It is interesting that the US president Jimmy Carter never used the threat of nuclear weapons on the Islamic republic as a leverage in the hostage negotiations. It wouldn't really be unethical considering the fact Iran broke centuries old diplomatic rules which every civilized nation ought to follow, no matter the provocation.
5
This is ridiculous, especially for the members of the military who were all non-conscripts. If this is justified then every American who was conscripted into the military (or enlisted because they would have been drafted) should receive part of this payout, or more. Over 55,000 Americans, mostly conscripts, were killed in Vietnam and what did they get... other than a coffin.
5
What about the American hostages that are being held right now? Do they not account for anything? I'm sorry but I'm sure they all wrote books and made some decent money from there dilemma. The 4 people in Iran, Americans being held against there will, will have to wait 33 years to get out? What the...? How is this even relevant to what is happening today?
1
I guess at some point in time the US government will also have to pay reparations to tens of millions of Iranian citizens for supporting the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and paving the way for Khomeini and the Islamists as well as for supporting Saddam Hussein during the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, all of which have led to the destruction of the lives of countless people over the past 4 decades who have been psychologically and economically devastated...
And how much di the Reagan regime receive for winning the election?
1
There are POWs from WW2, Korea and Vietnam wars who suffered through more harsh conditions. They would welcome the paltry amount of $4.4 million. Perhaps there still enough time to redirect the $9 Paribas find and float more government debt at current low interest rates to compensate them.
The only thing that matters to Americans, the most litigious society in history, is monetary compensation. It's the root of all "family values".
“There’s a phrase we live by in America: ‘In God We Trust.’ It’s right there where Jesus would want it, on our money.” ~ STEPHEN COLBERT
“There’s a phrase we live by in America: ‘In God We Trust.’ It’s right there where Jesus would want it, on our money.” ~ STEPHEN COLBERT
1
This is a great act by President Obama and one that is decades overdue. I was only 6-years old and living in Tehran at the time when the Islamic fundamentalists stormed the US Embassy and took Americans hostage. The revolution in Iran took many of us Iranians by surprise, as an overwhelming majority of Iranians were not even involved in it. At the height of the revolution about one million Iranians were demonstrating in Tehran. Iran's population at that time was 36 million. In fact, most Iranians hadn't even heard the name, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini until just a few months prior to February 1979.
By November 1979, most Iranians had come to realize what a huge mistake they had made, but it was already too late. The newly established Islamic government had consolidated power, confiscated all the weapons from the civilian population so they couldn't fight back and had already executed most of opposition leaders, and high-ranking military officers to prevent a military coup. My parents, who had lived in the US (1969-1978) and were US educated, were absolutely horrified at what had happened and was happening to their country. It would take us another decade and a multitude of life-altering experiences such as, the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, food rationing, and fighting for our survival before my parents could send me back to the US and for the rest of my family to ultimately make it back to the United States.
AJ is the author of "Twice Under the Persian Sky."
By November 1979, most Iranians had come to realize what a huge mistake they had made, but it was already too late. The newly established Islamic government had consolidated power, confiscated all the weapons from the civilian population so they couldn't fight back and had already executed most of opposition leaders, and high-ranking military officers to prevent a military coup. My parents, who had lived in the US (1969-1978) and were US educated, were absolutely horrified at what had happened and was happening to their country. It would take us another decade and a multitude of life-altering experiences such as, the 8-year Iran-Iraq war, food rationing, and fighting for our survival before my parents could send me back to the US and for the rest of my family to ultimately make it back to the United States.
AJ is the author of "Twice Under the Persian Sky."
Why?! This is wrong. Has our government lost it's mind? But I guess it's easy to spend someone else's money. Opps, I mean it's easy to spend billions when you just print what you want.
1
As a retired Foreign Service Officer, I believe it wrong to offer the hostages compensation, esp. compensation which comes not from Iran but from the US taxpayer, since the money paid out from the fine levied on a European bank otherwise would have gone to the US Treasury.
Danger and risk are part of the "deal" when diplomats sign up with the USG, just as they are for members of the military (and some beneficiaries of this windfall were at the Tehran Embassy as active duty members of the military).
Why should they benefit from extraordinary benefits? Why should US victims generally of terrorism get a windfall from the US taxpayer beyond, perhaps, medical expenses and (if killed) some continuing social net payments for their surviving family? We do not make such extraordinary payments to our military in the field who place themselves at far greater risk than even Foreign Service Officers, much less US civilians who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Again remember, this money is NOT coming from Iran, it is coming from the USG.
The diplomat held prisoner in Tehran thereafter WERE compensated in a number of ways, including priority for "plush" assignments, and--in one case with which I am personally familiar--immunity from being kicked out of the Foreign Service for incompetence because it would have been "unthinkable" to fire a former Tehran hostage.
I think this US (not Iran) financed compensation package is a shame on the Foreign Service.
Danger and risk are part of the "deal" when diplomats sign up with the USG, just as they are for members of the military (and some beneficiaries of this windfall were at the Tehran Embassy as active duty members of the military).
Why should they benefit from extraordinary benefits? Why should US victims generally of terrorism get a windfall from the US taxpayer beyond, perhaps, medical expenses and (if killed) some continuing social net payments for their surviving family? We do not make such extraordinary payments to our military in the field who place themselves at far greater risk than even Foreign Service Officers, much less US civilians who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Again remember, this money is NOT coming from Iran, it is coming from the USG.
The diplomat held prisoner in Tehran thereafter WERE compensated in a number of ways, including priority for "plush" assignments, and--in one case with which I am personally familiar--immunity from being kicked out of the Foreign Service for incompetence because it would have been "unthinkable" to fire a former Tehran hostage.
I think this US (not Iran) financed compensation package is a shame on the Foreign Service.
11
Were these recipients paid their regular salaries during or subsequent to their incarceration? Were they compensated by their agencies (DOD, CIA, Department of State) or by their civilian employer, or through privately-held insurance policies, or through any other source (such as hazardous duty pay)?
Let's have the complete story please.
Is this compensation paid then a precedent?
Let's have the complete story please.
Is this compensation paid then a precedent?
5
A second Carter administration would have taken care of this a very long ago, but we had to vote in scam artists like Trump ever since because the USA public is easily scared by liars; liars who appointed the top brass of these departments. So don't blame the real public servants.Political appointees are the real cancer of the "government" of the day that's run by the greedy and very, very rich blokes.
When will they ever learn ?
When will they ever learn ?
5
With the U.S., always about money even when they are the perpetrators, which is most of the time.
What about the those held in Guantanamo Bay for so long without any charges and against all international laws. Hypocrisy has its limits but the U.S. has lost all morality and ethics of the so called civilized world.
What about the those held in Guantanamo Bay for so long without any charges and against all international laws. Hypocrisy has its limits but the U.S. has lost all morality and ethics of the so called civilized world.
7
Those guys helld at Guantánamo are not your normal regular type. You may think they should be released but you don't have the responsibility of what they might do. They are avowed terrorist. Maybe we don't have a charge that we can levee against them but that doesn't mean that we won't in the future. How would you feel if you were the one to sign your name on the release and they went out and killed hundreds of people, you would have blood on your hands.
1
Sure, Mick. Maybe I'll come out to LA and pop a "citizens arrest" on you because even though there's no charge against you by any law-enforcement agency (local, state, Federal) MAYBE there will be one in the future. I'll make room for you in the Saverino basement and we'll run a cable TV hookup down there so you won't miss a single episode of whatever Khardashian reality show is still in production. I'll do it on "humanitarian" grounds. There's no need to thank me. It's the least I can do.
2
President Obama, Secretary Kerry and as important Congress knowing full well of the “spending bill signed into law last Friday are provisions that would give each of the 53 hostages or their estates up to $4.4 million.” Why didn’t the agreement of the “Iran deal which provided the Islamic Republic with an estimated $140 billion in sanctions relief and unfrozen assets INCLUDE the rightful and moral payments to the “Victims of state-sponsored terrorist attacks such as the 1998 American Embassy 53 hostages or their estates.” The cost to American tax payers is insulting and completely disregarding by President Obama, Secretary Kerry and Congress by mot protecting Americans financial interest. What else is new?
2
State Department personnel have learned a valuable lesson from the Iranian hostage crisis. During our forays into Afghanistan and Iraq, half of all embassy positions in those two countries went unfilled. The allure of exotic bazaars and endless sand dunes were no match for the pull of a glitzy DC cocktail party.
Psychological trauma aside, the hostages escaped with their lives. Six Americans soldiers in Afghanisstan did not. I wonder how their families will be compensated as they try to rebuild their lives.
Psychological trauma aside, the hostages escaped with their lives. Six Americans soldiers in Afghanisstan did not. I wonder how their families will be compensated as they try to rebuild their lives.
3
Why??? Is everything to be about reparations? When and where will it end?
4
I think it ironic that an add for BNP Paribas appears on the margin of the article in the e-edition. This is the rogue bank that violated sanctions against Iran, Sudan and Cuba. Why would I ever want to bank with this institution?
I am glad the government is using creative ways to pay overdue bills, but I cannot quite see how 4 million will cover the pain of those who were taken hostage. The government is not baring its responsibility; they can't be trusted to do the right thing quickly with other available funding. They look semi-good now, but truly, they did the minimum, convenient thing. Congress is a disappointment.
I am glad the government is using creative ways to pay overdue bills, but I cannot quite see how 4 million will cover the pain of those who were taken hostage. The government is not baring its responsibility; they can't be trusted to do the right thing quickly with other available funding. They look semi-good now, but truly, they did the minimum, convenient thing. Congress is a disappointment.
The contorted politics of all of this and the ignorsnce of many of the commentrer about what they have just read is mind boggling.
While I am pleased these people received some compensation, it is too much, too long after the event and is not the result of a greatful nation as much as it is the result of manipulation by politicians to acheive other goals. These people just happened to won the a lottery by chance, not by any real recognition by their government.
Did these people not know what they were doing when they went there in the fitst place? I sure did when I went to Nam, under orders and not of my own volition. Did our vetss who were POWs 40 years ago get anything this big as a result of trade deals with Vietnam today?
By this example, millions of service men, wounded and maimed deserve far more than what our cynical politicians and an ungreatful nation that says thankyou for your sevice but does far to little in terms of action or money are willing to pay.
While I am pleased these people received some compensation, it is too much, too long after the event and is not the result of a greatful nation as much as it is the result of manipulation by politicians to acheive other goals. These people just happened to won the a lottery by chance, not by any real recognition by their government.
Did these people not know what they were doing when they went there in the fitst place? I sure did when I went to Nam, under orders and not of my own volition. Did our vetss who were POWs 40 years ago get anything this big as a result of trade deals with Vietnam today?
By this example, millions of service men, wounded and maimed deserve far more than what our cynical politicians and an ungreatful nation that says thankyou for your sevice but does far to little in terms of action or money are willing to pay.
4
Lost in all of these hostage stories is the fact that the Iranian revolution was a positive development, in that it overthrew a brutal dictator, installed by a CIA operation years earlier, before which they had a modern democracy in Iran. The clerics got into it because they had the communication and organization network. It was not a religious, or jihadist, revolution, as such.
Reasons for the American covert involvement was oil, of course, and Iran being too cozy with its cold-war Communist neighbor, the USSR.
Reasons for the American covert involvement was oil, of course, and Iran being too cozy with its cold-war Communist neighbor, the USSR.
3
No, Owldog, the 1979 Iranian Revolution cannot be viewed as "positive development," unless perhaps you also happen to believe that the Taliban and Daesh (IS) are "positive developments."
While there are sectarian differences between would-be Islamic "Theocrats" of the Sunni and Shi'a persuasion, in addition to organizational differences which boil down to matters of which lunatics are in charge, they all anathematize the Western intellectual tradition. Of course, if you were born after 1970, you probably know nothing that can be considered "intellectual," as your "education" probably failed you miserably.
While there are sectarian differences between would-be Islamic "Theocrats" of the Sunni and Shi'a persuasion, in addition to organizational differences which boil down to matters of which lunatics are in charge, they all anathematize the Western intellectual tradition. Of course, if you were born after 1970, you probably know nothing that can be considered "intellectual," as your "education" probably failed you miserably.
1
The Taliban and Daesh [ISIS] did not even exist at the time, "otherwise."
The "De Bathification" of the Iraq invasion kicked the best of Iraqi military out of the country - they became ISIS
Lunatics? Read "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, a heavily referenced book, if you want to see that the CIA causes more killing and war than it prevents. It is an atrocious organization, not an exaggeration. The FBI ain't much better.
The "De Bathification" of the Iraq invasion kicked the best of Iraqi military out of the country - they became ISIS
Lunatics? Read "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein, a heavily referenced book, if you want to see that the CIA causes more killing and war than it prevents. It is an atrocious organization, not an exaggeration. The FBI ain't much better.
2
I am happy for those who were compensated, but this is ultimately a hollow gesture when examined in the context of the history between the US and Iran. As many have commented below, the damage inflicted on Iran by the US - by overthrowing a democratically elected government, by supporting an oppressive dictator in Iran, the complicity of the Reagan administration in delaying the release of hostages, supporting a terrible war against Iran by Saddam in which a million Iranians died, the inhuman sanctions which denied untold opportunities to 80 million Iranians, etc - runs easily into trillions of dollars. There is no justice, unless one is a superpower...
4
Why wasn't compensation extracted from the 150 billion our fabulous government released to Iran in the nuke deal? Slippery slope - professional diplomatic core know their risks, as do wounded warriors and veterans, who are in need of serious help and have been seriously neglected. Why are those heroes any different? What do the lawyers make in this deal? And what is Hilary paying the families of Ambassador Stevens and the three others killed in Bengazi?
3
Since the Republican operatives were working behind the scenes to keep the hostages held until after the presidential election, The Republican Party rather than the text Peire should pay for this.
They were working behind the scenes making deals with Iran involving arms trading and that's why Carter had no leverage.
It was treason and all they got fort with the presidency. Watching how Republicans act even now is there any doubt.
They were working behind the scenes making deals with Iran involving arms trading and that's why Carter had no leverage.
It was treason and all they got fort with the presidency. Watching how Republicans act even now is there any doubt.
4
And what about the families of victims killed by US overseas and termed "Collateral damage." What about the victims of an Iran Air Airbus civilian airliner downed by the USS Vincennes in the Persian Gulf. The list of US atrocities around the world is endless. Get real and stop whining about these things.
4
I'm appalled by the vitriol in most of the comments. International law protects diplomats for a reason - they aren't combatants. (During WWII German diplomats were interned at the Greenbriar (resort) hotel in WV, not held as hostages, used as pawns, blindfolded, handcuffed, fed lousy food, separated from each other, listening to mobs outside, and not knowing if they'd live from one day to the next. Their own employer - the US Dept of State - didn't support them, blocking their efforts to sue. The US public basically shrugged its shoulders. No amount of money can compensate the hostages for what they were subjected to.
6
Keep those printing presses rolling; but how about spending a little on fixing our infrastructure. These people may well die after receiving this money by in a bridge collapse. And will we be compensated for those sorts of things too. Ridiculous.
1
I think Sen John McCain should get 4.4 million too. And the US soldiers, marines and airmen held by the North Koreans? And how about the survivors of all those US military killed in our last two (4?) pointless wars? What about the ancestors of all of those Africans shipped to this country to be slaves? And the ancestors of the native Americans who were killed/displaced by the European invasion of what is now the US. Surely all of these also deserve compensation.
3
Why is the US Government paying this, and not the Iranians? It would seem that could have been done with some of their frozen assets.
4
Since Ronald Reagan was complicit in the length of their captivity, hopefully his estate will have to ante up some of the money!
8
And how many billions of USD will the US pay to the Iranian victims of the 1953 coup?
A coup that has been planned by the US government, organized and orchestrated by the CIA with full authorization of the US government?
A coup that has been planned by the US government, organized and orchestrated by the CIA with full authorization of the US government?
4
Former President Jimmy Carter hardly a conservative has said that his one regret was not "Taking Out" iran when we had the chance. Obama is a disgrace as the new missile program in Iran shows. He has weakened our nation and emboldened our enemies and completely mis read the situation in the Middle East from day one. Lets be clear the USA created a vacuum of leadership in a world that has never honored some ivory tower view of world politics. Putin has a 90% approval rating because his people know that he will not take abuse from anyone. How sad that he represents dictatorship and the number one democracy in the world is now viewed as weak incisive and disorganized. The compensation for these kidnapped Americans should at least have been part of this pathetic Iran nuclear deal plus the release of the current hostages. I guess Obama was too busy smoking a cigar from Communist Cuba.
3
Why don't you move to Russia. You when you're conservative cool hearts hate America more than Isis.
2
"... and the number one democracy in the world is now viewed as weak incisive and disorganized"?
By whom?
By whom?
2
Former President G. W. Bush gravely damaged US security interests with his unwarranted and immoral invasion of Iraq in 2003 and then his subsequent toppling of the Baath regime of Saddam Hussein. The violent and deadly ramifications of these disastrous military actions will pose a grave threat to our nation for many, many years to come.
1
Maybe with these reparations its time to look back at the whole Iranian hostage crisis. Lets not leave out the collusion between the radical students who took over the embassy and those americans who would later become major players in the Reagan administration.
8
Will someone post the names and amounts the Vietnam P.O.W.'s received?
Thank you!
Thank you!
5
Everybody should thank Paul Ryan and your congressman for the work they do.
I've no objection to these people receiving compensation. My objection is in how we rewrite history. Yes, they were taken hostage by an unruly Iranian crowd, which the Iranian government should never have allowed (or encouraged) to occur or continue. But this Iranian government had only a recently overthrown the Shah, who was a US puppet and who had oppressed the Iranian people. And the US had supported the Shah's puppet government for years presumably to fight Soviet Communism's spread.
We really did not focus on the meaning of the Iranian revolution. We never appreciated that it was the beginning of the Islamic Resurrection. And through two wars in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, we still do not understand the importance of Islam and the divisions within Islam that exist in the MIddle East as well as Africa and Indonesia. This lack of understanding has contributed to the rise of ISIL and unless we get a better understanding of it, will contribute to ISIL's expansion.
One might argue that US policy led to the capture of those hostages and the US should have compensated them years ago. No doubt there is as much fog in international relations as there is in international war. Notwithstanding, we have a responsibility not to be negligent, not to politicize international relations for domestic electoral gain, and not to forget that government should be governing for the benefit of the governed.
We really did not focus on the meaning of the Iranian revolution. We never appreciated that it was the beginning of the Islamic Resurrection. And through two wars in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, we still do not understand the importance of Islam and the divisions within Islam that exist in the MIddle East as well as Africa and Indonesia. This lack of understanding has contributed to the rise of ISIL and unless we get a better understanding of it, will contribute to ISIL's expansion.
One might argue that US policy led to the capture of those hostages and the US should have compensated them years ago. No doubt there is as much fog in international relations as there is in international war. Notwithstanding, we have a responsibility not to be negligent, not to politicize international relations for domestic electoral gain, and not to forget that government should be governing for the benefit of the governed.
