POL (?) - US to seize, sell Iranian artifacts on loan???

[Celeval]

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.ph...7-060531-5405r
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/artifacts05.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago...eritage_crisis

In a nutshell:

- In 1997, there was a bombing in Israel, killing five and wounding nearly 200, including a number of Americans.
- Hamas claimed responsibility for the bombing
- Hamas was at the time (still?) supported by the Iranian government

A judge later (more recently) ruled that the American survivors of the bombing were owed around $400 million from the Iranian government as a result of the attacks.

Iran, probably unsurprisingly, has ignored the ruling (and the case in general).

Now the (imho) severely fucked-up part - the victims and their lawyers are (apparently) trying to seize the Achaemenid tablets (or, tablets of Persepolis) - a set of ancient, clay cuniform tablets on loan at the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute; and place these on auction to raise the money. The tablets are owned by the National Museum of Iran. A recent ruling has struck down one of the UoC's defenses (but there hasn't been a full ruling yet).

WTF? What gives our legal system/government/whatever the right to seize archeological finds like this? What makes this different than simple theft - even if the tablets were directly owned by the government as opposed to the National Museum? I'm sure the Smithsonian has traveling exhibits that leave the country from time to time... what's to stop, say, Mexico from seizing that to pay off debts?

For that matter, what are the chances we'll get any international loans of museum exhibits into the country again? Remember that recent King Tut tour... yeah, no more of those.

Am I missing something here? Am I right in being pissed off about this?

[ISiddiqui]

No, you are right about being pissed off about this. Seize their bank accounts and stuff, but NOT historical archeological treasures to sell off to potentially some idiot who won't allow it to be seen by the world.

[st.cronin]

Well, afaict, this isn't the government's action - it's an action by a group of citizens. So the thread title is a bit misleading. Legally, it doesn't seem much different to me than forcing OJ to auction off his Heisman. Granted, I'm not a lawyer.

[st.cronin]

dola

It's pretty hard to believe that there's not a better way to find those funds, though.

[bselig]

Maybe an attempt to create an international incident to get people to pay attention to/get moving on their case?

'Cause despite how cool that artifact no doubt is, I doubt anyone's paying $100 million for it.

[panerd]

It's proactive thinking like this that is helping our country win the "war on terror". This should make potential terrorists and governments think before their next bombing. There is no chance that incidents like this will create more terrorists.

I don't have sympathy for people who kill. But what kind of ass-backwards thinking do we have sometimes. You sort of wish some of the higher ups in government were picked on more by bullies in school so they can see how fucking stupid their logic is sometimes.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by panerd

I don't have sympathy for people who kill. But what kind of ass-backwards thinking do we have sometimes. You sort of wish some of the higher ups in government were picked on more by bullies in school so they can see how fucking stupid their logic is sometimes.

This has nothing to do with higher-ups in government. It's a judicial ruling.

And FWIW, lawsuits like these seemed to have an effect w/regard to Libya and Khaddafi. Already (similar lawsuits, not this particular one) have forced the Iranian government to take money out of European banks and move it to Asian ones.

I'll agree this isn't my preferred course of action with regards to the Iranian government targeting and killing American civilians and Marines (and Argentinians, Israelis, Iraqis, etc.) on multiple occasions, but until we acknowledge their declaration of war against us and invade I'll take whatever little measures I can.

[Cydney]

Originally Posted by bselig

'Cause despite how cool that artifact no doubt is, I doubt anyone's paying $100 million for it.

Perhaps they should try selling Noah's ark (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...noahs-ark.html), no doubt that would fetch a higher price.

[Toddzilla]

What judge? An American judge in a civil suit? A foreign judge in an international court? That makes a big difference when you consider the validity of the judgement - especially the amount. I cannot expect Iran - or any other country for that matter - to recognize the outcome of an American civil trial in terms of a $400M order.

Still, I have to believe that - if it were an internationally-binding judgement in a court recognized by the international community in general, that there are some funds somewhere - foreign aid? UN Funds? - that are going to Iran that could be "appropriated" for the damages.

If this is the result of some US civil trial, then forget it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

What judge? An American judge in a civil suit? A foreign judge in an international court? That makes a big difference when you consider the validity of the judgement - especially the amount. I cannot expect Iran - or any other country for that matter - to recognize the outcome of an American civil trial in terms of a $400M order.

Still, I have to believe that - if it were an internationally-binding judgement in a court recognized by the international community in general, that there are some funds somewhere - foreign aid? UN Funds? - that are going to Iran that could be "appropriated" for the damages.

If this is the result of some US civil trial, then forget it.

Pretty much my thoughts as well. It also crossed my mind that there are probably US companies that do business with Iran that potentially could face some liability.

[sachmo71]

I can see both sides of this, as the tablets are technically "property" (even though I only saw that mentioned in one article), but considering the historical significance, I would be against having them sold on the open market.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

What judge? An American judge in a civil suit? A foreign judge in an international court? That makes a big difference when you consider the validity of the judgement - especially the amount. I cannot expect Iran - or any other country for that matter - to recognize the outcome of an American civil trial in terms of a $400M order.

Still, I have to believe that - if it were an internationally-binding judgement in a court recognized by the international community in general, that there are some funds somewhere - foreign aid? UN Funds? - that are going to Iran that could be "appropriated" for the damages.

If this is the result of some US civil trial, then forget it.

I think the standard would have to be an internationally-binding judgement in a court recognized by the US and Iran. International courts are generallly meaningless because few countries agree to be bound by their rulings. If our government chose to allow or encourage the seizing of these artifacts, I would be severely disappointed.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

If this is the result of some US civil trial, then forget it.

Originally Posted by http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1154140.stm

In 1997, the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that Libya could not be the subject of a civil lawsuit, saying that a foreign government has sovereign immunity shielding it from such suits.
However, due to pressure from the families of Lockerbie victims, the United States amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in 1996, opening the way for civil suits against foreign governments in certain cases - including acts of terrorism.
Following the passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996, many families of Lockerbie victims renewed their suits. In 1999, the US Supreme Court heard another case involving a civil suit against Libya in connection with the Lockerbie bombing, and based on the change in the law, the court ruled that families of the Lockerbie victims could proceed with their case seeking damages from Libya.

That case ended with Libya agreeing to pay up to $2.7b IIRC.

It also crossed my mind that there are probably US companies that do business with Iran that potentially could face some liability.

I'm pretty sure any US company doing business with Iran faces criminal charges anyway because of our economic sanctions against them.

So yeah, I don't know if this is the best plan, but as we saw with Libya, every little bit of pressure helps, and I don't blame the families for going after those behind the deaths of their loved ones by the available means.