By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
Telegraph.co.uk
‘All our nuclear activities have been completely peaceful and transparent,” Iran’s president told the United Nations on Tuesday. But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not seem to have won over the doubters.
President George W Bush condemned Iran as part of an “axis of evil” in 2002 and America does not maintain diplomatic relations with Teheran – unlike Britain, which has a policy of “constructive but critical engagement” with the Islamic republic.
Even so, given that Mr Ahmadinejad has said he wants Israel to be “wiped off the map”, Britain is “seriously concerned” that Iran is currently supporting terrorist groups in the Middle East.
The Foreign Office says it has evidence that the mullahs of Iran are arming the Taliban in Afghanistan. And the Government is “gravely concerned” that Iran is “providing explosives, detonators and training to the Shi’a militias” who are killing British and US troops in neighbouring Iraq.
While one can see that a pragmatic foreign policy may require us to work with countries that we do not like, that should surely not extend to banning Iran’s main opposition group – the PMOI – which seeks to replace Mr Ahmadinejad’s regime with a democratically elected, secular government.
And yet a ban is exactly what Britain has imposed. Among other things, the PMOI is not allowed to raise or hold funds and its leaders cannot visit Britain. Thanks to the courts, however, that ban may soon be lifted.
To be fair, the PMOI was involved, until the summer of 2001, in what it describes as “military activities” inside Iran, while stressing that civilians were never targeted.
Since then, the PMOI says it has not been involved in terrorism. It took no part in the Iraq war of 2003 – its members had “protected persons” status – and it has renounced violence.
But Jack Straw, the then home secretary, proscribed the PMOI in March 2001. It has remained a banned organisation ever since, despite two applications to the Home Office for the ban to be lifted.
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, a proscribed organisation can bring an appeal to a tribunal known, reasonably enough, as the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission.
This court must allow an appeal against a refusal to de-proscribe an organisation “if it considers that the decision to refuse was flawed when considered in the light of the principles applicable on an application for judicial review”.
In July, the commission heard its first appeal. The case came before a panel of three – Sir Harry Ognall, a former High Court judge from Yorkshire renowned for his bluff, no-nonsense approach, and two QCs, Stuart Catchpole and Lindsay Boswell.
But the PMOI chose not to bring the appeal in its own name.
Instead, the appellants were more than 30 MPs and peers, an extraordinarily distinguished group including a former law lord (Lord Slynn), a former Home Secretary (Lord Waddington, QC) and a former Solicitor General (Lord Archer of Sandwell, QC).
Through their counsel, Nigel Pleming, QC, the parliamentarians said they did not believe the PMOI was now concerned in terrorism.
Mr Pleming argued that the PMOI should be taken off the banned list if there was no current evidence of continued or even recent terrorist activity, and he accused Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, of basing her judgment on misinformation provided by the Iranian regime.
But Jonathan Swift, representing Miss Smith, argued that there were reasonable grounds for her decision that the PMOI remained concerned in terrorism. She regarded the PMOI’s cessation of violence as temporary, involuntary and not a renunciation of violence by the organisation as a whole.
The ban has significant practical consequences for the PMOI: its supporters, including the parliamentarians, are regarded by Iran as supporters of terrorism and Britain’s ban forms the legal basis for an EU-wide ban, despite a ruling in favour of the PMOI by the European Court of Justice last December.
True, supporters of the PMOI live openly in Britain and are allowed to demonstrate freely across the road from Downing Street. But the ban also allows Downing Street to demonstrate its support for the Iranian regime.
Lord Archer, a former Labour law officer, said in his witness statement that the PMOI was proscribed “not out of concern for terrorism, but as part of an agreement between the British Government and the Iranian regime in which the PMOI was used as a bargaining chip”.
This claim was “incorrect”, according to Benjamin Fender, the former head of the Iran desk at the Foreign Office, in his evidence for the Government.
But Mr Fender accepted that Iranian ministers and officials had “chosen to discuss the PMOI with their counterparts from the UK and other EU member states on countless occasions”.
He said the Foreign Office had told the Home Office last year that there would be “foreign policy benefits to keeping the PMOI proscribed if it met the statutory test”.
