Assuming there may be a question, and we don’t think there is, the bigger question is: Does the MEK belong on the list?” he said. “It’s kind of curious that those who don’t like our advocacy are suggesting that we might be doing something wrong." - Tom Ridge, quoted in the Washington Times
Ed Rendell is apparently being investigated because of speaking fees he collected for a talk he gave to
MEK, a group that's classified as a terrorist organisation by the US (and Canada, Iraq and Iran, apparently). TPM
is reporting that a whole host of Washington bigwigs have spoken to MEK in the past. But, apparently, it's a crime to "performed [advocacy] in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization".
Reading Tom Ridge's whine, it struck me that he's really lucky he's not brown. If he were, he'd probably be on a plane to Guantanamo already. Think about it - your excuse for advocating for a "foreign terrorist organization" is that it shouldn't be listed as one in the first place? Really?
Imagine if people who weren't well-connected members of the establishment could use arguments like that? Fundraisers for Hamas could point out that they feed widows and orphans. Al Qaeda supporters? The group is run by a doctor...does a person who dedicated his life to healing really merit the term "terrorist"? IRA fundraisers...oh, wait, sorry - they get elected to Congress, don't they? (Or, better yet, I'm sure pot users would love to be able to argue, when they get arrested, that cannabis shouldn't be schedule 1 listed.)
Yeah, I know, no one should ever be even mildly surprised that these people who have served as lawmakers don't believe that laws should apply to them, only to the little people. Reminded me of Housman's poem
The laws of God, the laws of man,
He may keep that will and can;
Now I: let God and man decree
Laws for themselves and not for me.
Those who write the laws seem to live in the opposite of that world..."Let
us decree laws for
them, and not for me"...