5
While I am happy for the hostages to be compensated for their period of captivity (meanwhile none one of them was killed or mistreated), but one of the hostages has said that as he was being set free he turned to one of the hostage takers and asked: "By what right did you keep us hostage for 444 days?" The young guard snapped back asking: "By what right did you hold our entire nation hostage for 25 years to a despot that you restored to power after having overthrown our democratically elected prime minister in a coup?"
If one were to add up the cost of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war with one million dead and injured and hundreds of billions of dollars in economic damage inflicted on Iran by a US supported war by Saddam, the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians in a civilian aircraft shot down by a US frigate, the sinking of a large part of Iranian naval vessels and destruction of many offshore Iranian oil platforms, and hundreds of billions of dollars of economic loss as the result of the sanctions imposed on Iran on the false allegation that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, the amount that the US owes to Iran runs into trillions. The compensation paid to the relatives of the civilian passengers killed in the Iranian aircraft was a pittance compared to what the US hostages have received, but then America is an exceptional country.
If one were to add up the cost of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war with one million dead and injured and hundreds of billions of dollars in economic damage inflicted on Iran by a US supported war by Saddam, the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians in a civilian aircraft shot down by a US frigate, the sinking of a large part of Iranian naval vessels and destruction of many offshore Iranian oil platforms, and hundreds of billions of dollars of economic loss as the result of the sanctions imposed on Iran on the false allegation that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, the amount that the US owes to Iran runs into trillions. The compensation paid to the relatives of the civilian passengers killed in the Iranian aircraft was a pittance compared to what the US hostages have received, but then America is an exceptional country.
6
First, the mere seizure of hostages was a mistreatment. Second, the hostages were subject to beatings and psychological torture. None of the history of U.S.-Iran relations justified the seizure of the embassy and your entire post is one entire tu quoque argument.
Although the Iran-Iraq War was started by Iraq, its continuation after a certain point was due to Iran wanting to impose a puppet state in Iraq, and thus much of that war was on Iran.
Compensation was paid for the Iran Air Flight 655 shoot-down.
The sinking of Iranian vessels was justified as they were attacking shipping going into neutral ports.
As to the sanctions, those were based not on a false allegation but on Iranian obstruction of the IAEA>
Although the Iran-Iraq War was started by Iraq, its continuation after a certain point was due to Iran wanting to impose a puppet state in Iraq, and thus much of that war was on Iran.
Compensation was paid for the Iran Air Flight 655 shoot-down.
The sinking of Iranian vessels was justified as they were attacking shipping going into neutral ports.
As to the sanctions, those were based not on a false allegation but on Iranian obstruction of the IAEA>
1
I said at the time that, if I were one of the hostages, the first words out of my mouth upon release would have been, "May I have the overtime forms, please."
2
Insanity Whom in the right minds makes $10,000 a day or 4.4 million in a year. Our law makers should be in jail or lined up and shot for this crime. Government spending's not out of control Government spending is insane and must be terminated. 3 Billion tax $ going to clerks janitors typist.
1
And now I am certain we will also learn about compensation for the late Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor and his Embassy staff who risked their own lives to ensure the safe 'warehousing' of 6 US Embassy staff who were eventually spirited out of the country in a CANADIAN/CIA scheme?
3
I don't get this at all. The U.S. had control of reportedly $150 billion in Iranian assets -- frozen -- for decades. Why wasn't that money taken out immediately? Why make these people wait, hope and possibly lose some of their promised compensation, depending on litigation and the number of other terrorists' victims drawing from the "pot"? That $150 billion should never, ever have been unfrozen or given back. Period. But, I guess, it was Obama's call, or that of John Kerry.
2
You must remember that, even we are dealing with those who aren't, we are a nation of laws. At least that's what we tell the world, even when people like you come along and urge us to do and be otherwise.
4
Frozen for decades, but you blame President Obama, not Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush.
Is there a anything that isn't President Obama's fault?
Is there a anything that isn't President Obama's fault?
10
I agree with kwb! There should be some form of compensation and much earlier! However, $4.4 is excessive.
OK so this money will come from seized funds from other countries? Otherwise, the USA should not pay it out of funds that are needed for our country, like hospitals and food, etc. When someone works overseas, he accepts the possibility of being killed or held hostage. I'm glad they are getting some money, IF the money is coming from foreign seizures.
Weren't the hostages paid for the time they were held? And didn't they get to retire with full benefits without working for 20 yrs?
Weren't the hostages paid for the time they were held? And didn't they get to retire with full benefits without working for 20 yrs?
2
And who is going to compensate the countless torture and murder victims of the Shah? A man put in power by Washington after the engineered overthrow of Iran’s lawfully elected Prime Minister in 1953?
If the USA were taken to court and had to pay for every heinous act and bit of chicanery it perpetrates abroad there wouldn't be a penny left in the American Treasury.
If the USA were taken to court and had to pay for every heinous act and bit of chicanery it perpetrates abroad there wouldn't be a penny left in the American Treasury.
8
We have heard all of that previously. Can you possibly accept the fact that politics, especially at an international level, is not an ethics class in some sheltered academic environment? It is a zero-sum game, which means each side either wins or loses. We obviously need to install yet another Shah, even nastier than the last one, although I would personally prefer that we simply obliterate Iran for all time. When the molten glass bowl cools down and hardens, maybe it could be used for motorcycle racing.
1
Yes Otherwise you have proven that ever the ugliest vilest America still has a voice. God bless America.
Mick, there is no "God." Which is wonderful, when you think of it. We are free. Even more wonderfully, as there is no "God," then Mohammed cannot possibly be his "Prophet."
Both the hostages in Iran and the deceased ambassador and his secuirty detail suffered from spineless leadership of democratic presidents and their lackeys at State, aka the foreign circus.
Jimmy Carter and anyone who's seen Lawrence of Arabia, knew of the physical torture inflicted upon the hostages, which included rape.
Truly pathetic chapters in American History.
Jimmy Carter and anyone who's seen Lawrence of Arabia, knew of the physical torture inflicted upon the hostages, which included rape.
Truly pathetic chapters in American History.
Yes, Carter was "spineless," as you say. But Reagan, the plaster saint of Conservatism, did nothing to punish Iran after the hostages were safely home. Instead, he entered into an under-the-table deal with Iran, in order to obtain an illegal source of funds for his ideologically-driven private agenda of attempting to overthrow the government of Nicaragua.
6
Must've been hard for Carter to deal with the Iranians when secretly behind his back Republican operatives were working behind the scenes offering great arms deals that Carter would have never allowed .
2
This is good. I hope one day, we Iraqis, every one of us, killed, imprisoned, driven out of home, humelated, would be compensated by the Americans. $10,000 a day is OK for me since 2003.
4
I continue to be angry and embarrassed by my government who fails to take care of those, both military and diplomatic personnel, who have sacrificed life, limb and freedom for their Country. There should never be charitable organizations who beg for funds for victims and families. The People of America through their representative government, should take the very best care possible of ALL these people. ALL of us have benefitted by their sacrifice.
1
Every American military person who has gone over to Iraq, Afghanistan - or some other God-forsaken geo - and gotten their head, hand, or other body part mangled or maimed, has had far more than 441 days taken from them.
If they were twenty-two when it happened, and might still expect to live to eighty-two, that's about 50X the duration of the Iranian hostage's captivity.
Because no lawyer could claim a share of new coats of paint - let alone new medical equipment - in places like Walter Reed, there's not going to be anything new in veteran's care.
Or any multi-million dollar payout.
Political Correctness is absolutely killing us in this country - and one more face of it is this ridiculous gotcha compensation.
Now, why even aspire to the NFL or NBA. Just get thrown down a flight of stairs or shot up by the police, and your family will get far more financial benefit than if you played in the majors for the average time, with average stats.
Don't work to make the world better for your grandchildren. Prove your grandparents were part of some wronged tribe or race - wronged by somebody else's grandparents (not mine - they were all working stiffs and immigrants) - and find yourself owning part of a casino or oilfield.
America - what a country.
If they were twenty-two when it happened, and might still expect to live to eighty-two, that's about 50X the duration of the Iranian hostage's captivity.
Because no lawyer could claim a share of new coats of paint - let alone new medical equipment - in places like Walter Reed, there's not going to be anything new in veteran's care.
Or any multi-million dollar payout.
Political Correctness is absolutely killing us in this country - and one more face of it is this ridiculous gotcha compensation.
Now, why even aspire to the NFL or NBA. Just get thrown down a flight of stairs or shot up by the police, and your family will get far more financial benefit than if you played in the majors for the average time, with average stats.
Don't work to make the world better for your grandchildren. Prove your grandparents were part of some wronged tribe or race - wronged by somebody else's grandparents (not mine - they were all working stiffs and immigrants) - and find yourself owning part of a casino or oilfield.
America - what a country.
2
This is absolutely outrageous. Did america Force them to go there under penalty of law! This countries politicians are beyond criminal in throwing away taxpayer money! There is a world of US citizen who have lost their lives, destroying their families and they get nothing like this. Outrageous,
1
The hostages deserve all the assistance and retribution that innocents deserve. One wonders, however, why in all the media coverage of the hostage era, there is no mention of compensating the Iranians for the earlier attack on their country by the CIA when it put the Shah in power and precipitated the hostage reaction.
3
"The very agreement that won the hostages’ release in 1981 barred them from seeking restitution. [from Iran]. It's too bad the Times didn't help us a little with some background as I have forgotten most of the details. To mention a movie about some people who were not hostages misses the point.
here is a bit of history:
"On November 4, 1979, radical Iranian students seized the United States Embassy complex in the Iranian capital of Tehran. The immediate cause of this takeover was the anger many Iranians felt over the U.S. President Jimmy Carter allowing the deposed former ruler of Iran, Shah Reza Pahlavi, to enter the U.S. for medical treatment. In Iran, this was believed to be an opening move leading up an American-backed return to power by the Shah. The crisis which followed this seizure created a near state of war, ruined Jimmy Carter's presidency, and began an environment of hostility between America and Iran ....
Though fear of an American-backed return by the Shah was the publicly stated reason, the true cause of the seizure was the long-standing U.S. support for the Shah's government. Reza Pahlavi ruled Iran from 1941 to 1979, exile in 1953 when he fled to Italy due to a power struggle with Prime Minister ....Because Mossadegh's policies .... created concern over access to Iranian oil, oil prices, and possible Soviet influence in Iran, the United States and British intelligence services aided Iranian military officers in a coup to overthrow the Prime Minister"
here is a bit of history:
"On November 4, 1979, radical Iranian students seized the United States Embassy complex in the Iranian capital of Tehran. The immediate cause of this takeover was the anger many Iranians felt over the U.S. President Jimmy Carter allowing the deposed former ruler of Iran, Shah Reza Pahlavi, to enter the U.S. for medical treatment. In Iran, this was believed to be an opening move leading up an American-backed return to power by the Shah. The crisis which followed this seizure created a near state of war, ruined Jimmy Carter's presidency, and began an environment of hostility between America and Iran ....
Though fear of an American-backed return by the Shah was the publicly stated reason, the true cause of the seizure was the long-standing U.S. support for the Shah's government. Reza Pahlavi ruled Iran from 1941 to 1979, exile in 1953 when he fled to Italy due to a power struggle with Prime Minister ....Because Mossadegh's policies .... created concern over access to Iranian oil, oil prices, and possible Soviet influence in Iran, the United States and British intelligence services aided Iranian military officers in a coup to overthrow the Prime Minister"
2
It seemed to me then that the right response to the hostage taking would have been for Congress to have passed a law that would take care of the financial needs of the dependents of the hostages if they were killed, including the cost of educating their kids --- and then told the Iranians we would not negotiate, but if they hurt the hostages we'd retaliate. Instead, we put their lives ahead of the common good, as if they had not chosen a risky profession to serve honorably according to their lights.
So far as I know, they got salary and benefits for every day they were being held, and to my mind they earned it but not more.
So far as I know, they got salary and benefits for every day they were being held, and to my mind they earned it but not more.
1
As for you and others who feel the hostages were entitled to their salaries and benefits and nothing more, I wonder how much you would enjoy your condition as a hostage as opposed to your position as an employee. Would you feel "oh well, all for a day's pay?" Typing letters or guarding officials is not quite the same as torture, torment, imprisonment without forewarning and with no foreseeable end in sight. Not to mention time to live: to be with family; to enjoy freedom.
The money collected as a fine is fungible. That means that can be placed wherever it will do the most amount of good. This is not a good placement of money that could have been used to cure disease, or feed the hungry. Instead career diplomats and their families (and especially their lawyers!) are even better off. Disappointing...
2
ARGO. Great true movie based on the Canadians helping some of the hostages get away. Some very riveting scenes
1
The surviving family members of Pan Am Lockerbie victims received 10 million dollars per passenger. The US hostages are awarded 4.4 million dollars each. The US supposedly agreed to pay approximately $300,000 for the wage earning passenger and approximately $150,000 for non-wage earning passenger directly to the families of the victims if the US could locate the families, but not though the government of Iran. For example the family of a young pregnant mother of two who was killed and not working at the time of the murder, may have received just $150,000 or nothing. Such a blatant inhumane injustice by the US.
1
I am a little confused as to why someone who is a member of the US armed forces and then taken hostage is then entitled to "restitution" and $4.4 million. Do all soldiers get $4.4 millions when they get taken hostage? How about most other U.S. government foreign service reps who know that part of their service entails the chance of being taken hostage? Did John McCain get restitution for being taken hostage in Vietnam? Could the article explained that? If the families are getting restittution, how about the families of slaves? Is it too late for them, I don't think so. How about victims of Jim Crow? What about...
5
My reading of the article is that the $4.4 million is the total then the 53 would get $83,000 each. Is that right?
The long delay was inexcusable and will remain a blot on the record of Clinton, Bush, and Obama. I am particularly upset with Obama. Of all the people, I thought that he will move first. Sad, how we treat our own citizens.
If I read this right, which many commenters didn't seem too, the money is coming from a $9 billion dollar penalty paid by a French bank that did business with Iran, Cuba and Sudan violating the sanctions. And the rest will be put into a victims compensation fund. So the US taxpayers aren't paying anything.... Now weather you think paying the money out is good or bad, that's another story.
6
Ah, the weather, since you mention it. It is a balmy Christmas morning here in the Northeastern Megalopolis, fifty-eight degrees Fahrenheit as presently I write. The prognosticators say it will go as high as Route 66.
But as to whether this monetary award is good or bad, of course it could be better or worse. Maybe the French bank will have legal recourse to recoup some of its loss from Iranian assets, although the gnomes of Zurich will probably play some kind of shell game. I think, however, that the bank should suffer a substantial penalty.
Other than that, may Iran perish.
But as to whether this monetary award is good or bad, of course it could be better or worse. Maybe the French bank will have legal recourse to recoup some of its loss from Iranian assets, although the gnomes of Zurich will probably play some kind of shell game. I think, however, that the bank should suffer a substantial penalty.
Other than that, may Iran perish.
Sorry about the whether weather... I am always wrestling with that...sometimes I just don't feel like grabbing the dictionary. I don't understand the statement "may Iran perish " though. Seems awfully uncalled for esp on Christmas. I am absolutely in favor of opening up relations with Iran. I think it will benefit everyone. As do all the companies that are now going in. Because doing good business is the best way to keep peace and respect. But that's really not what this article s about. Merry Xmas ...................
2
re, "I don't understand the statement "may Iran perish " though."
To start right at the beginning, the word "may" is a marker for the subjunctive. Many people (their numbers are legion) are not even aware that English has a subjunctive mood, or even that English has grammar at all.
The subjunctive in English has the same uses as in other European languages. It is used when making a hypothetical or conditional statement, or to express a wish, that something "ought" to be, and so forth.
"May Iran perish" expresses a wish that Iran should perish, that I would be pleased if Iran were to perish.
I hope this helps.
To start right at the beginning, the word "may" is a marker for the subjunctive. Many people (their numbers are legion) are not even aware that English has a subjunctive mood, or even that English has grammar at all.
The subjunctive in English has the same uses as in other European languages. It is used when making a hypothetical or conditional statement, or to express a wish, that something "ought" to be, and so forth.
"May Iran perish" expresses a wish that Iran should perish, that I would be pleased if Iran were to perish.
I hope this helps.
America is hated around the world because of the conduct of its government, but loved because of the just, fair, and brave souls who have written the top most recommended comments on this piece.
2
Hey, Syed Abbas - Didn't you mean to say that America is hated by Muslims around the world? Because that would simply put us in the company every country that doesn't impose sharia law.
Citizenship lesson #1: You cannot separate the United States from the people of the United States. We are a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE!
Citizenship lesson #1: You cannot separate the United States from the people of the United States. We are a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE!
Govt of the people, by the people, for the people was true in Lincoln's times. Ever heard of Occupy Wall St. movement, or the 1%ers who rule America today?
There was a piece in NYTimes last week that the Middle Class has fallen below 50%.
There was a piece in NYTimes last week that the Middle Class has fallen below 50%.
1
A shame that the Obama administration did not make Iran pay, but sheepishly relied on BNP Paribas money
2
Harry, why focus upon the Obama administration? The Reagan administration did not make Iran pay; the Bush Sr. administration did not make Iran pay; the Clinton administration did not make Iran pay; the Bush Jr. administration did not make Iran pay.
2
Blame the Courts for that one. And blame Reagan for allowing what amounts to a no-fault clause in the deal by which the hostages were released. I was hoping that Iran would be hit with a few 100-megaton nuclear warheads as soon as the hostages got home. Instead, Reagan made a secret and illegal deal with Iran to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. And yet, Reagan remains enshrined in the Conservative pantheon as if he were a real cowboy instead of a two-bit actor who played cowboys in the movies.
4
Harry Mazal in the last 36 years there were several other presidents who could have made Iran paid beginning with President Reagan. So why pick on President Obama?
6
That's my President, taking care of business. I am amazed to learn that the Great Ronald Reagan didn't take care of it during his time on his throne. You know, since he more than doubled the national debt you would think he had a few bucks for these Americans.
6
I believe this was Congress not your beloved President who has spent more money than all other Presidents combined.
Ronell Reagan was a better actor than he was president. And as an actor he was upstaged by a monkey.
2
Wondering how Trump will demean this group next. Is there a parallel with prisoners of war/John McCain and Trump's lack of respect?
1
Long overdue.
7
The U.S. has held a grudge against Iran for 36 years because of this "crisis" in which no one was harmed and all were released. It continues to affect our very irrational policy against Iran, the most recent being HR 158 which penalizes travelers who have been to Iran. Meanwhile the rest of the world is opening up trade with Iran which, like it or not, is the most stable and democratic government in the Muslim Middle East. The U.S. calls Iran a "state sponsor of terrorism". If this is true, what is the U.S.? Though Iran has an unenviable human rights records vis a vis dissidents, that normally does not disqualify a nation from having favored nation status with the U.S. (see Saudi Arabia). The real reason the U.S. does not accept Iran is because Iran calls the U.S. out on its international hypocrisy.