Even more alarmingly, Lord Archer alleged that British and American forces bombed the PMOI’s Iraq bases in 2003, killing some 50 PMOI members, as part of a deal with the Iranian regime to keep Iran out of the Iraq war.
Responding, Mr Fender acknowledged that the Iranians had “expressed concern about the possibility of PMOI attacks on Iran during any military campaign”, adding that British officials had reassured their Iranian counterparts “that we would take the problem of the PMOI in Iraq seriously”.
How seriously? If Britain had agreed to kill non- combatants for political reasons, ministers would be open to accusations that they were responsible for war crimes.
The commission reserved its judgment in July after a week-long hearing – part of which was held in secret, with the parliamentarians and their lawyers excluded, although there were “special advocates” to represent their interests.
But before Sir Harry and his colleagues could deliver their ruling, the Government’s solicitors made an extraordinary request. They asked the commission if it would let them have a copy of its judgment a week in advance.
This would be in addition to the five working days in which the security services are normally allowed to check that there is nothing in the public ruling that should be moved to a separate “closed” judgment because its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.
Why, then, does the Government want to see both parts of the judgment so far ahead of publication? Because it fears that, if the PMOI wins, the Iranians might wrongly believe that the commission’s decision was politically motivated and take action against British interests in Teheran.
The commission is being asked to allow the judgment to be circulated widely within government so that protective steps can be taken if necessary.
It is important to emphasise that I do not know whether the commission will lift the ban. As far as I am aware, the Government does not know, either. But ministers clearly believe there is at least a possibility that it will be lifted.
The commission will hold a directions hearing this afternoon to decide whether the Government should be given the advance notice it seeks. This is likely to be granted: the PMOI supporters involved in the legal challenge are not expected to oppose it, provided they, too, receive an advance copy.
The commission might have gone to the trouble of holding an oral hearing today even if it had been planning to dismiss the PMOI’s substantive appeal. But there must at least be a possibility that Iran’s opposition will soon be free to oppose Iran. [/spoiler]
[spoiler title=”Iran: ‘Nuclear Case Closed'”]
[/spoiler]
[spoiler title=”Iranian Leader Fails To Ease Tensions”]
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 27, 2007
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 26 — After several days of controversy, heckling and vitriolic headlines in the local tabloid newspapers, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York was capped Wednesday by a 76 to 22 U.S. Senate vote calling on the Bush administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.
The congressional rebuke a few hours before Ahmadinejad’s Iran Air 747 departed reflected what American scholars and Iranians alike depicted as a missed opportunity by the Iranian president to ease mounting tensions between Iran and the West, particularly the United States.
“He had an opportunity to present himself to the American people in a way that would make conflict less likely. And I don’t think he succeeded,” said John H. Coatsworth, the Columbia University dean who moderated a speech in which Ahmadinejad insisted on Iran’s right to pursue uranium enrichment for a nuclear energy program, denied the existence of Iranian gays, and defended additional research on whether the Holocaust occurred.
Although Ahmadinejad told the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday that Iran considers its nuclear plans “closed” to further debate, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice planned to be in New York for a meeting this week of the five veto-wielding U.N. powers, plus Germany, to discuss the scope and timing of new international sanctions against Iran for failing to comply with a U.N. mandate to suspend uranium enrichment.
Members of the United Nations are concerned that Iran could divert its enrichment program to eventually develop a nuclear weapon.
U.S. officials said Ahmadinejad’s speech gave them new ammunition to argue for more punitive steps than the Russians and Chinese have been willing to accept. “I am sorry to tell President Ahmadinejad that the case is not closed,” said Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns in New York. “The Iranian president is badly mistaken if he thinks the international community is going to forget about the fact that his country is continuing — against the will of the U.N. Security Council — its nuclear research programs.”
But Ahmadinejad, who was elected in 2005, seemed mostly untroubled by the reaction to his conversations with American academics, religious leaders, think-tank chiefs, media and even former U.S. officials.
