Peoples Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. United States Department of State Free Essay Example, 1000 words

This wasn’t the case here (McCormack and McDonald, 2006). The document, when analyzed by various analysts was found to be filled with one-sided reviews of past activities, dating back in the 1980’s and the 1990’s by the MeK. The department did not give any pro and cons of the activities mentioned by the MeK in their petition to the department and were all pointing towards the activities conducted by the organization way before 2001, after which the organization claims to have changed. Some descriptions given in the document was even contradictory to the activities of the MeK such as, â€Å"On October 12, 2006, I received information that questioned activities were going on at the University compound, [C]amp Ashraf specifically. The information came through the State Department from Europe that the MeK was assembling up to 1,500 Iraqis at the compound, supported by the MeK. I conducted a visit of the compound and found no foundation to the information we received. On site, we went into every building on the compound and I spoke with several people. The compound [was] being used to house Iraqi workers because of the attacks on the roads. We will write a custom essay sample on People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. United States Department of State or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now Rather than travel back and forth every day, they stay[Ed] on Ashraf during the week†¦Ã¢â‚¬  This was a comment by Colonel Wesley M. Martin in the report. Claims like these seem baseless as the MeK has provided the Department of State with ample evidences which are contradicting these statements (Murphy, 2002). The Department of State had ample evidences to support the cause of MeK and was even facing some pressure from outer sources such as the United Kingdom. The Court of the UK sent a 144-page independent assessment on the activities of the MeK and had clearly stated that the MeK had not violated any sort of American Law or restriction at Camp Ashraf in Iraq. The statements in the report clearly contradicted these claims by the U. K. court and the Department of State clearly dismissed their significance. So much so that they didn’t even mention any proof supporting their point of view in contradicting this assessment. Some arguments have also been presented that the Department of State did this in order to satisfy the Iranian regime as they are in clear opposition to the MeK. The department of State did not want to disrupt the already weak diplomatic ties between the two governments as the Iranian government would have been displeased on the removal of MeK from FTO (Gurulà ©, 2 008). After hearing all these summaries and petitions from both sides, the U. S.