4
"which no one was harmed"?
the entire world was harmed by that hostage taking, just as we're all harmed by any act of terrorism. and if you were referring to no one was killed or died while being held captive, that's a pretty low bar. please don't discount the psychological and emotional damage that's the result of by being held by a hostile captor for over a year. those 54 people, their families and friends and everyone who feels less free today...are all harmed by that act and other similar acts of hostility.
the entire world was harmed by that hostage taking, just as we're all harmed by any act of terrorism. and if you were referring to no one was killed or died while being held captive, that's a pretty low bar. please don't discount the psychological and emotional damage that's the result of by being held by a hostile captor for over a year. those 54 people, their families and friends and everyone who feels less free today...are all harmed by that act and other similar acts of hostility.
2
No one was harmed?
Please read "Guests of the Ayatollah."
Beatings, mock executions and more.
Please read "Guests of the Ayatollah."
Beatings, mock executions and more.
2
I do not understand this. In the analogy, we owe every American ever taken as a POW in wartime.
These are people who accepted all kinds of risk and all risk when they accepted their jobs. Granted, being held hostage in Tehran under the conditions they were held was not a pretty thing but then neither was being held prisoner as a civilian by the Japanese during WWII a pretty thing -- in fact it was far more brutal and prolonged. But we never offered or paid those people compensation or required it of Japan so far as I am aware.
That Germany ultimately afforded some recompense to survivors both in personal payments and remuneration through the Israeli nation is not the same. Nothing is the same as the Holocaust and all the money in the world would not be compensation sufficient to atone for what Germany did.
Perhaps these Americans have a reasonable claim against Iran, but if that is so then every American POW during WWII, every civilian caught in that maelstrom and imprisoned, has a claim against Germany or Japan. Every American POW in Vietnam has a similar special claim when in fact none do. Ask John McCain
Indeed, were this so, every American Indian would lay such claim against the USA.
But it does not work that way and it should not because it cannot. This is a precedent to a bottomless pit. There will be no end of such claims in the future and, worse, no way to distinguish between them, differentiate among them or, in the last analysis, to say no.
These are people who accepted all kinds of risk and all risk when they accepted their jobs. Granted, being held hostage in Tehran under the conditions they were held was not a pretty thing but then neither was being held prisoner as a civilian by the Japanese during WWII a pretty thing -- in fact it was far more brutal and prolonged. But we never offered or paid those people compensation or required it of Japan so far as I am aware.
That Germany ultimately afforded some recompense to survivors both in personal payments and remuneration through the Israeli nation is not the same. Nothing is the same as the Holocaust and all the money in the world would not be compensation sufficient to atone for what Germany did.
Perhaps these Americans have a reasonable claim against Iran, but if that is so then every American POW during WWII, every civilian caught in that maelstrom and imprisoned, has a claim against Germany or Japan. Every American POW in Vietnam has a similar special claim when in fact none do. Ask John McCain
Indeed, were this so, every American Indian would lay such claim against the USA.
But it does not work that way and it should not because it cannot. This is a precedent to a bottomless pit. There will be no end of such claims in the future and, worse, no way to distinguish between them, differentiate among them or, in the last analysis, to say no.
13
The POW analogy is a bad one. No POW has a claim to not be captured by enemy forces; the latter are entitled to take soldiers prisoner. The Iranians, on the other hand, had no right to capture the embassy or hold the diplomatic personnel therein as hostages.
3
But we had the right to overthrow their democratically elected government and install a brutal puppet tyrant.
Nota fan: Agree completely. Sorry for what they went through but this is nuts!
1
If the Feds are going to get in the reparations game, no matter who is paying for it, will it open up to payments to all who have suffered throughout history who were unjustly held prisoner? Thinking mainly of the guys who were held in North Vietnam for up to six years (Sen. McCain among them.)
6
As an American service member, I think it's bad precedent to specially compensate a member of your own armed services for making good on their oath. Why do those service members who feel more entitled to millions of dollars than a fellow member of the service who has been killed in action or severely wounded?
27
Government employees taking care of government employees. How this can make into a spending bill is astonishing. I'd love to see how these numbers were arrived at. What a joke.
9
I'm astonished at the many comments that quibble about the amount, worry about the costs to taxpayers, dismiss the compensation because these people "knew the risks," so on and so forth. One comment even called these people "bit players." I suggest these commenters sit back and imagine, if they can, what it would be like to be bound and gagged, confined by men who hated you, cut off from any contact with the government you serve, not to mention friends, family and home, a situation in which you never knew when you might die at the hands of a fanatic, and then wonder about whether these people deserve compensation and worry about the costs to taxpayers. My God.
13
I think you are glazing over the most important argument of all, why should we compensate individuals who suffered with a very considerable sum while not compensating others who have suffered in similar monetary terms (e.g. innocent Iraqi's killed by American bombs, Japanese Americans held in interment camps, innocent Gitmo detainees, ex-POWs, etc.)?
6
@Alex
It isn't an important argument at all; it's a tu quoque argument, first of all; based on the idea that one group can't get compensation unless all do. It is also an apples-and-oranges comparison in some cases (POWs don't have a right to not be captured) and factually inaccurate in others (Japanese-American internees did get compensation).
It isn't an important argument at all; it's a tu quoque argument, first of all; based on the idea that one group can't get compensation unless all do. It is also an apples-and-oranges comparison in some cases (POWs don't have a right to not be captured) and factually inaccurate in others (Japanese-American internees did get compensation).
4
those held in internment camps did receive reparations, though the figure was $20,000, not $4.4 million. and a citizen of a country with which we are at war is not an innocent.
1
This is such an odd occurrence of events from decades ago. I'm not against the compensation though I assumed there was earlier compensation and medical care. I am however concerned about the overwhelming number of comments that seem to rage against the U.S. at every possible turn. Much of it well deserved. Fortunately we have the freedom to criticize our government without endangering our lives and family so I'll put in my two cents: the takeover of the embassy evolved into a clear act of war. President Carter's failure to dominate the situation over the Iranian extremist theocracy was one of the primary progenitors and inspiration of modern militant Islamic terrorism.
4
The author needed to outline the benefits these people as government employees already received. Having deployed three times to that area I can say that there are substantial benefits provided by the government should such a situation arise. This is outrageous behavior by our Congress. There are no better uses for this huge amount of money than this......in this nation?
14
Due to the Algiers Accord that was agreed to in order to secure the freedom of the American hostages - who were tortured and brutalized daily- the hostages were barred from suing the Iranian govt.
contrary to your statement, these people never received any "substantial benefits" - perhaps that's something new since the embassy takeover. I'll also point out that not all the hostages were embassy personnel. Some were civilians and educators.
444 days of torture followed by no apology by your own govt then years of illness, PTSD, torn apart lives, suicides, deaths, and constant pain, I think Americas first victims of terrorism are well deserving of this acknowledgement and overdue justice.
contrary to your statement, these people never received any "substantial benefits" - perhaps that's something new since the embassy takeover. I'll also point out that not all the hostages were embassy personnel. Some were civilians and educators.
444 days of torture followed by no apology by your own govt then years of illness, PTSD, torn apart lives, suicides, deaths, and constant pain, I think Americas first victims of terrorism are well deserving of this acknowledgement and overdue justice.
2
The lawmakers especially the GOP and pro-Israel lawmakers are hypocrites because they fought very hard to remove the terrorist group, MEK or MKO or NCRI, from the terrorist list even though MEK/MKO?NCRI members were responsible for holding the American diplomats hostage and demanding that all the diplomats be executed. Not only were the terrorist group who go by many names like MEK or MKO or NCRI (National Council for Resistance of Iran) responsible for taking 52 American diplomats hostage and demanding their executions, but also in 1970s, MEK/MKO/NCRI were responsible for the murder of three top American military officers and three American civilians, attempted kidnapping of American Ambassador in Iran and top military officers, bombing of American owned companies in Iran. Despite all that, the GOP and pro Israel lawmakers, and pro-Israel supporters fought tooth and nail forcing the US to remove them from the terrorist list. Today, MEK/MKO/NCRI members are treated like the members of the royal families in the US by the former public officials of both parties, and military officials.
No, the US lawmakers don't care about the lives of American citizens when Israel is involved. They only act in support of the Israeli interests over the US's interests, otherwise, why did they reward the murderers, MEK/MKO/NCRI, when they could have easily punished them for murders, kidnapping, hostage taking, destruction of American properties.
No, the US lawmakers don't care about the lives of American citizens when Israel is involved. They only act in support of the Israeli interests over the US's interests, otherwise, why did they reward the murderers, MEK/MKO/NCRI, when they could have easily punished them for murders, kidnapping, hostage taking, destruction of American properties.
1
By including their new name (NCRI) you must be aware that the old Iranian student organization MEK or MKO has evolved, to oppose violence, and to resist the Iranian regime they once supported after 1979.
And what in the world would their removal from the "terror list" (for abstaining from violence for ten years) have to do with Israel (a country which I am not in the habit of defending?)
And what in the world would their removal from the "terror list" (for abstaining from violence for ten years) have to do with Israel (a country which I am not in the habit of defending?)
1
MEK or MKO or NCRI have murdered and kidnapped Americans, taken American hostage, bombed American companies in Iran. Since there is no statute of limitation on murders and kidnappings, they must be tried, and punished for their crimes. The officials of NCRI are the same murderers. Just because they have changed their name in order to hide the heinous crimes committed against Americans, it doesn't absolve them. In this context, many Nazi murderers or collaborators or camp guards many of whom were 18 or 19 years when they were camp guards were arrested decades after the WWII even though they had lived peaceful lives and raised families.
The blood of Lt. Col. Louis Lee Hawkins, Col. Paul Shaffer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner, William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard who were killed by MEK/MKO/NCRI members is not only on their hands, but also on the hands of lawmakers, the former officials of both parties, and former military officials who support the terrorist group. The lawmakers not only owe apologies to the families of the six Americans killed, but also must be held responsible for embracing the terrorists and letting the murderers go free.
Regarding Israel, pro-Israel lobbies, and pro-Israel Americans, they are actively involved in overthrowing the Iranian government by encouraging terrorist action inside Iran with the help of the Arab countries, etc. read the latest article on that.
http://lobelog.com/neocons-still-demanding-regime-change-in-iran/
The blood of Lt. Col. Louis Lee Hawkins, Col. Paul Shaffer and Lt. Col. Jack Turner, William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard who were killed by MEK/MKO/NCRI members is not only on their hands, but also on the hands of lawmakers, the former officials of both parties, and former military officials who support the terrorist group. The lawmakers not only owe apologies to the families of the six Americans killed, but also must be held responsible for embracing the terrorists and letting the murderers go free.
Regarding Israel, pro-Israel lobbies, and pro-Israel Americans, they are actively involved in overthrowing the Iranian government by encouraging terrorist action inside Iran with the help of the Arab countries, etc. read the latest article on that.
http://lobelog.com/neocons-still-demanding-regime-change-in-iran/
2
Time for Congress to award all of us trillions in compensation for Wall St. crashing our lives, creating untold sorrow and misery, financial and emotional pain and loss, and lasting damage to our futures from the loss of homes, jobs, savings, pensions, etc.
Banksters may have paid back the TARP loans after using it to further enrich themselves, but they didn't compensate us for ruining our lives. They got away with Mega Grand Larceny with the help of their partners-in-crime in Washington, DC. who have habit of granting immunity to their friends, even retroactively. Hello Telecoms.
The assets of CEOs and their Corporations should be seized. Let them hire use their own lawyers to try to plead their innocence to get it all back, because that's how this law works. If they can't, it's ours.
That ill-gained wealth should be returned to us in the form of free college tuition, free health care, and total infrastructure renewal, including free broadband for all. We need that to track government/corporate collusion without it being censored or filtered through corporate tv and newspapers.
Criminals must not be allowed to keep and profit from the proceeds of their crimes. After Civil Asset Forfeiture, open a RICO case, and don't forget the Government. Drain the whole swamp and clean it up.
Banksters may have paid back the TARP loans after using it to further enrich themselves, but they didn't compensate us for ruining our lives. They got away with Mega Grand Larceny with the help of their partners-in-crime in Washington, DC. who have habit of granting immunity to their friends, even retroactively. Hello Telecoms.
The assets of CEOs and their Corporations should be seized. Let them hire use their own lawyers to try to plead their innocence to get it all back, because that's how this law works. If they can't, it's ours.
That ill-gained wealth should be returned to us in the form of free college tuition, free health care, and total infrastructure renewal, including free broadband for all. We need that to track government/corporate collusion without it being censored or filtered through corporate tv and newspapers.
Criminals must not be allowed to keep and profit from the proceeds of their crimes. After Civil Asset Forfeiture, open a RICO case, and don't forget the Government. Drain the whole swamp and clean it up.
30
A noteworthy consideration is that the government of the Ayatollahs has not mellowed in the 36 years of its existence. As long as Iran continues to chant "Death to America," our policy should be "Death to Iran." I am not impressed by the argument that the chanting is merely boiler-plate intended for the Iranian masses. It remains the agenda of the present Iranian government, which is no less despicable than the Sunni faction known as Daesh or IS. Both should be wiped from the map.
To which I will add, in a historic context, that Iran is still nursing an inferiority complex because the Persian Empire could not conquer the ancient Greeks. Persian or Iranian society and culture remain in every way inferior to Western Civilization.
To which I will add, in a historic context, that Iran is still nursing an inferiority complex because the Persian Empire could not conquer the ancient Greeks. Persian or Iranian society and culture remain in every way inferior to Western Civilization.
3
"Both should be wiped from the map."
You're just as bad as those you oppose.
So, the cycle of violence and retribution continues.
You're just as bad as those you oppose.
So, the cycle of violence and retribution continues.
2
Let this Brave New Century roll. The West will prevail.
To all the people commenting who believe this compensation isn't justified as they were "doing their jobs":
Would you also agree that the 9/11 first responders do not deserve to have their medical needs incurred in the line of duty as they "signed up for the job"? Why not eliminate the VA as well? The embassy staff believed in protecting American interests abroad through diplomacy rather than with rifles, cruise missiles and grenades. I applaud them for it.
The pettiness that many on this thread are displaying on this thread is unnecessary and un-American. I hope none of you have to endure what these individuals did. Merry Christmas.
Would you also agree that the 9/11 first responders do not deserve to have their medical needs incurred in the line of duty as they "signed up for the job"? Why not eliminate the VA as well? The embassy staff believed in protecting American interests abroad through diplomacy rather than with rifles, cruise missiles and grenades. I applaud them for it.
The pettiness that many on this thread are displaying on this thread is unnecessary and un-American. I hope none of you have to endure what these individuals did. Merry Christmas.
13
medical costs are not th same thing as this cash payout
had th hostages needed medical care after being released, th govt would pay
had th hostages needed medical care after being released, th govt would pay
4
I'm surprised this news is eliciting such violent reactions. So violent, in fact, that many people seem to not bother with reading the article at all.
4
Sad, these folks are once again political pawns. Only upside here is that it happens to do something positive for the former hostages. Having said that, to do something for these folks and nothing for say POWs that were held in North Vietnam for many multiples of 444 days screams of the absolute disfunctionality of the Congress. Sadly this is far more an attempt by the lunatic fringe in congress to thumb their noses at the White House than it is an attempt to compensate these victims.
5
How about the US paying compensation to the families of thousands of Iranians who were killed and wounded, and many more tortured and jailed for 25 years as the result of the CIA coup of 1953 that overthrew the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Dr. Mossadegh at the urging of the murderous Churchill for the sake of the British Petroleum (BP)? How about the US compensating the Iranian families for shooting down the Iranian passenger plane for no reason at all killing nearly 300 people on board? How about the US compensating the Iranian families of oil rig workers for killing the innocent workers in support of Saddam Hussein during the Iraq war against Iran? How about the US compensating the families of sailors killed by the US without provocation during Iraq war against Iran in order to stop Iran from winning the war? How about the US compensating the Iranian families for hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers and civilians killed and many more severely injured by the chemical weapons provided to Saddam Hussein by the US? Not only did the US provide the chemical weapons to Iraqis, but also it gave Saddam the means of delivery, satellite photographs, and the daily intelligence reports about the Iranian troop positions.
Unfortunately, the US media and the lawmakers always tell one side of the story.
Unfortunately, the US media and the lawmakers always tell one side of the story.
12
Were the hostages subject to torture or enhanced interrogation methods?
6
kayakbiker The hostages endured physical and mental torture on a daily basis. Beatings, mock firing squads, being hung in elevator shafts, left in freezing cold with no clothes tied up & blindfolded for days, etc. So to answer your question, yes, the hostages were subject to torture and enhanced interrogation methods. It's just that most have never spoken publicly about the horrid abuse so America doesn't know.
We support our troops and diplomats with yellow ribbons round the old oak tree and cute flag lapel pins and bumper stickers. But health, counselling, job-training benefits after combat, being held hostage, etc.? Little, late, or not at all.
1
Let's not forget the survivors and the families of the servicemen killed and injured during President Carter's ill-advised and botched raid to free the hostages. They should not be afterthoughts.
3
Clarence Moses-El was just released after 28 years in prison for a rape someone else has confessed to, with the only evidence against him being the victim reporting that she had a dream it was him (this was after she identified someone else, and that person was then let free). Imagine when he picks up the paper today it reads this story…"hmmm, 444 days." It is very doubtful he'll receive any compensation, and there are many others like him who have not received a dime.
13
It's almost certain he will receive compensation as wrongfully imprisoned people almost always are. For 28 years probably in the millions. So you can relax.
1
Hotblack, nice if it were true. There are many examples like this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/29/innocent-m...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/29/innocent-m...
2
For those too young to remember, some facts.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 ousted the Shah, who was widely considered a puppet installed by the CIA in 1953. The Shah controlled Iran via the iron fist of his gestapo, known as Savak. That there were factions seeking the Shah's overthrow was widely known, and many Americans of my generation (in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the "Watergate" scandal) had a natural or an acquired affinity to have warm feelings toward any such efforts -- gross naiveté, as events unfolded.
Most of us naively assumed that the Shah would be ousted by a "Leftist" regime of some vague sort. When the revolution turned out to be the work not of an Iranian Che Guevara, but rather of Medievalist zealots, many of us gasped, and some of us were even chastened. What I realized at the time is that not all "Nations" or "Peoples" are worthy of "self-determination." Some simply deserve to be stepped on and crushed.
We can blame the 1979 revolution and the ensuing Embassy-Hostage crisis for the conservative recrudescence in American politics which followed it. People elected Ronald Reagan because they were outraged by Carter's ineffective dithering in response to the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and especially to the spectacle of U.S citizens being held as hostages by the so-called "Revolutionary Guards" holding the Embassy. And for that, we had to suffer antediluvian "Reaganomics." Oh, and then came Reagan's "Iran-Contra" affair.
