http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1059&Itemid=2
Federal Court Threatens Iranian-American Heritage
Arash Hadjialiloo
Mar 12, 2008
Tempers between the United States and Iran have flared over Iran’s nuclear program and its alleged intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many have wondered if the two countries would ever find common ground. However, several controversial rulings in the United States federal court have resulted in just that: the United States’ Justice and State Departments have momentarily put aside their differences with Iran in order to protect several thousand Iranian cultural artifacts.
The current situation that has Iran and the United States temporarily burying the hatchet is a delicate and controversial issue. The issue is a lawsuit brought by the American survivors (and families of victims) of a 1997 Hamas suicide attack in Jerusalem, in which five people were killed and over 100 injured.
The plaintiffs claim that several thousand priceless artifacts from the ancient city of Persepolis should be auctioned off to pay restitution for the terrorist attack. Thus far, they have won a string of judgments against the Iranian government. Until recently, the Iranian Government had refused representation in American federal court, therefore being ruled unable to refute support for Hamas or justification for punitive actions against the artifacts.
The onus of defending the artifacts had been with the University of Chicago, which has held the artifacts for over three quarters of a century. They had challenged the jurisdiction of the court and the ability of a civil court to defy a nation's sovereign immunity (a nation's freedom from being sued by individuals), but have been so far ruled unable to make that claim on the behalf of the government of Iran.
The Congress—while President Bill Clinton was in office—passed several acts that have introduced exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign immunity for countries sponsoring terrorism. These acts were later extended to allow individuals to file civil charges against state sponsors of terror, a ruling that has since been put to the test without much national coverage.
The current Iranian situation is different than the previous cases in many ways. This situation now revolves around the removal of literally thousands of priceless clay tablets and other artifacts recovered nearly 80 years ago in the former capital of the Persian Empire, Persepolis. The artifacts have been on loan to the University of Chicago for over seven decades and were in the process of being shipped back to Iran when the plaintiffs intervened.
So far, part of the $423 million penalty awarded to the survivors (and surviving relatives of the attack) has already been collected through various attempts, including the sale of the former Shah's Texas home. (The house was originally given to the Shah’s son and sold for over $400,000.) However, this new tactic has aroused suspicion and disbelief from the Iranian government, as well as outright shock from academics. “There's absolutely no justification for this. It's a bizarre, almost surreal kind of thing,” said Gil Stein, director of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, in the Washington Post.
This legal struggle has transcended simple punitive action and has developed into a situation that could threaten international academic exchange. In the Washington Post article quoted above, Stein poses the following long-term question: “Would Egypt loan the treasures of King Tut if they thought they could be seized by anyone who had a beef with the government of Egypt?” While it is true that various American legislative acts allow for the sale of property connected to so-called "state sponsors of terror," this situation has risen above achieving monetary compensation—it punishes Iranian Americans by placing their heritage on a store shelf.
David Strachman, lawyer to the plaintiffs, was quoted during an NPR program, saying: “Whether they fetch 100 dollars or 100 thousand dollars or 100 million, whatever funds are raised should be used to compensate the victims.” He also added that the University of Chicago, as well as the Islamic Republic of Iran, are both more than welcome to join in on the bidding.
In response to this threat to the Iranian American culture, the National Iranian American Council has secured pro bono representation from a major D.C. law firm, Mayer Brown LLP. NIAC will operate as an Amicus Curiae, or friend of the court. NIAC will act as an unsolicited advisor with ties to neither party.
The actual removal and sale of the Persepolis artifacts will most likely result in losses for all sides involved. No money gained from the sale of these artifacts will revive the victims—or heal the pain—of the 1997 Hamas attack. Similarly, their sale will not restrict the flow of money to terror groups. And, the removal of these cultural pieces from the Iranian government into the hands of private buyers will do little to benefit the Iranian-American community.
Federal Court Threatens Iranian-American Heritage
Arash Hadjialiloo
Mar 12, 2008
Tempers between the United States and Iran have flared over Iran’s nuclear program and its alleged intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many have wondered if the two countries would ever find common ground. However, several controversial rulings in the United States federal court have resulted in just that: the United States’ Justice and State Departments have momentarily put aside their differences with Iran in order to protect several thousand Iranian cultural artifacts.
The current situation that has Iran and the United States temporarily burying the hatchet is a delicate and controversial issue. The issue is a lawsuit brought by the American survivors (and families of victims) of a 1997 Hamas suicide attack in Jerusalem, in which five people were killed and over 100 injured.
The plaintiffs claim that several thousand priceless artifacts from the ancient city of Persepolis should be auctioned off to pay restitution for the terrorist attack. Thus far, they have won a string of judgments against the Iranian government. Until recently, the Iranian Government had refused representation in American federal court, therefore being ruled unable to refute support for Hamas or justification for punitive actions against the artifacts.
The onus of defending the artifacts had been with the University of Chicago, which has held the artifacts for over three quarters of a century. They had challenged the jurisdiction of the court and the ability of a civil court to defy a nation's sovereign immunity (a nation's freedom from being sued by individuals), but have been so far ruled unable to make that claim on the behalf of the government of Iran.
The Congress—while President Bill Clinton was in office—passed several acts that have introduced exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign immunity for countries sponsoring terrorism. These acts were later extended to allow individuals to file civil charges against state sponsors of terror, a ruling that has since been put to the test without much national coverage.
The current Iranian situation is different than the previous cases in many ways. This situation now revolves around the removal of literally thousands of priceless clay tablets and other artifacts recovered nearly 80 years ago in the former capital of the Persian Empire, Persepolis. The artifacts have been on loan to the University of Chicago for over seven decades and were in the process of being shipped back to Iran when the plaintiffs intervened.
So far, part of the $423 million penalty awarded to the survivors (and surviving relatives of the attack) has already been collected through various attempts, including the sale of the former Shah's Texas home. (The house was originally given to the Shah’s son and sold for over $400,000.) However, this new tactic has aroused suspicion and disbelief from the Iranian government, as well as outright shock from academics. “There's absolutely no justification for this. It's a bizarre, almost surreal kind of thing,” said Gil Stein, director of the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, in the Washington Post.
This legal struggle has transcended simple punitive action and has developed into a situation that could threaten international academic exchange. In the Washington Post article quoted above, Stein poses the following long-term question: “Would Egypt loan the treasures of King Tut if they thought they could be seized by anyone who had a beef with the government of Egypt?” While it is true that various American legislative acts allow for the sale of property connected to so-called "state sponsors of terror," this situation has risen above achieving monetary compensation—it punishes Iranian Americans by placing their heritage on a store shelf.
David Strachman, lawyer to the plaintiffs, was quoted during an NPR program, saying: “Whether they fetch 100 dollars or 100 thousand dollars or 100 million, whatever funds are raised should be used to compensate the victims.” He also added that the University of Chicago, as well as the Islamic Republic of Iran, are both more than welcome to join in on the bidding.
In response to this threat to the Iranian American culture, the National Iranian American Council has secured pro bono representation from a major D.C. law firm, Mayer Brown LLP. NIAC will operate as an Amicus Curiae, or friend of the court. NIAC will act as an unsolicited advisor with ties to neither party.
The actual removal and sale of the Persepolis artifacts will most likely result in losses for all sides involved. No money gained from the sale of these artifacts will revive the victims—or heal the pain—of the 1997 Hamas attack. Similarly, their sale will not restrict the flow of money to terror groups. And, the removal of these cultural pieces from the Iranian government into the hands of private buyers will do little to benefit the Iranian-American community.