At the Tuesday dinner, Ahmadinejad fended off direct challenges about his statements on the Holocaust, Iran’s human rights practices, and its long-term nuclear intentions. Warned by Clinton administration National Security Council staff member Gary Samore that the risk of a military confrontation will increase over the next six months without a change by Iran on its nuclear program and aid to Iraqi militias, Ahmadinejad was dismissive.
“I don’t think the risk of war has increased. What problems can be solved by war?” he said.
The Iranian leader also seemed unworried about possible sanctions legislation moving forward in 15 U.S. states, requiring companies to divest holdings in Iranian enterprises. On press freedom, he shot back that the number of papers publishing in Iran is large compared with the few that have been shut down.
As in all his appearances in New York, Ahmadinejad drifted off into a religious discussion that seemed to underscore the cultural and political chasm. After listening to the U.S. scholars and journalists, he said he first wanted to outline his views on mankind. “I believe God created the entire universe for mankind. Mankind is the most valuable creation on earth,” he told the somewhat surprised gathering.
Questioned about the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad once again called for more research into the subject. After being told that he is often compared to Hitler by Americans, Ahmadinejad said that the German leader was a “despicably dark” force who had caused “irreversible harm” in a war that claimed 60 million lives. He said Hitler had no concept of justice or human dignity.
“Iranians find the Western reaction insulting and a sign of belligerence, but Ahmadinejad has also not emerged as a statesman or a diplomat,” said Vali Nasr of Tufts University. “The Iranian blogs and chat rooms are clearly taken aback not just by the comments [at Columbia] but by the headlines of tabloids. . . . He has tried to reach out to Americans, but to a large measure he has failed — and the Iranian political elite know he has failed.”
Speaking to reporters in New York, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal warned about the dangers of rhetoric from all sides. “Definitely what we are seeing is a confrontation in the making,” he said. “The Iranian rhetoric also reflects this precipitousness towards confrontation, that ‘we can take care of ourselves’ and language like that. . . . It is a tense and dangerous situation in a volatile area.”
View Source Here [/spoiler] [spoiler title=”Iranian Opposition Group Claims Iran Building Secret Underground Nuclear Facility”] An Iranian opposition group says the Iranian government is building a secret underground military nuclear facility near its existing complex at Natanz in the central part of the country. The opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran made the assertion at a news conference in Paris Thursday. The claim cannot be independently verified, and the group did not provide any evidence. The group said its information came from sources within Iran, and indicates that the underground facility is five kilometers from the Natanz complex and will be operational in six months.
The United States and its allies accuse Tehran of trying to build a nuclear weapon and want to impose tougher international sanctions against Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in his United Nations speech on Tuesday that Tehran’s nuclear program is peaceful and transparent. France said Thursday it does not believe him. The spokesman for President Nicolas Sarkozy said Paris has some very strong clues indicating that Iran’s nuclear program also has military goals.
The National Council of Resistance of Iran is the political arm of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, which the United States and European Union consider to be a terrorist group. The group five years ago disclosed information about two hidden nuclear sites, including the one at Natanz, helping uncover Iran’s nuclear program. However, the group has made other claims in the past that have not been verified.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.
View Source Here [/spoiler]
[spoiler title=”US Senate brands Iran Guard ‘terrorist organization'”]
THURSDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2007
WASHINGTON (AFP) The US Senate has called for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards to be officially designated a “foreign terrorist organization,” a day after the House of Representatives passed a similar measure.
The Senate on Wednesday voted 76-22 for the non-binding amendment sponsored by Republican Jon Kyl and independent Joseph Lieberman to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, or Pasdaran, on the US terrorist blacklist.
Such a designation if adopted by the US government would open the corps and affiliated companies to economic sanctions.
The measure is a “sense of the Senate” amendment, which means it cannot impact the president’s foreign policy, but is an important symbolic measure expressing will of lawmakers.
It says that senators agree it is in the critical national interest of the United States to prevent Iran turning Shia extremists in Iraq into a “Hezbollah type force.”
The amendment says that senators believe that “inside Iraq” US economic, military, diplomatic economic and intelligence “instruments” should be used to back US policy against the government of Iran and “its proxies.”