The Iranian Revolution of 1979 ousted the Shah, who was widely considered a puppet installed by the CIA in 1953. The Shah controlled Iran via the iron fist of his gestapo, known as Savak. That there were factions seeking the Shah's overthrow was widely known, and many Americans of my generation (in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and the "Watergate" scandal) had a natural or an acquired affinity to have warm feelings toward any such efforts -- gross naiveté, as events unfolded.
Most of us naively assumed that the Shah would be ousted by a "Leftist" regime of some vague sort. When the revolution turned out to be the work not of an Iranian Che Guevara, but rather of Medievalist zealots, many of us gasped, and some of us were even chastened. What I realized at the time is that not all "Nations" or "Peoples" are worthy of "self-determination." Some simply deserve to be stepped on and crushed.
We can blame the 1979 revolution and the ensuing Embassy-Hostage crisis for the conservative recrudescence in American politics which followed it. People elected Ronald Reagan because they were outraged by Carter's ineffective dithering in response to the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and especially to the spectacle of U.S citizens being held as hostages by the so-called "Revolutionary Guards" holding the Embassy. And for that, we had to suffer antediluvian "Reaganomics." Oh, and then came Reagan's "Iran-Contra" affair.
17
As I was running out of space, I can see where I should have tightened the last paragraph before clicking "Submit."
I want to add that I voted for Carter again in 1980 even though I had come to despise him for his ineffectual handling of the Embassy-Hostage crisis. Why did I vote for him again in 1980? Because the mere thought of Ronald Reagan in the While House was enough to make me nauseous. However, Reagan was elected entirely because of the Hostage affair. Then, instead of punishing Iran, Reagan entered into an illegal, secret deal with Iran to obtain a slush fund for his pet project of trying to overthrow the government of Nicaragua. Reagan thus gave the new "Islamic Republic" of Iran almost a full decade in which to consolidate itself. Yes, Conservatives -- your plaster saint is responsible for the fact that the "Islamic Republic" of Iran still exists today.
I want to add that I voted for Carter again in 1980 even though I had come to despise him for his ineffectual handling of the Embassy-Hostage crisis. Why did I vote for him again in 1980? Because the mere thought of Ronald Reagan in the While House was enough to make me nauseous. However, Reagan was elected entirely because of the Hostage affair. Then, instead of punishing Iran, Reagan entered into an illegal, secret deal with Iran to obtain a slush fund for his pet project of trying to overthrow the government of Nicaragua. Reagan thus gave the new "Islamic Republic" of Iran almost a full decade in which to consolidate itself. Yes, Conservatives -- your plaster saint is responsible for the fact that the "Islamic Republic" of Iran still exists today.
1
Well said. And thank you for the facts. Many people have forgotten.
As a side note: Even though I was only a kid I remember it well. It wasn't uncommon for the family to gather around the TV at night and watch the specially created Nightline with the excellent Ted Koppel (RIP).
That's back in the day before CNN and FOXNews when journalism exhibited professionalism and a sense of equanimity and decorum.
As a side note: Even though I was only a kid I remember it well. It wasn't uncommon for the family to gather around the TV at night and watch the specially created Nightline with the excellent Ted Koppel (RIP).
That's back in the day before CNN and FOXNews when journalism exhibited professionalism and a sense of equanimity and decorum.
3
Isn't this misdirected anger. If the sins of America in imposing on others via a violent puppet regime that killed thousands comes back to roost via an overthrow, humiliation, and a conservative reaction inside the US, whose fault is that? Mossadek was a "leftist". Where would the Iranian mullahs be without the Shah first? They would be studying in their holy cities and reciting verses, somewhat like what happens in Lakewood, NJ. And the situation - if we extrapolate to many other actions and reactions - may be even similar for many of the other theocratics who have now taken up arms in the present day. The real lesson is the opposite: if you "step on and crush" people, then don't assume you can predict their reaction, and be ready for blowback in your own nation. The universe is an information transfer mechanism.
1
More than three decades later, and the award has to be stuck inside an omnibus bill to pass. One big not so happy increasingly dysfunctional family.
5
Better late than never but certainly seems bizarre that the federal government would have the legal standing to relinquish the legal right of any citizen, even federal employees, to seek compensation for wrongful imprisonment and torture. Barring victims from taking their case to court was accepted under duress - so it should be non-binding.
The Algiers Accords that covered the resolution of the hostage crisis would be, in effect, an executive agreement. That would supersede any common-law right to seek redress given that efforts to override the Accords with legislation failed to pass. Further, although the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does permit tort suits against foreign governments for torts committed within U.S. territory, the court that heard the case from the hostages held the the U.S. Embassy wasn't U.S. territory for purposes of the statute.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43210.pdf
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43210.pdf
3
Just think how high your taxes would be if people around the world could sue in US courts for harm inflicted upon them by the US government!
1
The Islamic Republic of Iran should be paying , and NOT the United States . This is simply outrageous . Is Iran not accountable for anything they do in this world?
3
No, unfortunately, but apparently the U.S. is responsible for what everybody does, and for what happens to everyone, elsewhere around the world.
2
What would the damages be in a real unbiased trial? Maybe $50,000 per person? They were fed, clothed, sheltered, allowed to bathe, etc. I wonder how much we owe some of the people we have killed, maimed and tortured over the years.
1
I thought it is a French bank de facto paying the compensation.
1
In 1988, President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act to compensate more than 100,000 people of Japanese descent who were incarcerated in internment camps during World War II. The legislation offered a formal apology and paid out $20,000 in compensation to each surviving victim.
Inflation or a different measure of justice?
Inflation or a different measure of justice?
5
"Inflation or a different measure of justice"? Actually, both. Plus the fact that Reagan was a notorious cheapskate.
1
Working at an Embassy in Iran, or China, or Vietnam, or anywhere, comes with risks. Or maybe we should look into paying John McCain $20 million dollars for the 2,000+ days he spent as a POW. There are thousands if not millions of famiies that deserve compensation from all the useless wars we've started for no good reason.
Important symbol, please. An important symbol would be the United States finally apologizing for My Lai massacre or the countless other atrocities we've committed in the last 20 years. This sends no message at all -- this is just lawyers getting really rich off a sympathetic idea.
Important symbol, please. An important symbol would be the United States finally apologizing for My Lai massacre or the countless other atrocities we've committed in the last 20 years. This sends no message at all -- this is just lawyers getting really rich off a sympathetic idea.
13
Compensation for the hostages is long overdue, but at least it is finally happening. Unfortunately, In keeping with tradition the Times story leaves out the vital context of what the United States did to Iran from 1953 to 1977, which is infinitely worse than the hostage takings, terrible as they were. A CIA-organized coup in 1953 removed Iran's democratically elected President, Mohammed Mossadegh, replacing him with an American puppet, The Shah, whose notorious secret police, the CIA-trained SAVAK, repressed, imprisoned, tortured and murdered countless Iranians who resisted his iron rule, all so America and the UK could have favored access to Iranian oil. It is the United States which should be compensating the people of Iran, not the other way around. This story makes Iran seem like a cruel nation of senseless barbarity, when in fact both the Iranian people and the US hostages were victims of flagrantly illegal and immoral behavior by the US government. Ideally the money to compensate the former hostages or their estates should have been taken out of the budget of the CIA.
10
This is a vast oversimplification. Yes, the CIA and the British MI6 helped to overthrow Mossadegh. But the forces that overthrew the Shah were Iranians who overthrew Mossadegh for their own reasons. These forces included the Mullahs who hated Mossadegh for his left-wing ideology. The Mullahs hated the Shah not so much for his dictatorial or pro-American policies but for his modernization policies. Many of the Iranians who helped to overthrow the Shah learned to their sorrow that the Mullahs were to be even more repressive than the Shah. The Mullahs executed most of the political descendants of Mossadegh as well as the members of the Iranian Communist Party. If you still putting everything on what happened 36 years ago on the United States, you probably have an axe to grind.
There would have been no coup if the British, on behalf of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, had not asked the US to foment one because they were simply too broke from WW2 to do it themselves. Mossadegh never wanted to nationalize the oil business but the company refused to give up the sweetheart deal they arranged when Iran was a British colony. The US, which didn't like the nationalization precedent, went out and cut a deal with forces that had something to gain by the coup. The Mullahs had very little to do with it. The key fact is that America had no right to organize the overthrow of a popular, democratically elected secular government and did so purely for its own economic advantage and are not only responsible for the immense suffering of the Iranian people, but also for helping turn Iran from a secular state into one ruled by the Mullahs. We can never know precisely how Iranian history would have unfolded if the US hadn't brought down Mossadegh who was a fine and popular leader. You just don't want to accept that America isn't a nation in shining armor it pretends to be. Of course the following year the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala for economic and ideological reasons and the US has continued to operate that way ever since, as dozens of countries have experienced. Yes, the most powerful countries in the world have always done what they wanted regardless of the consequences, let's just drop the fairy tale that the US is different.
Compensated for what? The civilians were all doing their government jobs, which involved risks they understood from the outset. And compensating a particular group of soldiers in this situation makes zero sense when we don't take care of servicepersons who come back from actual combat. The whole thing is bizarre.
10
150 MILLION is going to Iran as we speak...
Instead of them using that money to foster terrorism ( Death to America),
why wouldn't they be paying the victims.. the folks they kidnapped?
What about the Christian American Pastor they just released after 5 years in the harshest jail in Iran. His only crime was holding a Christian prayer service in Iran ( yes, not the brightest idea to practice Christianity in the Middle East..), will he be reimbursed?
And there are still two other American hostages being held in Iran.
One of them is a Washington Post reporter.
Did the Obama administration forget them too?
Instead of them using that money to foster terrorism ( Death to America),
why wouldn't they be paying the victims.. the folks they kidnapped?
What about the Christian American Pastor they just released after 5 years in the harshest jail in Iran. His only crime was holding a Christian prayer service in Iran ( yes, not the brightest idea to practice Christianity in the Middle East..), will he be reimbursed?
And there are still two other American hostages being held in Iran.
One of them is a Washington Post reporter.
Did the Obama administration forget them too?
3
It is $150 billion and it is Iran's money that has been wrongfully withheld from them under unjust sanctions for many years.
There was nothing unjust about the sanctions. They were imposed after the IAEA verified that Iran was running clandestine enrichment programs and Iran's non-cooperation with the IAEA.
1
does one not accept a reasonable amount of risk when taking a post like this
being taken hostage in th american embassy in tehran is an occupational hazard that goes w th job
being taken hostage in th american embassy in tehran is an occupational hazard that goes w th job
6
Justice delayed is justice denied. Iran still had US hostages despite the Obama/Kerry/Clinton self-proclaimed "Iran Nuclear Deal." (It should be called the Islamic Republic of Iran economic relief bill)
2
Hmmm this sets up a firestorm internationally. So can all the detainees that we have held for years in various parts of the world now sue the US Government? I think there was a bit of torture involved on our end.
2
yes, sure, all the American citizen, US gov't employees held at gitmo are entitled to compensation
5
Right because terrorists are exactly the same as diplomats.
5
Alleged terrorists...or how about people that just got rounded up because some Pakistani soldiers were hoping for a nice reward? How much have we given to innocent victims of drone bombings? Or to the millions of Iraqis displaced because of our invasion/occupation? Or to the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that would be alive today if not for our invasion/occupation based on lies and misinformation? Hypocrisy runs deep in the good old U.S.A.
3
The money for the hostage compensation should come out of Iranian funds that are held and about to be released with the Iranian nuclear deal. That's only fair.
6
Could we have a breakdown, please, of the amount of each award that compensated the victims as they waited for the October surprise to be sprung?
1
The $4M amount is the TOTAL for ALL those being compensated. NOT each.
To be fair the article is poorly written on that one point:
"would give each of the 53 hostages or their estates up to $4.4 million:"
That whole sentence needs a revision by the editor for the sake of clarity.
2
Buried in the huge spending bill signed into law last Friday are provisions that would give each of the 53 hostages or their estates up to $4.4 million.
from th nyt article
Actually, I think it is up to $4.4M per hostage. The article references a computation of $10,000 per day of captivity for EACH hostage. $10,000 times 444 equals $4,440,000. Not everyone will get this, because (i) some hostages were released before others and (ii) the total payment amount will be over time, not all at once.
Instead of compensating hostages, how does the US government compensate for the dead Americans in the line of duty?
4
The death gratuity payment is $12,420, and is non-taxable. For those whose death is as a result of hostile actions and occurred in a designated combat operation or combat zone or while training for combat or performing hazardous duty, the payment is $100,000.
1
• Insurance payment of $400,000. (Service members are automatically enrolled and insured for that amount)
A "death gratuity" of $100,000.
• Rent-free military family housing for up to a year or an allowance for housing. Movng expenses.
• Up to $8,800 for burial.
• Payment of all the service member's unused accrued leave.
(Approximate value: $600,000)
A "death gratuity" of $100,000.
• Rent-free military family housing for up to a year or an allowance for housing. Movng expenses.
• Up to $8,800 for burial.
• Payment of all the service member's unused accrued leave.
(Approximate value: $600,000)
2
Holy cow! The hostility here is breathtaking.
Yes, many Iraqis, Iranians, and more have suffered as a result of American government actions over generations. And it is not unreasonable to explore the notion of reparations or compensation. That is no reason to deny some form of compensation to the American Embassy hostages. For those of us old enough to have followed this from 1978-1980, you'll recall that this was the mainstay of American news shows literally every night. And for that same cohort who recall the news reports will also recall that the Republican candidate in 1980 - Ronald Reagan - used this crisis as the basis of the Iran-Contra fiasco. He also ensured that the hostages were held longer than they might otherwise have been in order to achieve his (Reagan's) political objectives.
Yes, many Iraqis, Iranians, and more have suffered as a result of American government actions over generations. And it is not unreasonable to explore the notion of reparations or compensation. That is no reason to deny some form of compensation to the American Embassy hostages. For those of us old enough to have followed this from 1978-1980, you'll recall that this was the mainstay of American news shows literally every night. And for that same cohort who recall the news reports will also recall that the Republican candidate in 1980 - Ronald Reagan - used this crisis as the basis of the Iran-Contra fiasco. He also ensured that the hostages were held longer than they might otherwise have been in order to achieve his (Reagan's) political objectives.
6
I say this only half-facetiously
I say this only half-facetiously: considering that this crisis was such a boon to network nightly news, perhaps they could contribute to a compensation fund.
But surely the Iranian government should pay. How can they claim to be embracing a thaw in US-Iran relations and not seize an opportunity to show a fair-minded inclination to make whole those harmed by Iran's government? Even if Iran wants to maintain the action was somehow politically justified, as some kind of appropriate defiance of the West, with the hostages innocent pawns, Iran could show goodwill by compensating - even without being forced - those harmed in the process. It would set a profound international precedent.
But surely the Iranian government should pay. How can they claim to be embracing a thaw in US-Iran relations and not seize an opportunity to show a fair-minded inclination to make whole those harmed by Iran's government? Even if Iran wants to maintain the action was somehow politically justified, as some kind of appropriate defiance of the West, with the hostages innocent pawns, Iran could show goodwill by compensating - even without being forced - those harmed in the process. It would set a profound international precedent.
2
"...Ronald Reagan - used this crisis as the basis of the Iran-Contra fiasco. He also ensured that the hostages were held longer than they might otherwise have been in order to achieve his (Reagan's) political objectives."
Right. And the CIA killed Kennedy and we didn't really land men on the Moon.
Right. And the CIA killed Kennedy and we didn't really land men on the Moon.
3
"Several of the surviving hostages and their families said that reparations were long overdue and would serve as an important symbol."
Although I'm thrilled to hear the hostages will get some compensation, 444 days is nothing in comparison to 200 years of slavery, and their descendants are yet to receive a dime of reparations.
Although I'm thrilled to hear the hostages will get some compensation, 444 days is nothing in comparison to 200 years of slavery, and their descendants are yet to receive a dime of reparations.
6
@WestSider: This 70-something (white) grandmother was thinking the exact same thing as she read this.
4
Margaret, I'm white too.
That's because the hostages were the ones who were wrong; current descendants of slaves weren't enslaved.
2 questions jump out at me:
should the iranian gov't be making these restitutions?
why did it take 33 years?
should the iranian gov't be making these restitutions?
why did it take 33 years?
2
The hostages suffered privations and indignities that they couldn't possibly have anticipated. POW's in the military get special compensation. The hostages were in a similar position. A set stipend of $10,000 per day makes things simple and is not unlike the presumption of disability payments that POW's receive. Still. it is fairer to pay more damages to those who suffered greater injuries. Some left Tehran with surprisingly few scars. A couple are believed to have attempted suicide. With only 50 or so former hostages, it should not be difficult to determine who wrote books about the experience and went on to successful careers and who never got past the trauma. Compensation should be distributed according to the injuries suffered, not based on a simple formula of $10,000/day. You wouldn't compensate a paraplegic the same as one with a stubbed toe. Mental health injuries should be treated the same.
Well-done, yet another article about the hostages that neglects the Canadian embassy's role in saving the "Argo" group form prison and torture -- and 3 decades and more waiting for compensation. Had the ploy been discovered by the Iranian terrorists (that's what hostage-taking and -torturing people are called now), they would have been executed.
Remember the past and the calm Canadian helpmates you had.
Remember the past and the calm Canadian helpmates you had.
9
Except for the part that mentioned it--
"Many said they felt their ordeal had been long forgotten by the general public until the 2012 movie “Argo,” directed by Ben Affleck, which focused on six people who managed to escape from the besieged embassy and take refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador, Ken Taylor."
"Many said they felt their ordeal had been long forgotten by the general public until the 2012 movie “Argo,” directed by Ben Affleck, which focused on six people who managed to escape from the besieged embassy and take refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador, Ken Taylor."
1
Thanks, Bill B. The "general public" in both countries feted Taylor, who was a CIA connection at the time of the kidnapping. His life
was in mortal danger, and those of his agents and representatives were, too. It was no easy task.
was in mortal danger, and those of his agents and representatives were, too. It was no easy task.
America downed an Iranian plane passengers which killed more than 250 civilians, in addition to these America support Saddam Hussein in war against Iran( Iran-iraq war), when America will compensate Iranian civilians?
6
Too bad the war between Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollahs ended. It was a wonderful spectator sport.
Justice or Injustice ?? Too long in coming. Fairness is not in this equation .
1
Hey can I get a year of captivity in exchange for being a millionaire four times over?
Please, where do I sign up.
God Bless America.
Please, where do I sign up.
God Bless America.
4
I suggest that you go to any of the former hostages themselves and ask them that question. If you're lucky, you'll only get a hard slap in the face.
