the Justice Department is firing a warning shot across the bow telling them to get off the gravy train. The MEK is not only a former terror group that has assassinated Americans, it is currently a terror group assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists. A recent Stratfor memo notes an Israeli source claiming the Mossad “contracted” these hits, which would mean it paid MEK for them. Who knows, if the memo is correct then some of the funds MEK got from these acts of terror could even be going into Dershowitz’ pocket. I’m sure he would be proud to be paid out of funds derived from the Mossad. And perhaps even proud of being paid out of fees for murdering Iranians. It would make the rest of us blanch, but likely not Dersh.

Let’s remember, shall we, the Bush administration’s valiant attempt to prevent Tariq Ramadan from “polluting” the halls of Notre Dame with his “Islamist militancy,” revoking his visa only days before he was to take up a professorship there. His “crime?” Giving charity to a Muslim fund which was found years later to be affiliated with Hamas. He was expected to have foreseen that sometime in the future the charity would become prohibited. This was enough to bar him from the U.S. for years and require a federal lawsuit to rectify the injustice done him.

MEK’s shenanigans are embarrassing the Obama administration. Besides killing Iranians and blowing up military bases, they’re also lobbying to be removed from the terror list. This presumably would enable them to be accepted into polite society and perhaps even receive covert funding directly from our own CIA. Yet a new gravy train.

But MEK is making it inconvenient by shreying against U.S. treatment of its refugees inside Iraq, demanding that they be repatriated from there. Rudy Giuliani even called the camp housing the MEK members “a concentration camp.” I think Rudy went one bridge too far. I posted about this recently.

Ed Rendell, who’s made eight speeches for MEK, earned $160,000 in blood money. I hope he pays twice as much in legal fees defending himself. Of course, he would never have spoken just for the gelt. It’s the principle of the thing you understand:

“I made a lot of money last year,” Mr. Rendell said. “I don’t need the money. I would never sacrifice my reputation for any amount of money.”

He’s even attempting to argue that the events at which he spoke were subsidized not by MEK, but by wealthy Iranian supporters he met from the audience. If that’s the case, then I suppose he can produce the check and prove it.

Bufferfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail
youtube
{ 17 comments… add one }
  • lifelong March 13, 2012, 4:01 AM

    Finally… What these sicko’s don’t realise is where this money comes from. One side of the story is almost certainly what you mention above with the Mossad paying the MEK from the Bush-Cheney ‘destroy Iran’ $400 million slush fund.

    The other side that nobody reports about is the extortion of MEK family members in Iran. This will now become much more difficult as they lose the stranglehold they have on the residents of Camp Ashraf, and it should lead to them slowly dissolving away.

    For a more complete account of the extortion tactics, all you need to do is talk to an Iranian citizen. He’ll tell you all about it…

  • pabelmont March 13, 2012, 8:46 AM

    Ther fact that strikes me is that some Muslim charitable folks in the USA were sent to prison for giving alms money to hospitals (or other charities) in Gaza which teh USA DEEMED to be fronts for Hamas.

    In other words, if Hamas supports a charity in Gaza, then no American can do so, for to do so is to “free up” money for Hamas to use for — yes! — terrorism.

    Years in jail for giving to a charity. And these bozos are likely to go free — and keep the money. And the bozos are really helping spread the party-line of the party — the MEK — a terrorist group that is actually ON the USA’s list (unlike the hospitals).

    We live — in the USA as elsewhere — under the rule of men, not of laws, and selective prosecution with NO PENALTY for friends and VICIOUS PENALTIES for (in this case, Muslim Americans) others, is how it works.

  • Korush March 13, 2012, 8:48 AM

    Just to clarify: the MEK does not stand for “Mujahadeen al Khalq”, it stands for “Mohajedine Khalq”.

    The former, which you write in your text, implies that it is an arabic group, since “al” is a prefix used in the arabic language. However in persian (farsi), “al” is not used. Just wanted to clarify if you want to be sure to designate things in the right way.

    • Richard Silverstein March 13, 2012, 11:47 PM

      The group is referred to many different ways including the way I did. I’ll take this issue up with Persian speakers I know & correct my usage if it’s warranted.

      • Korush March 14, 2012, 1:19 AM

        Sir, I am a persian-speaker by birth.. But please, do that. they will say the same thing as me ;)

        • Bob Mann March 14, 2012, 3:28 AM

          What does the “E” stand for in MEK?

