How do you feel about US Supreme Court’s ruling to auction Persian ancient relics held in trust at Chicago U?

Question

A US federal judge has ordered to confiscate and put on auction a collection of invaluable Persian relics, containing ancient tablets dating back to 2500 years ago lent to Chicago University in 1933, to compensate victims of the 1997 bombing in Israel. Ignoring Iran’s undisputed right over these artifacts, the Judge ordered to confiscate Iran’s assets in the US, including its ancient artifacts in Chicago U, and put them on auction to compensate Israeli families who lost members in the bomb explosion under the pretext that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism! I believe that politics and cultural heritage are two separate issues, and it is not right to deprive the world from its cultural heritage due to political disputes. Read what I wrote on CHN (Iran's Cultural Heritage News Agency) by clicking on the link below let me know what you think: http://www.chn.ir/en/news/?section=2&id=6470
I’d appreciate your opinions,
Maryam Tabeshian
CHN Foreign Desk Chief Editor

Answer 1

I had heard this news a couple of weeks ago but not believed it.
I was horrified to find out, today, that it's true.
What ignorance !!!!!
Federal judge ...????? please !!!!!!!!
I feel sorry for courts he/she presides over !!!
what on earth do historic artefacts of a country (any country) have to do with political rubbish that the world is filled with these days? but then, who do we blame for this isolation of Iran?
i am lost for words ...

Answer 2

First, the U.S. Supreme Court has not heard this case--it was a district court ruling (lowest level federal court). That ruling will certainly be appealed to a U.S. Circuit Court.

Secondly, Iran, the U.S. government and the University of Chicago are all fighting to protect the artifacts from seizure. State Department lawyers and a Washington attorney for Iran argued in federal court that the Iranian property is protected from seizure by the sovereign immunity doctrine.

I think you imply that the ENTIRE U.S. government is behind this action. In reality, the judiciary (federal court) is ruling on the facts and evidence, while the administration led by the President, is fighting to stop the seizure. Each is independent of the other. In fact, a President appointed the federal judge whio issued the ruling.

I think you do a disservice to your readers when you you fail to present the facts accurately--whether intentional or not.

Answer 3

This is not as simple as you might think it looks. If you or I get sued and don't file an Answer, and don't show up in court ,the other side will win by default. If you or I get sued we are given the opportunity to go to court to show our side of the case and defend ourselves. If the evidence is on our side, we win; if the evidence is against us, we lose. But the fact is we get the opportunity to defend ourselves. If we don't want a default judgement against us we have an obligation to Answer and show up in court.

Now what happened here is the same thing. People injured in Israel sued Iran claiming that it was responsible,, in some manner, for their injuries they incurred in Israel. The only reason the people suing obtained a judgment against Iran was because Iran ignored the suit, refused to Answer and did not show up in court. Now if you or I fail to show up and claim the reason we did not was because court is prejudiced against us, what do you think will happen. Exactly what happened to Iran. The judge issued a Default Judgement. What else could the ljudge do. Say "OK these plaintiffs have done everythihng they are suppposed to do to get their case to court but its OK if you don't show up in court and we'll just tell the Plaintiffs to go home." Would you accept that if you were the plaintiff in your own case where someone had injured you. No. Of course not. The court simply can not do that. It must issue the Default Judgement.

Now, once the jludgement is issued the matter of collection takes place. The judgement holder is now entitled to levy (to take by judicial procedure) any asset (thatis not exempt)belonging to the defendant. Usually the only things exempt are items that allow people to work or to maintain the necessities of life which is not the case here at all. The items belonging to Iran are very valuable artifacts located in the U.S. They are clearly subject to levy; they will be attched and sold and the plaintiffs will be paid from the proceeds.

Now if you or I were the plaintiffs and the case was against general Motors for injuries they allegedly caused, and they did not show up in court, would you want them to be exempt from a default juedgement and would you want them to be able to not have to pay the judgement by the attachment and sale its property if it refused to pay the judgement voluntarily? I think we both know the answer. You would not. Should it be any different for Iran. I think not.

Answer 4

Regardless of my views on Israel (which are mixed, at best), I think it is wrong. Regardless of how the University procured the items I don't think that any sovereign nation has the right to auction off items that are central to a culture or government that is not their own. For example, if the US had signed either/or the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution overseas in the possesion of another country and that country was now auctioning it off to another country, I'm sure the US would be in a uproar. I fear that this has become not an educational or historical milestone but a political toy that will be used to steer talks towards the direction of the US by our politicians. We've learned all we can about them, and they should be returned to their rightful owners.

Answer 5

It's interesting that you asked how do we "Feel" about what happened, instead of what we "think". It is common for solutions that follow reason, don't always feel right. There are many unresolved issues even though the court may have reached a logical conclusion. So it seems that legal forums are limited in helping us resolve conflict in a way that feels right, all the time.

Answer 6

So be it.

If the idiots who rule Iran cannot send a representative or hire a local attorney to appear before the judge, then all they are doing is testing their stubbornness...and they lost the test.

If you intend to act like an idiot, then you deserve idiotic compensation.

Answer 7

I think it is correct and if that is the only way for the Defendants to recieve compensation for this terrible act then so be it. Also the instiute that is purchaseing the artifacts will make them available for everyone to enjoy.

Answer 8

In my opinion US court action is shameful. They should separate Persian people and their old history and civilization from the current dictator regime of Persia (Iran).

Answer 9

If the Iranians chose not to send a representative to court and ignored the issue then their arrogance got the best of them. You snooze you loose.

Answer 10

Madison's analysis is correct in all respects. Since Iran did not defend the suit, it loses.