11
This is wrong in so many levels. The compensation if any should be paid should come from Iranian government funds held as a result of sanctions. By using fines paid by BNP it's effectively a US taxpayer funded settlement for which US taxpayers had no culpability. The holding of the hostages was an affront to international law and standards. Iran should be held to account for the damages. What about the hostages held in Lebanon during the period? What about the ones held by other revel groups around the world?
This sets a terrible precedent and us evidence again that US taxpayers are easy prey to get fleeced.
This sets a terrible precedent and us evidence again that US taxpayers are easy prey to get fleeced.
6
How do you calculate that these funds came from the U.S. taxpayer? I don't get your argument. The funds would have otherwise gone to the treasury, where they would have been swallowed without notice. There was no impact on what you or anyone else pays in taxes. The federal govt. is a giant machine, an ocean liner plying the seas and 9 billion is like a small wave hitting the bow and then forgotten.
4
I don't have a problem with using what I'll call "specifically sourced" funds for a related specific purpose. It makes sense to me that the use of funds seized from unlawful dealings with Iran be used to compensate at least some of Iran's victims. It's a more logical approach than, say, taking tobacco settlement money to pay unrelated expenses instead of funding smoking prevention or treatment programs. (Many states have been guilty of what I consider to be this malpractice.)
(By the way, abo, you're right; those were American sanctions specifically, not international ones. I got these sanctions conflated in my mind with the ones that were at the heart of the Iran nuclear deal. My apologies. But you still might want to write BNP Paribas and suggest that its New York branch not do business with Iran.)
(By the way, abo, you're right; those were American sanctions specifically, not international ones. I got these sanctions conflated in my mind with the ones that were at the heart of the Iran nuclear deal. My apologies. But you still might want to write BNP Paribas and suggest that its New York branch not do business with Iran.)
1
Many people here and around the world undergo horrible life experiences and get 0 in compensation. The families of those killed on 9-11, 2001, demanded that the entire footprint of the two World Trade towers be left open as part of the memorial to their loved ones. There were few objections, if any. People killed in car crashes get small crosses and wilting flowers beside the highway.
For those who throw up weak objections to much belated payments, remember this: the hostages never knew from one minute to the next whether they would be killed. Try living with that for 444 days and then with the memories for the rest of your life. 4.4 million 36 years later isn't that much. The principle should be if there is money available, compensation is paid as soon as possible.
When Iran took the hostages, it violated a very important international principle: leave diplomats alone because your diplomats are shown similar respect abroad. When the U.S. declared war on Japan and Germany, their diplomatic corps were allowed to leave peacefully without difficulty.
For anyone who doesn't know the basic history of the region, the hostages were taken because, first, the U.S. had supported, actively, the regime of the deposed Shah of Iran and, second, because President Carter allowed the deposed Shah, dying of cancer, to receive medical treatment in the U.S. The latter act was one of fundamental humanity. The Iranian revolution replaced one repressive, dictatorial regime with another.
For those who throw up weak objections to much belated payments, remember this: the hostages never knew from one minute to the next whether they would be killed. Try living with that for 444 days and then with the memories for the rest of your life. 4.4 million 36 years later isn't that much. The principle should be if there is money available, compensation is paid as soon as possible.
When Iran took the hostages, it violated a very important international principle: leave diplomats alone because your diplomats are shown similar respect abroad. When the U.S. declared war on Japan and Germany, their diplomatic corps were allowed to leave peacefully without difficulty.
For anyone who doesn't know the basic history of the region, the hostages were taken because, first, the U.S. had supported, actively, the regime of the deposed Shah of Iran and, second, because President Carter allowed the deposed Shah, dying of cancer, to receive medical treatment in the U.S. The latter act was one of fundamental humanity. The Iranian revolution replaced one repressive, dictatorial regime with another.
11
"the hostages never knew from one minute to the next whether they would be killed..." sounds much like the situation many black Americans have when they get in a car, cross the street, go to the store, stand in front of their homes...
2
I'm glad they will receive redress for their suffering, though it would more appropriately come from Iran itself,
And I eagerly await the spending bill that compensates the ancestors of southern slaves and the victims of American wars of aggression.
And I eagerly await the spending bill that compensates the ancestors of southern slaves and the victims of American wars of aggression.
2
This is a disgrace on many levels. For one, the agreement that freed the hostages on January 20, 1981, should never have prevented the 52 from seeking damages from Iran.
Second, what's to prevent Iran from screaming about the monetary awards being a fresh set of sanctions? New American sanctions are prohibited by the 2015 nuclear accord. Judging from recent behavior, it's clear that Iran is going to beat America over the head with the "new-sanctions-mean-a-violation-of-the-nuclear-accord-and-we're-walking-away" threat every chance it gets.
Third, why did it take years? The money couldn't have come from Iran, but Congress could have allocated money on its own. Still, the 36-year delay means that 15 of the hostages won't see a dime, though their families presumably will.
And finally, what about Americans who have been held (some still being held) by Iran? Do they get some of the money as well?
Second, what's to prevent Iran from screaming about the monetary awards being a fresh set of sanctions? New American sanctions are prohibited by the 2015 nuclear accord. Judging from recent behavior, it's clear that Iran is going to beat America over the head with the "new-sanctions-mean-a-violation-of-the-nuclear-accord-and-we're-walking-away" threat every chance it gets.
Third, why did it take years? The money couldn't have come from Iran, but Congress could have allocated money on its own. Still, the 36-year delay means that 15 of the hostages won't see a dime, though their families presumably will.
And finally, what about Americans who have been held (some still being held) by Iran? Do they get some of the money as well?
3
The United States seized or froze billions of dollars around the world when Iran took the hostages. And, then it imposed sanctions for all of the intervening years.
As for Congress, when things pass from immediate notice and impact, it moves on and "forgets" along with the public. Congress tends to deal with urgent issues and those that the public insist be acted upon. People from the Philippines who fought on the American side in WW II never received veteran's benefits and now most are dead. There are many such injustices, but your local Congressman or woman will be expecting your cheers, and your vote, next time round.
As for Congress, when things pass from immediate notice and impact, it moves on and "forgets" along with the public. Congress tends to deal with urgent issues and those that the public insist be acted upon. People from the Philippines who fought on the American side in WW II never received veteran's benefits and now most are dead. There are many such injustices, but your local Congressman or woman will be expecting your cheers, and your vote, next time round.
4
Such a shame - it would have been much better not to have the Iran nuclear agreement than to have these people get compensation for their suffering as hostages! Why, if there was no Iran nuclear agreement, we could have invaded and overthrown the Iranian government by now and given a billion dollars or more to each hostage or his descendants from the Iranian treasury that we would have controlled!
"...we could have invaded and overthrown the Iranian government by now...."
Yeah, it would've been a cake-walk, just like in Iraq.
Yeah, it would've been a cake-walk, just like in Iraq.
5
Joseph, I think that Pierre was being sarcastic.
1
Some compensation is justifiable. But $4.4M? Even if paid from BNP funds, that is excessive. And there are many more deserving recipients, such as people wrongfully imprisoned (often for decades) or killed by our own government, both at home and abroad. Congress remains incapable of rational thought.
7
Now it is for the Government of India, USA and other countries whose 166 Citizens were murdered by Pakistani sponsered terrorist attack in Mumbai to sue and recover money for the victims and their families. Is there any attorney reading this coment?
2
Sounds like a bargain when you consider how much the Kochs have to spent to manipulate elections today.
5
The Kochs spent less than George Soros. Why is he never mentioned by the liberals ?
3
That's what you are here for.
2
I didn't mention George Soros because Ronald Reagan wasn't a Democrat. And you might want to check your facts on who spends more.
4
As with everything that happens with the current administration it's not what it seems. iran hasn't been made to pay anything. The money is taken from a fine arbitrarily and unilaterally imposed by the Justice department on a foreign entity. And the actual, ultimate payout of the amount and timing of such payout remain uncertain. But Mr. Obama's administration will undoubtedly claim victory. Alas ,so it goes with just about every "achievement" of this administration. From the iran deal itself to the Paris Climate deal, to the Syrian war, etc. etc. etc. it's shameful.
2
"iran hasn't been made to pay anything."
I'm sure Iran would've been happy to pay something right after US paid for the victims of an Iranian passenger flight it blew out of the air.
I'm sure Iran would've been happy to pay something right after US paid for the victims of an Iranian passenger flight it blew out of the air.
2
Westsider - one would think you do a 10 second check of your "fact" before posting. If you did, you would find that US did pay $61.8 million dollars to the victims. In addition (and in line with your less than accurate statement), there is a world of difference between an act made in error and a very much purposeful act of imprisoning and torturing the embassy workers. Somehow I get the feeling that you are not exactly interested in an objective truth,
2
Vizitei Yuri
You should check your "facts" as well. What basis do you have for the claim that the fine on BNP was arbitrary or unilateral? The fine was levied after BNP Paribas pled guilty to criminal charges stemming from violating U.S. money laundering laws.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/30/investing/bnp-paribas-sanctions-fine/ind...
You should check your "facts" as well. What basis do you have for the claim that the fine on BNP was arbitrary or unilateral? The fine was levied after BNP Paribas pled guilty to criminal charges stemming from violating U.S. money laundering laws.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/30/investing/bnp-paribas-sanctions-fine/ind...
The article doesn't say why the courts prevented Congress from enacting compensation. This is an important issue and should be explained.
1
Perhaps Iran would apologize to Mr. Sickmann for the Hostage Crisis if the U.S. first apologized to Iran for overthrowing the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. The CIA followed up by installing the Shah of Iran who was more than happy to brutalize the Iranian people for 25 years, all the while protecting Western business interests. That eventually led to the Islamic counter-revolution. Much of the Religious fundamentalism and politic turmoil in today's Middle East is blowback from 1953. PS: I am not writing this from Iran.
13
It's nice to see that when it really wants to, our government can move swiftly.
2
Is some of the money coming from Ronald Reagan's estate? You know, the guy who made a deal with the Iranians to keep the hostages until the minute he was inaugurated?
17
That's a ridiculous allegation.
3
Not really, when you consider that a guy who worked in the Reagan White House named Oliver North got the nod to sell WEAPONS to Iran--yes, that same hostage-taking Iran--and send the money to the so-called Contras in El Salavador. This was to go around a specific Congressional ban on supporting *those* murderers. North became an instant hero of the far right wing of the day and was nearly elected to the US Senate by Virginia.
4
Yankee man ... The Contras were in Nicaragua, not El Salvador ... although Reagan did support the military killers of El Salvador ... the affects of we still feel today ( ie. 40,000 children showing up at the border fleeing the drug gang ruled Central American countries )
1
I find it terribly ironic that the members of Congress who were so opposed to the nuclear deal or any discussion with Iran, and therefore helped push the compensation deal, are the same ones who likely would never have supported having an embassy in Iran in the first place, or doing any sort of diplomatic work with most Middle East countries.
35
How do you know that? You state that more than likely they wouldn't have wanted an Embassy in Iran. You have no idea what would have been then. The nuclear deal is still bad and Iran has already broken the deal. Do you think they're going to say Gee sorry we won't do it again?
1
No one entering US Foreign Service gets automatically posted to Paris or London... it is much more likely they would be given assignments in places like Iran or less developed countries. The amount of risk has grown considerably as embassies and foreign offices have become the target of terrorists.
Hilary said that we used to send people out into the field and not hear from them for months. maybe that trivialization was Ok a couple of centuries ago, but times have changed a lot.
The US owes much to the people who are in our Foreign Service. Their staff in Iran, Benghazi and other offices who have been harmed through no fault of their own should deserve our compassion and respect and should be compensated.
To those who think these people are receiving a "windfall" and don't deserve it, shame on you!
Hilary said that we used to send people out into the field and not hear from them for months. maybe that trivialization was Ok a couple of centuries ago, but times have changed a lot.
The US owes much to the people who are in our Foreign Service. Their staff in Iran, Benghazi and other offices who have been harmed through no fault of their own should deserve our compassion and respect and should be compensated.
To those who think these people are receiving a "windfall" and don't deserve it, shame on you!
7
Good to see that these guys will finally get justice for what they went through doing the Iran's crisis...Hope the money comes out the money of Iran's pocket.
3
Really? Our own government kills innocent people in the 3rd world and offers $3500 and an apology. We hold innocent people in jail for a decades, torture them, and finally let them go. If US hostages deserve $4.4 million then former Gitmo hostages deserve more. And I'm talking only about the hundreds who were innocent. Explain to me the difference.
31
I would try, but clearly i would be wasting my time.
3
The place held 800 at maximum. About 200 were released quite soon after their detention. So of the remaining 600 how many were innocent, as you say? And how do you know all this? Where is that country we can all move to whose judicial and detention systems are better than ours? Maybe Venezuela? Cuba? China? Get a grip.
3
This is the American right-wing Congress acting ... primarily trying to advance it's notion that Iran is more evil than we were, eg, in the destruction of Iraq (Bush), the destruction of civil rights in El Salvador (Reagan), the regimes changes and the deaths that went with them in Iran, in Chile, and in Guatemala and a half-dozen other L.A. nations.
Another can of worms from our great GOP.
Another can of worms from our great GOP.
6
The US was not responsible for the Chilean coup of 1973 that overthrew Salvador Allende. All the US did in that event was give assistance to the Chilean military to do something it would have done anyway and could have accomplished without US support. Allende had turned a blind eye to a campaign of lawless violence led by Carlos Altamirano. The Allende regime was also receiving arms shipments from Soviet block governments, mainly Cuba, to subvert democracy in Chile. Yes, Allende came to power through the democratic process, as did Hitler. And he had about as much respect for democracy as had Hitler. Your comment perpetuates a very distorted view of the Chilean coup that has been part of ill-informed American culture for over forty years.
Haerdly. The American public was never informed of the role the US played in that regime change, from Allende, a much loved leader to the violently rightist Pinochet and the end of democracy under his rule. The American public has been clueless on what we've done due our relentlessly quaking fear of social upheavals that result from our need to control all people on behalf of our 'economic model' of stripping the environment for endless profit and mindless corporate "growth". If you don't grasp this, ask the thousands of ghosts of the 'disappeared' under our man Pinochet.
4
(1) Pinochet was Allende's man, not ours. Allende appointed him in August, 1973.
(2) Allende was much loved by some and much despised by others. His economic policies devastated the Chilean economy. Even Soviet economists said as much.
(3) He was also much despised by the Chilean Supreme Court as expressed in its letter to Allende of 25 June 1973 denouncing Allende's violations of the Chilean constitution.
(4) Allende was also despised by the Chilean miners who went on strike in April, 1973. And the students and doctors who went on strike in June, 1973.
(5) You are correct about the American people being clueless about Chilean history. You, Christopher Hitchens and Peter Kornbluh are prime examples.
(2) Allende was much loved by some and much despised by others. His economic policies devastated the Chilean economy. Even Soviet economists said as much.
(3) He was also much despised by the Chilean Supreme Court as expressed in its letter to Allende of 25 June 1973 denouncing Allende's violations of the Chilean constitution.
(4) Allende was also despised by the Chilean miners who went on strike in April, 1973. And the students and doctors who went on strike in June, 1973.
(5) You are correct about the American people being clueless about Chilean history. You, Christopher Hitchens and Peter Kornbluh are prime examples.
By analogy, our soldiers are put in danger every day in the middle east and elsewhere, and work for peanuts. Its time to fairly compensate all of those who fight for our freedom.
8
Particularly so because they are not fighting for our freedom but for oil.
3
Anyone ask Jimmy Carter his thoughts on this compensation? This event occurred under his watch. Wonder if he will claim some responsibility for terror these individuals sffered.
6
Carter would have compensated them the day they came home. Reagan used them as political props and abandoned them.
13
Brock the Dems controlled the House in 1981 and the Senate in 1986. I don't recall any bills on compensation. The Iranian funds frozen should have been used to compensate them for their suffering. Not US taxpayer funds!
2
gardedan, compensation for the former hostages was clearly NOT a high legislative priority for most of the past 35 years (almost) since they were released. But there was also the question of where the money would have come from. Part of the deal to release the hostages was that they could not seek restitution from the Iranian government. Presumably Iran would not have agreed to release the hostages if not for this prohibition. Another part of the deal was the unfreezing of Iranian funds held in the U.S.; presumably Iran would not have agreed to release the hostages in the absence of this provision as well. Many would have balked at the use of taxpayer funds to compensate the hostages; just see the comment thread here from those who erroneously believe taxpayer funds to be involved in this instance. The funding source had to be related to Iran in some at least semi-plausible way. That's where the BNP Paribas sanctions came in.
I guess none of the money for the victims is coming from the Iranian government, right? And who's gonna complain, right?
1
Really,
I can't believe people feel the need to impugn these people. It was not part of their duty to be hostages.
I can't believe people feel the need to impugn these people. It was not part of their duty to be hostages.
11
Agreed, that part of the comments is truly shameful and reprehensible.
5
gee whiz the interred american japanese citizens had to wait longer for their reparations. most of them had died off before the nineties. these are some lucky hostage family members.
4
Leave it to Congress--and some crusading lawyers, no doubt--to transform the image of the hostages from stoic heroes into self-righteous greedheads. Just in time for Christmas, too.
6
This is absurd. A fleecing of the taxpayer! These former hostages were doing the jobs they were paid to do, taking risks they should have understood. Up until I read this today, I considered them heroes. Not any longer.
If they are due reparations at all, it is from Iran, not from American taxpayers. Who carried their water in Congress?
If they are due reparations at all, it is from Iran, not from American taxpayers. Who carried their water in Congress?
5
According to the article it will be funded by a BNP Paribas settlement of about $9 billion a portion of which will be used to fund payments to the hostages or their families (for deceased hostages). We certainly have spent much more money on
much worse causes.
much worse causes.
Relax. This isn't costing the taxpayer anything. The money is from a fund set aside for this purpose, paid for by the French bank BNP as part of a $8.9 billion fine the bank will pay for violating U.S. sanctions and doing business with Iranian and Sudanese clients.
1
The taxpayer is NOT being asked to foot ONE SINGLE PENNY of this. It's coming out of a private penalty levied against a foreign bank for violating international sanctions against Iran. Read the article, people.
2
Insane!!! Working in an embassy in a foreign country is a dangerous job. You know it going in. Why do we feel that each time something bad happens, the victim is entitled to restitution from the government. This law will encumber us with tens of millions of unnecessary payments.
This goes for football players as well. If you choose to play a game where a 300 lb guy will run into you and knock you down, you have to assume your body will suffer over time. Don't want the pain, find a safer job.
This goes for football players as well. If you choose to play a game where a 300 lb guy will run into you and knock you down, you have to assume your body will suffer over time. Don't want the pain, find a safer job.
5
Times have changed. This was not part of the curriculum in those days. No doubt there are classes now : "Hostage and torture handling 101", right?
2
This sets a terrible precedent, one we will regret for years to come.
9
Why? We're NOT paying this out of taxpayer funds, but rather out of a private penalty levied against a foreign bank for violating international sanctions against Iran. What exactly is it that you find objectionable here?