          Would Mujahideen-e Khalq be correct?

          What does that “e” represent in Persian?

          • lifelong March 14, 2012, 4:31 AM

            Here it means ‘of the’.

            Mujahideen ‘of the’ Khalq, which means Mujahideen of the People.

          • Korush March 14, 2012, 11:13 AM

            That is correct, the “e” stands for “the”, and as “lifelong” describes it, it means “Mujahideen of the People”.

            Not that I like the group, they are a bunch of cultist fanatics who would be no better than the mullahs if the got the power (which they never will), just wanted to make the distinction between Persian and Arabic.

          • django March 14, 2012, 1:24 PM

            without a a doubt, they’d be much worse than the mullahs. These guys were labeled by the late Shah as “islamic marxists” – they are total nutballs. They were also the driving force causing bodily harm during the “islamic” revolution. They are probably as toxic as Pol Pot and its ilk. Just look at the personality cult around that women for instance. Or setting themselves on fire so they don’t get arrested a decade ago in europe. You’re talking fanatic ….well that’s them – they are really, really bad news.

        • Deïr Yassin March 14, 2012, 4:34 AM

          As far as I can track, the “Mujahidine al-Khalq” – the Arabic version – goes back to an article by Michael Rubin, posted by Middle East Forum, FrontPageMagazine and Commentary, all too obsessed by Arabs probably !
          I guee “e” in Persian is the equivalent of ‘al” in Arabic, that is the definite article ‘the’: here in a genetive construction: ‘the Mujadidine of the People’, right ?

        • PersianAdvocate March 14, 2012, 4:41 AM

          He’s right. But it’s no biggy either :p

        • Richard Silverstein March 14, 2012, 3:02 PM

          I’ll revise what I name the group in future blog posts. Thanks for the correction.

      • PersianAdvocate March 14, 2012, 4:40 AM

        Close enough. Should just start using the term “bonafide terrorists”

  • PersianAdvocate March 13, 2012, 6:03 PM

    Alan Dershowitz is a barred attorney in the State of Massachusetts and has rules of professional responsibility that he must follow as well. These include, but are not limited to, “(c) engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; … (e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official; … (h) engag[ing] in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his or her fitness to practice law.”

    Now whether Dershowitz runs astray of these is up to the Massachusetts Office of the Bar Counsel. If you believe you have evidence of Dershowitz that is tantamount to this behavior, the Office of the Bar Counsel has a complaint form online: http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/complaint.htm Or you can try: (617) 728-8750. If you would prefer to communicate your problem in writing, you can contact ACAP by fax at (617) 482-2992 or by letter at the 0ffice of Bar Counsel.

    There was a person in Gitmo for 6 years for simply giving an inadvertant cab ride to a terrorist. Once Title 18 of the United States Code, Sections 2339 A and B are invoked and enforced, the judicial due process that follows simply evaporates for the human being in detention — at least for a good amount of time and far after your rights have been thoroughly violated.

    Will they go after Alan properly? That would be amazing. Alan’s ties to terrorism.. how about 9/11 which turned into a whirlwind to control the opium in Afghanistan, destroy and loot Iraq, and now includes the same suspects at the scene asking for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, Iran ? Whew… I guess hide it right under people’s noses and they will never guess it unless Wolf Blitzer (Jerusalem Post) is reading it off a teleprompter. Here’s another link/clue: who established the paradigm for black ops funding via the narcotic trade in the US? Ah ha, and his son was in the King seat when we went into Afghanistan.

    OK ok I will stop being factual now. What is Alan’s tie to 9/11? “Is There a Right to Remain Silent? Coercive Interrogation and the Fifth Amendment After 9/11″ by Alan M. Dershowitz

    Irony, I love you

  • Castellio March 14, 2012, 11:24 AM

    I can’t follow you, PersianAdvocate, when you write “and his son was in the King seat when we went into Afghanistan” I’m not sure if we’re supposed to be thinking the deposed Khan monarchy or the imposed Karzai family…

    • lifelong March 14, 2012, 4:07 PM

      Wrong country.

      He’s talking about the 41st and his son the 43rd.

      • Castellio March 14, 2012, 8:06 PM

        Ooohh, I’m sorry, how dense can I be?

Leave a Comment