Beirut victims get denied again
Two weeks ago tomorrow was Veteran’s Day, and I missed this from the Boston Globe.
On Veterans Day, Christine Devlin stood in the cold in Westwood for the unveiling of a new memorial to local soldiers lost overseas, including her son Michael, one of the 241 servicemen killed in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.
Devlin is among 30 Massachusetts relatives of victims of the Beirut attack who have been fighting for more than a decade to get compensation for what many consider the first major terrorist attack against the United States. After a federal judge ruled in 2007 that Iran was liable for $2.65 billion in damages to be shared by 150 families seeking restitution, they believed they were on the cusp of victory.
But now, the Obama administration is going to court to try to block payments from Iranian assets that the families’ lawyers want seized, contending that it would jeopardize sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a potentially damaging precedent.
Yeah, he’s right. It would definitely “jeopardize sensitive negotiations,” and those negotiations might actually stall. Or even worse, we might actually have to start enforcing UN resolutions.
Building the case took four years of depositions from victims’ relatives, US government officials, and even a former Hezbollah member, amounting to 30,000 pages of testimony, according to Thomas F. Fay, one of the lawyers representing the families.
The families’ first victory came in 2003 when the US District Court in Washington found that Iran’s Ministry of Information and Security helped plan and facilitate the Oct. 23, 1983, attack. Then, two years ago, the same court ruled the Iranian government was liable for the $2.65 billion in damages.
The families’ legal advisers and the Obama administration – like the Bush administration before it – disagree on how many Iranian assets could be legally seized in the case.
The Treasury Department estimates there is only $45 million in seizable Iranian assets in the United States and has argued in court that some of the property that the families’ lawyers have sought is outside the United States and cannot be legally seized.
Okay, um, why in the wide world of sports does Iran have any assets in the United States?
The Justice Department declined to comment further on the administration’s position, but as the congressional analysis stated, “The issue has pitted the compensation of victims of terrorism against US foreign policy goals and some business interests.’’
- Author: Judeo-Christian Values Attacked on All Sides July 31, 2010
- Debris in Relief Well Sets Back Work On Gusher July 31, 2010
- Obama Decries GOP Over Small Business Lending Bill July 31, 2010
- US Casualties in Afghanistan Soar to Record Highs July 30, 2010
- Signs of Oil Spill Recovery Entering New Phase July 30, 2010
- House Approves Bill On Drilling, Oil Spills July 30, 2010
- Ariz. Governor Considers Changing Immigration Law July 30, 2010
- White House Urges Halt to Spilling of War Secrets July 30, 2010
- Incoming BP CEO: Time for 'Scaleback' in Cleanup July 30, 2010
- Arizona Sheriff Not Relenting After Court Ruling July 30, 2010
[...] rest is here: Beirut victims get denied again Share and [...]
To rebut all of your points –
There is Iranian money is the United States because the US seized and froze many Iranian accounts shortly after the revolution. Iran has wanted that money back for quite some time now.
But, on the important issue – the attack on Beirut was not a terrorist attack. All of the victims were military personnel on a military mission on a US base in Lebanon. I wish no one had been hurt, but I don't think any military strategist in the world that isn't influenced by politics would consider an attack on a military target terrorism. Terrorism is generally defined as any violent attack against civilians with a political goal (and some say it must be committed by a non-state actor). The Hezbollah attack does not qualify as it was an attack on a military target. Now, as I said, I wish it had never happened. I don't wish harm on anyone, especially US soldiers. I wish the whole Lebanese Civil War had never happened, but it did and we have to be honest with our terminology. This distinction is important. We don't normally demand restitution from enemies after cessation of hostilities anymore. Are we demanding North Korea pay for the soldiers killed in the fifties? Does Vietnam have an obligation to the US because of the 60,000 dead? Smartly, the world halted demands for reparations after wars (excluding ones that involve significant civilian deaths, such as the reparations Germany paid Israel after WWII) due to the debacle in Germany after WWI and the concept that reparations breed contempt and further conflict. This has largely been a good thing for that very reason.
You’ve made some valid points, and while I agree the majority of the victims were military, they were in Beirut in a peacekeeping role at the behest of the Syrian government. They were attacked by the ones they were there to protect simply because they were America.
My point in the passing along the story was that regardless of how you feel, it’s all being driven by money. Frankly, I have never been in favor of the government doling out my money for anything; including the 9-11 compensation fund.
I have been a reader for a long while, but this is my first time as a commenter. I just wanted to say that this has been / is my favorite post of yours! Keep up the great work and I’ll keep on coming back.
Wow!!! I found your blog on Yahoo searching for something totally unrelated, now I
Hi – very good website you have created. I enjoyed reading this posting. I did want to write a comment to tell you that the design of this site is very aesthetically pleasing. I used to be a graphic designer, now I am a copy editor for a marketing firm. I have always enjoyed working with computers and am attempting to learn computer code in my spare time (which there is never enough of lol).
Wow! Thank you! I always wanted to write in my site something like that. Can I take part of your post to my blog?
i wouldn’t have figured this was interesting a handful years in the past but its interesting how age varies the manner of how you have an understanding of specific ideas, thank you with regard to the posting it is enjoyable to browse anything sensible now and then in lieu of the regular trash mascarading as a blog on the internet, cheers
And now our illustrious new senator from Mass votes for Stimulus II thinking it will actually create jobs! Too bad he didn’t read this piece before he voted. What is it with these politicians that as soon as they get to DC start acting like ” I got to vote like I’m doing something for the folk back home even if it is the stupidest idea ever”? Oh, I forgot, I guess that is after all how you get re-elected.