2
Rick. I guess u need to be educated. A fine imposed by a federal court becomes taxpayer funds and needs to be appropriated. This is a bad precedent. And an affront to legal jurisprudence.
2
@gardedan. Rick needs to be informed about a lot of things. He has repeated at least 3 times in this thread that BNP was fined for violating "international" sanctions against Iran. It was not. BNP did not violate international sanctions against Iran. BNP was fined for violating American sanctions against Iran.
I'm guessing that many of these comments are coming out of Iran, or may even originate from the Iranian government. I wish the NYTimes had some way to flag or filter this.
8
@Bill, so you are concluding that the overwhelming criticism of the compensation must, by its very nature, be the work of Iranian Government trolls?
You believe that the only people commenting are Iranian Government sources because Americans are too busy celebrating Christmas to take the time to read and comment on the NYT?
Isn't this conclusion more than a little self-serving?
You believe that the only people commenting are Iranian Government sources because Americans are too busy celebrating Christmas to take the time to read and comment on the NYT?
Isn't this conclusion more than a little self-serving?
9
Ok, this makes no sense.
If we're rewarding hostages, why wouldn't we be rewarding those who died in battle, or are forever maimed, for incredibly stupid foreign policy decisions (e.g. invading Iraq or perpetuating VietNam after the French left)?
Public service with the government is just that.....service.
We've become a society where every hardship is now viewed as demanding recompense. Where does this stop?
These hostages fared far far better than those who are taken by the Taliban or ISIL. To my knowledge, none were tortured or abused.
An irresponsible political act that has 'feel good' written all over it.
If we're rewarding hostages, why wouldn't we be rewarding those who died in battle, or are forever maimed, for incredibly stupid foreign policy decisions (e.g. invading Iraq or perpetuating VietNam after the French left)?
Public service with the government is just that.....service.
We've become a society where every hardship is now viewed as demanding recompense. Where does this stop?
These hostages fared far far better than those who are taken by the Taliban or ISIL. To my knowledge, none were tortured or abused.
An irresponsible political act that has 'feel good' written all over it.
16
Maybe you should learn to read - since you obviously haven't read the story. It's not government money - it's authorization to distribute funds intended for settlements all along.
And maybe a mental examination if you've somehow forgotten George W Bush is generally regarded as the worst president in American history. Among other things he is irresponsible for the criminal Iraq War based on lies - and that created ISIL.
Public service does not include imprisonment for a year and 79 days.
Saint Ronnie was at the time engaged in illegally trading Arms to Iran to raise money for an illegal war against the Contras in Nicaraugua. Reagan himself signed into law the Boland Amendment which specifically bar any financial support to the forces trying to overthrow the Nicaraguan government.
Some people don't bother to get an of the facts before something gushes out.
And maybe a mental examination if you've somehow forgotten George W Bush is generally regarded as the worst president in American history. Among other things he is irresponsible for the criminal Iraq War based on lies - and that created ISIL.
Public service does not include imprisonment for a year and 79 days.
Saint Ronnie was at the time engaged in illegally trading Arms to Iran to raise money for an illegal war against the Contras in Nicaraugua. Reagan himself signed into law the Boland Amendment which specifically bar any financial support to the forces trying to overthrow the Nicaraguan government.
Some people don't bother to get an of the facts before something gushes out.
4
People killed or wounded in wartime ARE compensated by the government. And this was no mere "hardship." It was physical and mental torture over more than a year. No one signs up for that. I can't believe the pettiness of some of the commenters here.
1
Payments are not from tax dollars paid by you and me. Several comments wrongly object to spending tax dollars to compensate the former hostages.
Payments are only possible because the Paris-based bank BNP Paribas paid a $9,000,000,000 fine for violating sanctions against Iran, Sudan and Cuba. (Re-read the paragraph below the picture of Rodney V. Sickmann.)
Payments are only possible because the Paris-based bank BNP Paribas paid a $9,000,000,000 fine for violating sanctions against Iran, Sudan and Cuba. (Re-read the paragraph below the picture of Rodney V. Sickmann.)
11
The $9 billion is owned by the US government as a fine for violating sanctions.
One could argue that the money should be used to compensate big U.S. banks that lost profits as a result of the embargo while BNP Paribas had an unfair competitive advantage as a result of ignoring the embargo.
Even that would make more sense than a massive taxpayer reward for the hostages, which appears designed to make the politicians look like they are somehow fighting terrorism.
One could argue that the money should be used to compensate big U.S. banks that lost profits as a result of the embargo while BNP Paribas had an unfair competitive advantage as a result of ignoring the embargo.
Even that would make more sense than a massive taxpayer reward for the hostages, which appears designed to make the politicians look like they are somehow fighting terrorism.
4
Thank you, Cynthia. Shameful that people who have such strong and negative opinions about the Iranian hostages receiving compensation did not read the article!
7
Wow - just wow - reparations for these folk and their descendants?
Wonder what the African American community has to say about this?
This is truly amazing..
Wonder what the African American community has to say about this?
This is truly amazing..
10
What's wrong with it?
2
What Middle school did you graduate from, if you want an answer better ask the Moors, Brits, Portuguese , it started well before the US was even a twinkle
3
Bad analogy. Slavery in the English colonies preceded any American government. It was also a normal part of life in most or all of the world up to the time of the 1787 Philadelphia Convention. I do not know of a single country at the time where slavery was illegal. Do you? What country was that?
The idea that no one should be a slave does not come from Africa or China or India or pre-Columbian America or the Polynesia. It comes from Western Europe, mainly Britain. If you think slavery is inherently immoral then you are a product of Western Civilization even if you choose not to be aware of that.
When Iran seized the hostages, there were international laws against that act. Such was not the case for slavery when the Portuguese began buying them from Africa in 1444. If you want compensation for slavery for American blacks, I suggest you sue the African countries that sold their people to white European slavers during the next four centuries.
The idea that no one should be a slave does not come from Africa or China or India or pre-Columbian America or the Polynesia. It comes from Western Europe, mainly Britain. If you think slavery is inherently immoral then you are a product of Western Civilization even if you choose not to be aware of that.
When Iran seized the hostages, there were international laws against that act. Such was not the case for slavery when the Portuguese began buying them from Africa in 1444. If you want compensation for slavery for American blacks, I suggest you sue the African countries that sold their people to white European slavers during the next four centuries.
1
Once again, the fundamental and constant rule rings true:
"Whenever somebody says, 'It's not the money, it's the principle!' -- you can be absolutely sure of one thing: "It's the money!"
"Whenever somebody says, 'It's not the money, it's the principle!' -- you can be absolutely sure of one thing: "It's the money!"
10
AAhhhh . . . in America money soothes all wounds.
5
Typical behavior. American arrogance.
US Navy shot down Iran air flight 655 over Iranian territorial waters, in clear violation of international laws, killing more than 270 Iranians, including children, and while they never formally apologized, they paid 150K per non wage earner victims, 227K AFI.
Now they are demanding 4.4 million dollars, nearly 10K per day, for every american hostage, some of whom were CIA operatives. The amount is to be paid from Iranian frozen assets in the US.
An Iranian child's life = 30 days worth of a CIA agent's time.
Guess we should sue the US for both real, subsequent and punitive damages of the 1953 coup. And for clean up costs of their " eagle claw " operation, and more recently, their crashed UAV.
US Navy shot down Iran air flight 655 over Iranian territorial waters, in clear violation of international laws, killing more than 270 Iranians, including children, and while they never formally apologized, they paid 150K per non wage earner victims, 227K AFI.
Now they are demanding 4.4 million dollars, nearly 10K per day, for every american hostage, some of whom were CIA operatives. The amount is to be paid from Iranian frozen assets in the US.
An Iranian child's life = 30 days worth of a CIA agent's time.
Guess we should sue the US for both real, subsequent and punitive damages of the 1953 coup. And for clean up costs of their " eagle claw " operation, and more recently, their crashed UAV.
10
Guess Iran shouldn't violated international law protecting the staff of foreign embassies.
But, don't worry. Obama, a friend of a country his own State Department still lists as one of just three "State Sponsors of Terrorism", has engineered a deal giving you hundreds of billions with which to continue to finance attacks on our homeland.
From our State Department web site:
"Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.
Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. "
It seems our President is above the law. He should be impeached.
But, don't worry. Obama, a friend of a country his own State Department still lists as one of just three "State Sponsors of Terrorism", has engineered a deal giving you hundreds of billions with which to continue to finance attacks on our homeland.
From our State Department web site:
"Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism are designated pursuant to three laws: section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act. Taken together, the four main categories of sanctions resulting from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; certain controls over exports of dual use items; and miscellaneous financial and other restrictions.
Designation under the above-referenced authorities also implicates other sanctions laws that penalize persons and countries engaging in certain trade with state sponsors. "
It seems our President is above the law. He should be impeached.
2
Listing Obama as a friend of Iran is simply a manifestation of Obama Derangement Syndrome. Iran, however opposed to the U.S., hasn't been linked to any attacks on our homeland. Further, the agreement on the nuclear issue doesn't violate the Export Administration Act. Nothing in that accord involves the U.S. in defense exports and sales, or the other restrictions.
1
They were imprisoned against international law protecting members of foreign embassies. Why was their being paid reparations by Iran not a precondition to the deal Obama just made that provides Iran with hundreds of billions of dollars and a timetable for their development in just 10 years of nuclear armed missiles?
One comment suggested they were used by Reagan to win the presidency! Oh, the hypocrisy! Where is the condemnation of the worst President since WWII but for Nixon, the weak and ineffectual Jimmy Carter, for his unwillingness to mount the type of campaign that was clearly called for? Reagan did not make a deal to achieve their release. His posture regarding such affronts made it clear that Iran was to suffer very serious consequences if they were not released.
One comment suggested they were used by Reagan to win the presidency! Oh, the hypocrisy! Where is the condemnation of the worst President since WWII but for Nixon, the weak and ineffectual Jimmy Carter, for his unwillingness to mount the type of campaign that was clearly called for? Reagan did not make a deal to achieve their release. His posture regarding such affronts made it clear that Iran was to suffer very serious consequences if they were not released.
2
Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. Nice try though.
1
NeverLift, the comments (there were more than one) referencing Reagan were almost certainly bringing up the much-rumored "October Surprise." I don't know all the details, and it has never been definitively proven (to my knowledge), but the basic outline is this:
1. By October 1980, President Carter had reportedly reached an agreement with the Iranian regime to have the hostages released that month. Coming right before that year's presidential election, it would have been a major boost to his re-election chances.
2. No doubt aware of what such a development might mean to their candidate's chances for victory, the Reagan campaign is said to have gone behind the Carter Administration's back and reached a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of the hostages until after the election.
3. In the end? On November 4, 1980, Reagan trounced Carter, 489-49 in the electoral college, the worst electoral vote defeat ever for an incumbent president. The hostages were not released until minutes after Reagan's inauguration on January 20, 1981.
1. By October 1980, President Carter had reportedly reached an agreement with the Iranian regime to have the hostages released that month. Coming right before that year's presidential election, it would have been a major boost to his re-election chances.
2. No doubt aware of what such a development might mean to their candidate's chances for victory, the Reagan campaign is said to have gone behind the Carter Administration's back and reached a secret deal with Iran to delay the release of the hostages until after the election.
3. In the end? On November 4, 1980, Reagan trounced Carter, 489-49 in the electoral college, the worst electoral vote defeat ever for an incumbent president. The hostages were not released until minutes after Reagan's inauguration on January 20, 1981.
6
Factually incorrect.
The deal to release the hostages was already completed prior to Reagan taking office.
As to 'unwillingness to mount the type of campaign that was clearly called for', your ignorance is unfathomable.
Carter put ALL of the key decisions in the hands of the most trusted Special Ops commander who emerged from Viet Nam. He basically said to do whatever was needed and stayed out of the details of the operation.
The FAILURE of the operation had nothing to do with any decision Carter did or did not make. The military man in charge made a fateful decision based on his ignorance of flying helicopters in areas with too much loose sand. When the helicopters had problems the mission failed.
Regan was, and will remain, an ignorant rube who should have been impeached for Iran-Contra and, further, displayed his total lack of judgment in the deaths of 250 plus Marines in Lebanon.
The deal to release the hostages was already completed prior to Reagan taking office.
As to 'unwillingness to mount the type of campaign that was clearly called for', your ignorance is unfathomable.
Carter put ALL of the key decisions in the hands of the most trusted Special Ops commander who emerged from Viet Nam. He basically said to do whatever was needed and stayed out of the details of the operation.
The FAILURE of the operation had nothing to do with any decision Carter did or did not make. The military man in charge made a fateful decision based on his ignorance of flying helicopters in areas with too much loose sand. When the helicopters had problems the mission failed.
Regan was, and will remain, an ignorant rube who should have been impeached for Iran-Contra and, further, displayed his total lack of judgment in the deaths of 250 plus Marines in Lebanon.
3
If every government had to pay equitable compensation to the victims of every stupid, or unjust, or grasping greedy action they were responsible for, then the taxes would grind the world economy to a halt.
10
No government is paying this. A French bank is for violating U.S. sanctions. Read the article.
2
DR - on the other hand this could make for vast improvements, being a deterrent.
I wrote: "If every government had to pay..."
Dr wrote: "No government is paying this. A French bank is for violating U.S. sanctions. Read the article."
I was not clear in my comment. I was responding to the many pleas for the USA to be held responsible for its role in 1953 usurpation of the Iranian government. But thank you for your response.
Dr wrote: "No government is paying this. A French bank is for violating U.S. sanctions. Read the article."
I was not clear in my comment. I was responding to the many pleas for the USA to be held responsible for its role in 1953 usurpation of the Iranian government. But thank you for your response.
Has our country been held accountable for the CIA's overthrow of the democratically-elected Mossadegh government in 1953. This most likely led to the mistrust that Iranians had for the U.S. embassy and the hostage crisis.
Read Stephen Kinzer's "All the Shah's Men" and this article in the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-irania...
Read Stephen Kinzer's "All the Shah's Men" and this article in the Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-irania...
17
I was backpacking the world in 1981 and thrown in Jail for 3 days in Northern Zimbabwe by Mugabe regime for being a CIA Spy! (True Story). Where do I sign up for my $30k ?
26
1) Consult with an attorney;
2) Find out if a lawsuit against the Mugabe family is possible; 3) Find out if a lawsuit against Northern Zimbabwe is possible;
4) If so, file a lawsuit.
2) Find out if a lawsuit against the Mugabe family is possible; 3) Find out if a lawsuit against Northern Zimbabwe is possible;
4) If so, file a lawsuit.
8
Where you backpacking on behalf of the US government? If not, you have no basis for such a claim.
4
Frankly ridiculous. And how many families of the one million Iraqis killed during the U.S. War of Choice in Iraq were compensated by the U.S.? Wasn't that an act of even worse terrorism than the fate that befell the hostages?
While I don't condone any form of terrorism or hostage taking I abhor the double standards applied in favour of Americans doing their duty and surviving to tell the tale, when compared with the fate of innocent civilians murdered from the skies as a result of a false flag operation.
While I don't condone any form of terrorism or hostage taking I abhor the double standards applied in favour of Americans doing their duty and surviving to tell the tale, when compared with the fate of innocent civilians murdered from the skies as a result of a false flag operation.
176
The sheer volume of duplicative spam on this article is astonishing. That each repeats, nearly verbatim, the same talking points makes it both recognisable and useless. One can only wonder who or what is the spam master?
What you refer to as 'duplicative spam' is actually 'like-minded opinion'. No one is to blame if you cannot tell the difference.
The compensation is so ridiculously unproportional and inappropriate that NYT readers have come out en masse to criticize it.
The compensation is so ridiculously unproportional and inappropriate that NYT readers have come out en masse to criticize it.
1
And precisely why Iran remains on the US enemy list: because it calls the US out for its blatant hypocrisy around the world!
1
I have read through these comments, most of which reflect a vicious and frightening animus to the US government. If the commenters hate America so much, one of the few nations on earth, in which they can make such derogatory remarks about their beloved nation, then why don't they go live somewhere else? Perhaps, they would enjoy life in Iran, the nation where their sympathies obviously lie based on their remarks regarding the 1953 coup. At that time, Iran was friendly toward the USSR, America toppled the government to setup a friendly one more aligned with US interests, the interests of the West, the interests of freedom, and the interests of Christianity. What the commenters fail to understand, or chose to ignore, is the purpose of America. In the 20th century, America led the world to victory over the axis powers in WWI, led the world to victory over Nazism and Japanese Imperialism in WWII, and led the world to the ultimate defeat of Communism! The 1953 coup was part of that mission to confront and defeat evil. America should be leading the world with the same determination against terrorism, of which the takeover of the US embassy was an episode. But sadly and shamefully, America was retreated from its mission to fight for goodness and righteousness throughout the world. I will leave it at that. Cheers!
3
Well if your idea of freedom is having the CIA go in and topple a democratically elected government then you are insane. Also, your comment reflects the crazy notion that America is all about Christianity, That may be your cup of tea but as an American who likes to think and speak freely, it is not mine. I am no friend to Iran or Islam,(or any other religion,) and I'm not about to pack up and move anywhere because some nationalistic misanthrope doesn't share my opinion.
1
I disagree with you on most things, including the 1953 coup (which was one of a number of instances in which the U.S. short-sightedly backed exceedingly repressive regimes and thus made a mockery of our democratic ideals simply because they were anti-Communist). But I do agree that (i) the 1979 embassy takeover was completely unjustified, (ii) the former hostages deserve compensation from their ordeal and (iii) the sentiment expressed in many of the comments are disturbing. They're quite ill-informed as well; it doesn't look like ANY of them bothered to read the part which says that the funds will come from the penalty levied against a foreign bank for violating international sanctions against Iran. Instead, they automatically assumed that taxpayers are footing the bill for this, then used that as a jumping-off point to go on a "I Hate America / America Is Evil" rant.
1
"They're quite ill-informed as well; it doesn't look like ANY of them bothered to read the part which says that the funds will come from the penalty levied against a foreign bank for violating international sanctions against Iran"
Rick, this is the fourth comment I've seen you post where you have shown you do not know what you are talking about. BNP was not fined for violating international sanctions against Iran. BNP did not violate international sanctions against Iran. BNP was fined for violating American sanctions against Iran. And he who is mis-informed, complains about someone being "quite misinformed." Typical.
Rick, this is the fourth comment I've seen you post where you have shown you do not know what you are talking about. BNP was not fined for violating international sanctions against Iran. BNP did not violate international sanctions against Iran. BNP was fined for violating American sanctions against Iran. And he who is mis-informed, complains about someone being "quite misinformed." Typical.
1
Some public interest taxpayer group should sue to block this outrageous payout on the grounds that it is self-dealing by the US government to its own former officials and contractors.