US military officials and lawmakers have accused the Revolutionary Guard of arming Shiite militias in Iraq, and supplying sophisticated roadside bombs used to kill US soldiers in the war-torn nation.
The US administration also accuses Iran of seeking to build an atomic bomb under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, a charge Tehran denies.
During a debate among Democratic presidential hopefuls on Wednesday night, the amendment was criticized as helping lay the foundation for President George W. Bush to take possible military action against Tehran.
“I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran,” said former senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards at the debate at Dartmouth College.
Long-shot candidate Mike Gravel blasted front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton for supporting the amendment. “And I am ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it.”
Clinton defended her vote, saying by designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization “gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran.”
The Bush administration said in August it would designate all or part of the Guard as a terrorist organization.
The US blacklist, which already includes Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, bars named groups from gaining access to the US financial system.
The House of Representatives adopted a similar text on Tuesday against the backdrop of rising tensions between Iran and the United States and a scathing attack on the United States by Iran’s hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, before the UN General Assembly.
The House bill also calls for penalizing foreign companies with US subsidiaries which invest in Iran, particularly in the oil and gas sector.
Iran has been on the US government state sponsors of terrorism blacklist for more than two decades.
Already this year, the US government escalated financial sanctions against Tehran.
The US Treasury and other government agencies have blacklisted and applied asset freezes against at least 15 Iranian entities.
Most, including the Atomic Energy Organization and the Mesbah Energy Company, operate in the nuclear, energy and industrial industries.
View Source Here [/spoiler] [spoiler title=”Canada could add Iran’s Guard to terror list”] Source: National Post
Canada is “very concerned” about Tehran’s intervention outside its borders and has not ruled out banning the Iranian Revolutionary Guard under the Anti-Terrorism Act, says Stockwell Day, the Minister of Public Safety.
“We are very concerned about Iranian intervention in jurisdictions outside of their own, either if that’s affecting our allies or if it’s affecting us,” Mr. Day said in an interview.
“We’ve got some pretty serious concerns on that.”
He said the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his staff were “key and involved” in the discussions about how Ottawa should respond to actions by Iran that threaten Canadians and Canadian interests.
Asked if the Conservatives would place the Revolutionary Guard on Canada’s list of designated terrorist groups, Mr. Day said: “Nothing’s been ruled out, that’s about all I can say at this point.”
The Minister would not elaborate, but Iran has been accused of tacitly equipping paramilitary forces in Lebanon, Iraq and now Afghanistan — where dozens of Canadian soldiers have been killed by powerful roadside bombs.
Components for bombs used for attacks on coalition forces are allegedly coming from Pakistan and Iran.
A top U.S. military commander, Admiral William Fallon, last week accused Iran of smuggling bomb parts to Afghanistan and said the United States would take action unless it stopped. [/spoiler]
[spoiler title=”Bush and Iran”]
The Wall Street Journal
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
September 27, 2007; Page A16
The traveling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad circus made for great political theater this week, but the comedy shouldn’t detract from its brazen underlying message: The Iranian President believes that the world lacks the will to stop Iran from pursuing its nuclear program, and that the U.S. also can’t stop his country from killing GIs in Iraq. The question is what President Bush intends to do about this in his remaining 16 months in office.
Over the last five years, Mr. Bush has issued multiple and sundry warnings to Iran. In early 2002, he cautioned Iran that “if they in any way, shape or form try to destabilize the [Afghan] government, the coalition will deal with them, in diplomatic ways initially.” In mid- 2003, following revelations about the extent of Iran’s secret nuclear programs, he insisted the U.S. “will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon.”
In January of this year, as evidence mounted that Iran was supplying sophisticated, armor-penetrating munitions to Shiite militias in Iraq, Mr. Bush was tougher still: “We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
In February, he added that “I can speak with certainty that the Qods Force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops.” And as recently as this month’s TV speech on Iraq, the President alerted Americans to the “destructive ambitions of Iran” and warned the mullahs that their efforts to “undermine [Iraq’s] government must stop.”
View Source Here [/spoiler]