2
This is satisfying to me, having spent many days among mobs in front to the U.S. embassy during the takeover. At that time, an armed violation of an embassy was a world altering shock. As an American reporter trying to understand individual motives for those chanting "Death to America" Death to Carter" "Death to the Shah", my most astonishing discovery was the total absence of any shared human ground on which to communicate. In the physical surges of the mob, t was reassuring that alcohol was forbidden there.
Still, it seemed apparent that the CIA engineered overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh way back in 1953 was still present as live fuel. Some of the "students" who took the embassy have recently said they invaded to protect the new revolution from another coup coming out of that embassy. I remember a conversation with president Bani Sadr early in the standoff in which the Mossadegh overthrow was presented as a live issue. While Khomeini did not bring it up in an interview, his judgment of the American captives was that they had simply continued the historical subversion of iran's sovereignty. Stephen Kinzer's book, All the Shah's Men, An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror fully supports its title. But despite the stain of our culpability, it is satisfying that the compensation of American captives brings an ending a long unfinished chapter. And gives reason to remember the whole story. Especially since regime change is still in play.
Still, it seemed apparent that the CIA engineered overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh way back in 1953 was still present as live fuel. Some of the "students" who took the embassy have recently said they invaded to protect the new revolution from another coup coming out of that embassy. I remember a conversation with president Bani Sadr early in the standoff in which the Mossadegh overthrow was presented as a live issue. While Khomeini did not bring it up in an interview, his judgment of the American captives was that they had simply continued the historical subversion of iran's sovereignty. Stephen Kinzer's book, All the Shah's Men, An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror fully supports its title. But despite the stain of our culpability, it is satisfying that the compensation of American captives brings an ending a long unfinished chapter. And gives reason to remember the whole story. Especially since regime change is still in play.
7
THE Timing for this "Gesture" is Suspect so to "Poison Public Opinion On Iran" as we are about to implement the JCPOA.
AND other commenters here have made sufficient arguments on how the US is going to compensate Iran for all its misadventures since 1953.
I would be more interested in "Compensating The Gun Violence Victims In The US" as last year alone over 30,000 Americans were slaughtered by Americans courtesy of the NRA.
OR more importantly how the House of Saud will be charged so to compensate the Victims of Al-Qaida and ISIS worldwide.
AND other commenters here have made sufficient arguments on how the US is going to compensate Iran for all its misadventures since 1953.
I would be more interested in "Compensating The Gun Violence Victims In The US" as last year alone over 30,000 Americans were slaughtered by Americans courtesy of the NRA.
OR more importantly how the House of Saud will be charged so to compensate the Victims of Al-Qaida and ISIS worldwide.
7
The victims of the embassy siege in Tehran are entitled to restitution, but it's Iran, that should dig into its pockets. It's a pity that there is no international judiciary that can make Iran pay compensatory damages to the hostages for their 444 days of sufferings and humiliations.
6
Iran is paying....read the article!
1
@ATOM, the money comes from the $9 bn penalty paid by BNP.
"Mr. Sickmann said that he would have preferred that Iran pay compensation directly, as Libya did for victims of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland."
"Mr. Sickmann said that he would have preferred that Iran pay compensation directly, as Libya did for victims of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland."
Shameful!
Undoubtedly, there were some innocents among the hostages, however compensating CIA agents and soldiers who were there to keep the Shah in power by colluding with the SAVAK to violently suppress the opposition is shameful.
Undoubtedly, there were some innocents among the hostages, however compensating CIA agents and soldiers who were there to keep the Shah in power by colluding with the SAVAK to violently suppress the opposition is shameful.
53
Do you really know anything about the situation or are you just able to throw around the word SAVAK? The shah was well out of power and exiled at the time of the invasion of the US Embassy in Iran. No-one was there in order to keep him in power.
That having been said, $4.4million per hostage so that an attorney with fashionable glasses should get a multi multi million payout is excessive...really excessive
That having been said, $4.4million per hostage so that an attorney with fashionable glasses should get a multi multi million payout is excessive...really excessive
5
I wonder what Donald Trump will have to say about compensating the Iran hostages:
"Well these people shouldn't have become prisoners!"
"Well these people shouldn't have become prisoners!"
6
Perhaps you should wonder about more significant things....
1
So now any solider, diplomat or private citizen travelling and is captured by anyone? and held will be eligible for a payout? I'm sorry but all of these people understood the risk when they signed up for the job, especially the military who where paid as on active duty while being held captive.
27
The US hostages from the Iran embassy crisis have lucked out; had the BNP Paribas money not been available they likely wouldn't have received anything.
I think the questions raised in these comments warrant consideration: Why is the compensation so high? What has the US done to compensate Iranians (and citizens of numerous other countries) where it has helped overturn governments? What has the US done to compensate the families of those killed when it shot down that Iranian airliner? What has the US done to compensate all those in dozens (hundreds?) of countries where its often undeclared wars led to civilian injuries and death and to widespread destruction of property?
As much as so many Americans love America, it must be remembered that many people in many countries hate the US not because we believe in democracy but because the US has, through overt and covert means, caused so much death and destruction throughout the world.
I think the questions raised in these comments warrant consideration: Why is the compensation so high? What has the US done to compensate Iranians (and citizens of numerous other countries) where it has helped overturn governments? What has the US done to compensate the families of those killed when it shot down that Iranian airliner? What has the US done to compensate all those in dozens (hundreds?) of countries where its often undeclared wars led to civilian injuries and death and to widespread destruction of property?
As much as so many Americans love America, it must be remembered that many people in many countries hate the US not because we believe in democracy but because the US has, through overt and covert means, caused so much death and destruction throughout the world.
27
"What has the US done to compensate the families of those killed when it shot down that Iranian airliner?"
300,000 dollars for wage earners and 150,000 dollars for non wage earners in 1996.
300,000 dollars for wage earners and 150,000 dollars for non wage earners in 1996.
3
Foreign nationals can be compensated by their own governments. You want the US out of other's business, right?
I suppose the US an Britain should apologize for the 1953 coup.
Then the Iranian government can apologize for the hostage taking
Then the US can apologize for for the Iranian passenger jet in addition to the money that was already awarded.
Then Iran can apologize for sending proxy Shia militias to kill hundreds of American troops during the Iraq war.
Then Iran can apologize for imprisoning journalists as spies simply because they ask questions.
Then the Iranian government can apologize for the hostage taking
Then the US can apologize for for the Iranian passenger jet in addition to the money that was already awarded.
Then Iran can apologize for sending proxy Shia militias to kill hundreds of American troops during the Iraq war.
Then Iran can apologize for imprisoning journalists as spies simply because they ask questions.
18
There's no evidence that Iran sent Shia militias into Iraq or that Iran forces proxy or otherwise killed "hundreds of American troops.
We overthrew the predominantly Sunni government of Iraq and fired all the Baathist including most of the Army. In effect we installed a Shia government with a forlorn hope that the could deal with the Sunni minority.
The Iraq war effectively created ISIL which is Sunni in general. Shia militia, some of the Iranian backed, are fighting against ISIL.
The reality since the invasion of Iraq is dismal enough without unwarranted fiction. This doesn't make the Iranian government and leadership as a bunch of nice guys.
We overthrew the predominantly Sunni government of Iraq and fired all the Baathist including most of the Army. In effect we installed a Shia government with a forlorn hope that the could deal with the Sunni minority.
The Iraq war effectively created ISIL which is Sunni in general. Shia militia, some of the Iranian backed, are fighting against ISIL.
The reality since the invasion of Iraq is dismal enough without unwarranted fiction. This doesn't make the Iranian government and leadership as a bunch of nice guys.
1
"There's no evidence that Iran sent Shia militias into Iraq or that Iran forces proxy or otherwise killed 'hundreds of American troops.'"
Sorry jmc but According to the State Department they did.
Also according to General Petraeus too where he says,
“When we captured the leaders of these so-called special groups … and the deputy commander of a Lebanese Hezbollah department that was created to support their efforts in Iraq, we’ve learned a great deal about how Iran has, in fact, supported these elements and how those elements have carried out violent acts against our forces, Iraqi forces and innocent civilians.”
Or this Guardian newspaper article http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/28/qassem-suleimani-iran-iraq-...
Also, you admit that some shia militias are Iranian backed in the fight against ISIL.
So why do you believe that it's such a stretch that these same militias were not Iranian backed during the Iraq War when they were attacking US forces?
Sorry jmc but According to the State Department they did.
Also according to General Petraeus too where he says,
“When we captured the leaders of these so-called special groups … and the deputy commander of a Lebanese Hezbollah department that was created to support their efforts in Iraq, we’ve learned a great deal about how Iran has, in fact, supported these elements and how those elements have carried out violent acts against our forces, Iraqi forces and innocent civilians.”
Or this Guardian newspaper article http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/28/qassem-suleimani-iran-iraq-...
Also, you admit that some shia militias are Iranian backed in the fight against ISIL.
So why do you believe that it's such a stretch that these same militias were not Iranian backed during the Iraq War when they were attacking US forces?
This is terrible news unless a reciprocal payment is made to individual Iranians for America's involvement in the overthrow of Mossadegh, the CIA's teaching SAVAK how to torture and kill dissidents, and underpaying for Iran's oil.
16
uh, whose pocket do you think all these payments are coming out of??
Maybe taxpayers can have a choice on their returns to opt in for an extra tax contribution to fund these payments, and leave the rest of us out of these bright ideas.
Maybe taxpayers can have a choice on their returns to opt in for an extra tax contribution to fund these payments, and leave the rest of us out of these bright ideas.
1
Taxpayers are not being asked to put A SINGLE PENNY into this. The funds are coming out of a multi-billion dollar penalty against a foreign bank for violating international sanctions against Iran.
1
You should read the actual story before making comments like that - it isn't our tax money.
1
Whoa! Talk about opening a can o' worms! From the British-American coup to an "Iranian Hostage National Park"?...
4
Well, merry christmas everyone. WE are paying them $10,000 a DAY? No wonder food stamps were cut and seniors denied a Social Security cost of living wage while their insurance rates continue to go up. There are REALLY important things to do with the money - like give the attorneys almost half the money (in the $110 million range) for "time and expenses". The good old American way - obscene wealth for a few and peanuts for the rest of us - if we're lucky. Those will probably be the next to go.
59
Hmmmm.........4 million for 5 years non-working captivity in safe conditions.
Better than government work.
Better than government work.
1
Actually, no, WE the taxpayers are NOT paying for this settlement. It is coming out of a private penalty levied on a foreign bank for violating international sanctions against Iran.
2
Dmj, you really don't know what they went through, do you? Please read up on it then comment.
It is ludicrous that it took 36 years to compensate the Iranian hostages for their year of captivity and terror at the hands of the religious fanatics of Iran. That said, this compensation will bring every aggrieved victim of terrorism out of the woodwork to demand reparations. Just what our federal government, which is $18.5 trillion in debt, cannot afford.
8
You didn't read the article, did you?
3
What about compensation for destroying Iran's democracy and installing a brutal dictator for decades? I'm thinking trillions.
23
Micheal is Farsi for what?
$10,000 per day for being a hostage? Makes the soldiers trying to rescue them seem underpaid.
48
They "deserve" ZERO
It is good that Iran is taking responsibility for the American diplomatic personnel who were illegally detained.
Now, when will the U.S. take responsibility for the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who were detained and tortured by the the SAVAK, the secret police of the autocratic Shah, the dictator that the C.I.A. imposed upon the Iranians by illegally overthrowing the Iranian democracy in 1953?
Now, when will the U.S. take responsibility for the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who were detained and tortured by the the SAVAK, the secret police of the autocratic Shah, the dictator that the C.I.A. imposed upon the Iranians by illegally overthrowing the Iranian democracy in 1953?
10
They aren't taking any responsibility - the money is a fine against the bank. Iran couldn't care any less about the former hostages than they do the worthless nuclear agreement.
6
SAVAK detained Iraqis? Was that before or after the Iraq-Iranian war, when Iran conquered Iraq and then placed Saddam Hussein on the Peacock Throne as a US puppet? That was Jimmy Carter too, wasn't it?
1
Sorry but your facts are completely wrong. It was Reagan and North who delayed the release of the hostages. The RNC should who should have paid the hostages.
1
Wow, a lot of bitter Scrooges here today (it being Christmas Eve and all). I think that every single one of the former hostages is certainly entitled to compensation for what they went through. I'm glad that the money is coming from a private source connected to Iran rather than from taxpayer funds (we don't owe the former hostages for their pain and suffering, Iran does). And as far as victims of U.S. misadventures in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East getting compensation, if they want to come forward and make a claim, I'm not aware of any obstacle to them doing so.
11
" I'm glad that the money is coming from a private source connected to Iran rather than from taxpayer funds (we don't owe the former hostages for their pain and suffering, Iran does)."
Of course you are. Americans are always happy when they extort money from the rest of the world to enrich themselves.
Of course you are. Americans are always happy when they extort money from the rest of the world to enrich themselves.
8
abo, seeing that you're writing from France, if you don't want the U.S. to penalize a French bank for violating international sanctions against Iran, perhaps you should write the bank and suggest that they not do business with Iran.
8
@Rick. They were not "international" sanctions. BNP was fined for violating American sanctions. Of course, since you are writing from New York, you probably confuse "American" with "international." And as I am typing this, there are 8 people who have recommended your comment who apparently are as equally misinformed.
1
Once again, the lottery determines our winners and losers. These victims' grieving families did nothing to deserve a dime from anyone, certainly not "up to $4 MM. This is just a windfall that should be put into a fund to create parkland or something to cover some of the massive US taxpayer costs incurred by this hostage taking. Why not create a small national park and name it the Iran Hostage Park? Well of course if this happens, 53 hostages or families will suddenly not become part of the "1% Club." As usual, this is sickening for all those who give so much with not so much as thanks. As Trump would say, "all these people did was sit in a jail cell," something millions of Americans do every day, and if they are black, they probably were picked up for doing nothing but being black.
19
You could NOT possibly be more wrong, rude or insulting to these victims and their families for the torture they suffered!
6
I am happy for these good people and as a taxpayer, am happy to do this. The hostages did not know this captivity was going to happen. A US soldier *knows* that he or she is going into harms way to protect us. Their families scrape by in their absence and worry that they will not return. 4.4M is a reasonable number to compensate these families if a soldier dies or becomes permanently disabled. Goodness knows it is a drop in the bucket compared to the trillion we spent in Iraq.
22
Gerry says, "A US soldier *knows* that he or she is going into harms way to protect us."
So using your logic, what about the ones who were actually military because some of them were? Are you saying those should not be specially compensated? Your logic makes that point unclear. Why cannot the standard USA military budget "assist" these families? Not sure you thought thru your idea totally.
So using your logic, what about the ones who were actually military because some of them were? Are you saying those should not be specially compensated? Your logic makes that point unclear. Why cannot the standard USA military budget "assist" these families? Not sure you thought thru your idea totally.
1
As a taxpayer I am outraged.
What an incredible waste of government money.
And I will bet $4.4 million that the Republicans are behind it as part of their effort to enhance their political power and government control by emphasizing the "dangers of terrorism."
What an incredible waste of government money.
And I will bet $4.4 million that the Republicans are behind it as part of their effort to enhance their political power and government control by emphasizing the "dangers of terrorism."
4
Didn't bother to read the article either, eh?
1
I dont get it I am sorry.
These victims were USA govt employees, many CIA or high military no less, and we now "specially compensate" them for being held hostage? Is that a thing we do now? Should not that financial payoff come out of the existing USA military budget?
A payoff to govt employees is counter-intuitive and smells funny.
49
Please read the article again!!!!!
1
Atom: because I missed something while reading it? You say zero and then use 4 exclamation points.
This should be a triumph for international law, but sadly it is not. Iran was clearly accountable for the violation of one of the most basic principles of international relations, that is the immunity of embassy personnel. The American diplomatic personnel never should have been seized and held and compensation should have come from impounded Iranian assets, not US taxpayers.
But one has to wonder what this reporter is talking about when he labels this event "state sponsored terrorism." It is precisely this view of international law that has earned the US the title of international hypocrite.
International law seems to apply to all states, except the US. Do we forget the court ruling against the US for our mining of the harbor in Nicaragua? Was that state sponsored terrorism? How about our assassination efforts to kill Castro, state terrorism? How about our state sponsored proxy wars ? El Salvador, 85,000 dead; Nicaragua, 45,000 dead, Angola, 500,000 dead and of course Iran. I saw the photos of the peaceful student protestors that were slaughtered by the Shah's police. They numbered in the thousands. Was that state sponsored terrorism?
Like most Americans i oppose terrorism whether carried out by lone individuals with a political motive or carried out at the behest of governments for their political ends. But i object to a definition that gives my own government an automatic exemption. We imperil our world and ourselves by doing so. One need only look around to see this.
But one has to wonder what this reporter is talking about when he labels this event "state sponsored terrorism." It is precisely this view of international law that has earned the US the title of international hypocrite.
International law seems to apply to all states, except the US. Do we forget the court ruling against the US for our mining of the harbor in Nicaragua? Was that state sponsored terrorism? How about our assassination efforts to kill Castro, state terrorism? How about our state sponsored proxy wars ? El Salvador, 85,000 dead; Nicaragua, 45,000 dead, Angola, 500,000 dead and of course Iran. I saw the photos of the peaceful student protestors that were slaughtered by the Shah's police. They numbered in the thousands. Was that state sponsored terrorism?
Like most Americans i oppose terrorism whether carried out by lone individuals with a political motive or carried out at the behest of governments for their political ends. But i object to a definition that gives my own government an automatic exemption. We imperil our world and ourselves by doing so. One need only look around to see this.
24
No "International Law" should ever be permitted to overrule our sovereignty. We dismissed the powdered wigs in 1776.
Regarding the tu quoque arguments that bring up the 1953 coup and the U.S. support for the Shah--Countries pursue various policies which their embassies represent. Nowhere in international law is the seizure of an embassy and the hostage-taking of its personnel considered a legally or morally justified act. The Iranian government was within its rights to break off diplomatic relations with the U.S. and may have had sound moral reason to do so; it totally stepped over the line with the seizure.
9
"Nowhere in international law is the seizure of an embassy and the hostage-taking of its personnel considered a legally or morally justified act. "
But sponsoring a coup is? Funny this international law, I guess. "Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger."
But sponsoring a coup is? Funny this international law, I guess. "Justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger."
8
That, again, is the tu quoque argument. I never said that sponsoring a coup is justified and your response is, in fact, non-responsive.
1
From whom, when and how much compensation will the Iranian people who were victimized by the British American coup against their democratic government followed by installing the dictator the Shah of Iran in power and years of overt and covert American socioeconomic political miltary war against Iran?
128
What organisation is spinning these absurd talking points, so vigourously on Christmas Eve? Did not whatever group sponsoring this twaddle not instruct its adherents to at least -try- and vary the presentation?
3
And the damage they continue to suffer from ongoing US sanctions and other aggressive US policies toward Iran.
A moot point, if there is one at all.
Sometimes, sometimes, justice triumphs.
2
But mostly it's just us.
It would be interesting to know the formula in determining the payout. Then it could be applied to every veteran, deceased veteran's wife or children or great grandchildren or other decendants. And now, apply the above formula to the Revolutionary War and to every war thereafter.
I almost forgot; let's include every American Indian and their descendants.
Who was the congressional bagman slipping this into the budget?
I almost forgot; let's include every American Indian and their descendants.
Who was the congressional bagman slipping this into the budget?
11
Does anyone know what Stockdale or McCain or Denton or any of the numerous Vietnam War POWs, many held more than 2000+ days, received any extra compensation other than their back pay?
4
Presumably they received nothing beyond back pay and allowances.
When a war ends the losing country does not pay money to each victorious solder killed, wounded or taken prisoner.
Each nation follows it own rules for compensation.
When a war ends the losing country does not pay money to each victorious solder killed, wounded or taken prisoner.
Each nation follows it own rules for compensation.
4
Will the U.S. Now Pay damages to all the (for one) Iraqi families that suffered the war declared on Iraq based on a lie? How many lives did Bush and Cheney destroy or harm there?
279
Tens of thousands.
4
These Iraqi families should look to Sadaam Hussein for compensation. Oh, wait, he was hanged after a trial by his peers in Iraq. By the way, it has been proven over and over again that the United States was justified in its Irq invasion. Hussein perpetrated a lie about possessing weapons of mass destruction, and he refused to allow full inspections by international investigators.
5
Paul, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. You've got the facts in this case seriously wrong, and after all this time, I must conclude that yours, like so many other blind ideologues, is willful ignorance.
4
It's only fair, because they were held for over a year, and most people made about four million dollars a year back in 1979. Any time anything bad happens to anybody, they need to get seven figures.
6
What? "Most people made about four million dollars a year in 1979"?
Which country are you referring to or was this a typo?
Which country are you referring to or was this a typo?
What would 444 days of torture, blindfolding, hoping the more moderate captors would keep you alive and out of the hands of the extremists that just want to shoot you, and being kept from your loved ones be worth to you Mike?
4
Sarcasm. Perhaps you've heard of it?
1
The money seems to be coming out of a fine imposed on a French bank for violating Iran sanctions. This does not seem like a bad use of that money, since it is in a way being funneled from Iran.
7
Instead of making millionaires of these people and their children (its always about the money in this country for so called victims), the money would be better spent in feeding the homeless and in paying police for anti-terrorism....
6
NKB, you are taking that official explanation at face value. Whenever a good chunk of money is spent by a larger business or local or federal level govt, there is almost always someone there to officially say "it is OK to spend because we found the money over here and no one needs it!" That "spin" is what is happening here.
3
Yeah, Mike, those hostages were "so-called" victims, not actual victims. Sheesh...
2
What am I missing? As unfortunate and horrible as the incident was, I don't understand why these former hostages are being made into multi-millionaires.
And most people commenting here are saying, "Why only them? Give money to everyone else." I don't get it.
And most people commenting here are saying, "Why only them? Give money to everyone else." I don't get it.
15
Is it un-American to see this as just another shining example of a litigious society where everyone gets psychological and/or financial remuneration for being a victim? I thought they took their foreign service jobs knowing the possible consequences? And if they deserve "restitution" what on earth must we owe the estates of the African-Americans in our country who not only went through atrocious hell on earth by the hand of their own fellow citizens no less but have nonetheless contributed richly to our culture in so many ways, a legacy that we and the rest of the world enjoy? Simply put, America would be a much different, a greatly diminished culture without the African-American contribution. I'd rather pay-it-backward for them than foreign service workers who knowingly took a job in Iran.
7
it'd be interesting to see how the usa would react if citizens of countries such as iran, chile, Vietnam, Greece, argentina, brazil, cuba, Cambodia, a few in central America--and more-sued for damages caused by the backing, overtly and covertly, of murderous right wing dictatorships.....
17
As always with simplistic liberal analysis, harm done to Americans must always be seen as quid pro quo for what our country did to somebody else. In the Iranian hostage situation, this was the oppressive force of Iranian oppression vs innocent Americans, not compensation for what the US may or may not have done elsewhere.
The leaders of the Iranian theocracy are culpable. And thus those with any sense of justice knows they must pay for their crimes...
The leaders of the Iranian theocracy are culpable. And thus those with any sense of justice knows they must pay for their crimes...
3
But they didn't; a French bank did.
should've been...americans HAVE a rather....in my response
Congress taking control of the BNP Paribas money from the Justice Department is akin to cops confiscating cash from innocent motorists. Well, DoJ is getting a taste of its own medicine.
1
The cops don't confiscate money, the courts actually do it. And in any event, the DOJ, whatever they may think, is subordinate to the Congress as the funds aren't theirs to keep.
4
It's more like the Feds (Congress) confiscating the Southern cops (the DOJ) preying on innocent motorists (BNP).
George,
I remember both the NYT and Washington Post not too long ago ran a series of articles of a pattern of cops, across the US especially in the South and West, stopping motorists for minor infractions, searching their vehicles, confiscating cash, and pressuring them into signing paper giving up their claim to the confiscated cash. Yes, there is a law for cops and DoJ to confiscate illegally obtained money and properties. But from innocent motorists is akin to robbery. No court would sanction it and in fact many motorists were able to get their money back if they had the money to hire lawger.
I remember both the NYT and Washington Post not too long ago ran a series of articles of a pattern of cops, across the US especially in the South and West, stopping motorists for minor infractions, searching their vehicles, confiscating cash, and pressuring them into signing paper giving up their claim to the confiscated cash. Yes, there is a law for cops and DoJ to confiscate illegally obtained money and properties. But from innocent motorists is akin to robbery. No court would sanction it and in fact many motorists were able to get their money back if they had the money to hire lawger.
1
This is long overdue and a reminder to Americans and Iranians, suffering at the hands of the bellicose and belligerent policies of their respective governments, the need to ratchet down the enmity between our two nations through constructive dialogue, like the dialogue over Iranian Nuclear ambitions.
The U.S. government has never formally apologized to Iran for the downing of the civilian Iranian airliner shot down over the strait of Humuz in the Persian Gulf by the USS Vincennes that killed all 274 passengers and 16 crew members in 1988.
The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khammenei and the hardliners of Iraq use this tragedy as we use the tragic hostage taking as fodder for vilification. Instead, President Obama has tried to move away from such confrontation.
Unfortunately, we confuse a rational policy of rapprochement with weakness, so expect more confrontation and crisis between the two nations in a perpetual war footing.
The U.S. government has never formally apologized to Iran for the downing of the civilian Iranian airliner shot down over the strait of Humuz in the Persian Gulf by the USS Vincennes that killed all 274 passengers and 16 crew members in 1988.
The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khammenei and the hardliners of Iraq use this tragedy as we use the tragic hostage taking as fodder for vilification. Instead, President Obama has tried to move away from such confrontation.
Unfortunately, we confuse a rational policy of rapprochement with weakness, so expect more confrontation and crisis between the two nations in a perpetual war footing.
7
Headline misleading, there was no compensation awarded by the Mullahs.
3
Why isn't the Reagan family paying the compensation? It was Reagan's treason that prevented the hostages from being released promptly, as the former President of Iran has confirmed. You can't try a dead man for treason, but his estate nonetheless bears responsibility for the suffering these Americans went through.
142
But remember. It was George Bush that carried the suitcases of money to pay for the captives being held until after the election. Bush was also a traitor.
5
No comment on how it was under the weak Jimmy Carter that the hostage situation arose and continued for months on end? No, all Regan's fault...as usual.
2
Of all the strange comments this article has generated, yours tops the list. It is scary that so many people would recommend it. If we can't recognize greatness in a past President, how can we hope to select a new one?
1
Thank God! At long last. I have for so many years felt that the hostage victims should have been allowed to pursue their rights against Iran directly in the US Federal courts. Iran would have learned how effective the American court system can be against those who would violate the lawful rights of Americans if only the the State Department and the Justice Department not stood in their way--a shameful, inexcusable outrage that no American should ever forget.
The US court system is a powerful, useful tool against state sponsored violations of the rights of Americans but our Government must not interfere--that must never happen again.
The US court system is a powerful, useful tool against state sponsored violations of the rights of Americans but our Government must not interfere--that must never happen again.
5
So, uh, perhaps the United States could now apologize to Iran for the 1953 CIA-backed coup of Mohammad Mosaddegh, the democratically elected secular leader. It was the coup that installed the shah -- setting in motion decades of U.S.-supported misery, torture and murder under the shah and the subsequent Islamic revolution and return of Khomeini (who at least inspired the embassy seizure). How about some money for all the millions of Iranians' whose lives were destroyed by America? And how about some context in your reporting?
93
Madeline Albright apologized for US support for the 1953 coup and US support for the Shah during the Clinton Administration.
6
Taken from the full statement (http://fas.org/news/iran/2000/000317.htm)
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.
Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent."
Hardly an apology, at best an acknowledgement buried in a pile of self-serving excuses and complaints about Iran.
"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.
Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent."
Hardly an apology, at best an acknowledgement buried in a pile of self-serving excuses and complaints about Iran.
2
And when one speaks about the 1953 coup, it is also important to note that of which few are aware: when Stalin made noises about conducting his own intrusion into Iran, Henry Truman scotched this by emphatically putting his foot down.
Had Truman not stood up to the Russians, Iran as an Iranian state would have been as religiously diluted as were the Muslim sectors of the southern Soviet Empire. And that wonderful, benign Islamic theocracy later bringing terrorism t so much of the world would have never come into existence...
Had Truman not stood up to the Russians, Iran as an Iranian state would have been as religiously diluted as were the Muslim sectors of the southern Soviet Empire. And that wonderful, benign Islamic theocracy later bringing terrorism t so much of the world would have never come into existence...
4
I do not mind the compensation ,but why so much?
While republicans are trying to limit how much money you can get if a doctor kills you on the operating table, why are we giving 4.4 million to each victim?
Wouldn't 1 million be plenty?
While republicans are trying to limit how much money you can get if a doctor kills you on the operating table, why are we giving 4.4 million to each victim?
Wouldn't 1 million be plenty?
16
Because, Linda, these men and women are patriots. Cheers!
1
It's an amazing comment you made. If somebody hit the lotto for an amount that you find exorbitant, you'd ask the same question.
2
Who cares how they spend Iran's money.
3
This is absurd. These are former Foreign Service Officers, CIA personnel, and United States Marines who were all aware of the risks involved in their chosen professions BEFORE they were posted.
291
And? They were victims also. It's not coming out of your pocket.
7
That's correct, Richard. It will be coming out of my kids' pockets, as we kick the federal debt can down the road.
Iran violated international law regarding foreign embassy personnel. The "risks" should never have existed.
When have we imprisoned embassy staff? Even after the declaration of war following Pearl Harbor, Japanese and German embassy personnel were permitted to leave, unharmed and unhindered.
Iran was an Evil Empire then and is so now -- one our administration makes deals with. They are already pushing the envelope, with Russia's connivance.
When have we imprisoned embassy staff? Even after the declaration of war following Pearl Harbor, Japanese and German embassy personnel were permitted to leave, unharmed and unhindered.
Iran was an Evil Empire then and is so now -- one our administration makes deals with. They are already pushing the envelope, with Russia's connivance.
4
The victims of injustice whether by our actions or others is endless. Native Americans, African American slaves, the falsely imprisoned, we can go on
and on. The Iranian hostages are lucky in that a private penalty, not taxpayers,
will fund their relief. It will set off anger to those who have suffered injustice
and who want money to heal their pain.
and on. The Iranian hostages are lucky in that a private penalty, not taxpayers,
will fund their relief. It will set off anger to those who have suffered injustice
and who want money to heal their pain.
84
OUR government put the sanctions on Iran, J, and OUR Justice Department sued for the penalty - it is not "private" money. It's OUR hard-earned taxpayer money and too damn much is going into attorney's pockets. Yet, WE have to sign "arbitration" clauses in contracts and lose OUR right to sue. Whose world is it again?
1
I doubt money will heal anyone's pain.
I just hope that the compensation will include first responders to 9/11.
There is no excuse for how they have been kick to the curb after risking their own lives to help. Don't make them wait a day longer for healthcare coverage and death benefits from the illnesses they incurred from the hazardous environment they rushed into on that day and the months to follow.
There is no excuse for how they have been kick to the curb after risking their own lives to help. Don't make them wait a day longer for healthcare coverage and death benefits from the illnesses they incurred from the hazardous environment they rushed into on that day and the months to follow.
6
what about victims of Oklahoma bombing? They are also victims of terrorism.
1
Does anyone actually read articles before commenting or just the headline?
4
GeorgiaDem, 9/11 first responders (and their families if deceased) received excellent compensation. Don't believe everything you hear and/or read:
"The attacks killed or seriously injured approximately 425 emergency responders. This group received a total of $1.9 billion in benefits, or about $1.1 million more on average than a civilian with similar economic loss. Most of these funds (about three-quarters) came from the government, and the remainder came from charities."
"Residents of Lower Manhattan, workers, those who suffered from emotional trauma, and those who were injured from exposure to smoke, dust, and debris released during the collapse and cleanup of the World Trade Center also received compensation. The benefits that could be quantified for these groups total approximately $3.5 billion, most of which came from government programs. Total compensation for mental health care and for respiratory injuries due to environmental exposure would be higher if the benefits paid by employer-provided health plans or employee-assistance plans could be quantified."
Check it: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9087/index1.html
"The attacks killed or seriously injured approximately 425 emergency responders. This group received a total of $1.9 billion in benefits, or about $1.1 million more on average than a civilian with similar economic loss. Most of these funds (about three-quarters) came from the government, and the remainder came from charities."
"Residents of Lower Manhattan, workers, those who suffered from emotional trauma, and those who were injured from exposure to smoke, dust, and debris released during the collapse and cleanup of the World Trade Center also received compensation. The benefits that could be quantified for these groups total approximately $3.5 billion, most of which came from government programs. Total compensation for mental health care and for respiratory injuries due to environmental exposure would be higher if the benefits paid by employer-provided health plans or employee-assistance plans could be quantified."
Check it: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9087/index1.html
1
Money, money , money - who gets it and who doesn't? At least now we have learned that you can get reparations for something that happened 35 years ago. Sure hope they funded the money needed to care for our first responders after 9/11.
4
The legislation also funds support for first responders.
1
It is amazing just how much ignorance of history and politics there is.
4
First responders (and if deceased, their families) on 9/11 were well paid:
"The attacks killed or seriously injured approximately 425 emergency responders. This group received a total of $1.9 billion in benefits, or about $1.1 million more on average than a civilian with similar economic loss. Most of these funds (about three-quarters) came from the government, and the remainder came from charities."
"Residents of Lower Manhattan, workers, those who suffered from emotional trauma, and those who were injured from exposure to smoke, dust, and debris released during the collapse and cleanup of the World Trade Center also received compensation. The benefits that could be quantified for these groups total approximately $3.5 billion, most of which came from government programs. Total compensation for mental health care and for respiratory injuries due to environmental exposure would be higher if the benefits paid by employer-provided health plans or employee-assistance plans could be quantified."
"The attacks killed or seriously injured approximately 425 emergency responders. This group received a total of $1.9 billion in benefits, or about $1.1 million more on average than a civilian with similar economic loss. Most of these funds (about three-quarters) came from the government, and the remainder came from charities."
"Residents of Lower Manhattan, workers, those who suffered from emotional trauma, and those who were injured from exposure to smoke, dust, and debris released during the collapse and cleanup of the World Trade Center also received compensation. The benefits that could be quantified for these groups total approximately $3.5 billion, most of which came from government programs. Total compensation for mental health care and for respiratory injuries due to environmental exposure would be higher if the benefits paid by employer-provided health plans or employee-assistance plans could be quantified."
1
What's great is the funds aren't coming from American Tax Payers, but penalties against Iran, who should be footing the bill for holding these workers. Not sure where $10,000 a day comes from, given the average American FAMILY makes that much in 2 months. Definitely an incentive to press for 30 yrs to get compensation, and take a job in a high risk location for the US government. Not sure I could wait 30 yrs for BNP to be found guilty.....
3
Though I agree with these hostages getting compensation, to be fair, wouldn't the Iranians who suffered at the hand of the American Coo in 1953 deserve compensation too?
12
Coo? it's coup.
5
What's a Coo?
4
It's a noise pigeons make...
1
This seems like an artful way to get these folks some dough and not have the US taxpayers pay for it...which, I suppose, would be a bad precedent. These folks were all officers and employees of the United States who were bit players in an international drama...and were fortunately released. They have a legitimate claim against Iran which the US extinguished...so now the US must stand in Iran's place. That's what's happening, I think.
35
"...buried in the huge spending bill ...are provisions that would give each of the 53 hostages...$4.4mil" means that the "spending" is of taxpayer dollars. I'm not for or against it, but that's what it means
Yes. U.S. taxpayers are paying for it, and we should. The $9 billion penalty from BNP Paribas was owing to the U.S. government as a penalty for violating U.S. sanctions law, so taking $3.8 billion for compensation to U.S. victims of terrorism comes from U.S. taxpayers but rightfully so in the case of the hostages as it was our agreement that they waive their compensation rights. I suppose the Iranians can also be considered to have paid, indirectly, as the sanctions on them have cost them immeasurably.
Sorry but BNP penalties are paid to the US Teasury, which IS American Tax payer money, which we spend on weapons and pensions and private healthcare for our fab elected officials.
Reward for spying, incompetence and ineptitude. A legacy of US failed policy of propping up the despot Shah in the name of oil. US interference foreign policy was as much responsible for the Iran Islamic Republic, as those students who took those people hostage.
In the US, the propaganda machine was running wild, during that 444 days these people were held. Never once mentioning that the US Embassy staff was helping the Shah's secret police. To add to this US incompetence was the failed rescue attempt. This is the legacy of the Carter Administration. But, a legacy which started with Eisenhower, who had the CIA overthrow the elected Iranian government and put the Shah on the Peacock Throne. Why? The new Iranian government wanted to nationalize their oil fields. Big oil, the Us and the UK wouldn't have it.
Apparently while everything else is falling apart in this country, there is money for tax cuts and rewards for spies. How nice.
In the US, the propaganda machine was running wild, during that 444 days these people were held. Never once mentioning that the US Embassy staff was helping the Shah's secret police. To add to this US incompetence was the failed rescue attempt. This is the legacy of the Carter Administration. But, a legacy which started with Eisenhower, who had the CIA overthrow the elected Iranian government and put the Shah on the Peacock Throne. Why? The new Iranian government wanted to nationalize their oil fields. Big oil, the Us and the UK wouldn't have it.
Apparently while everything else is falling apart in this country, there is money for tax cuts and rewards for spies. How nice.
49
Reward for a blatant violation of diplomatic norms. Countries pursue various policies which their embassies represent. Nowhere in international law is the seizure of an embassy and the hostage-taking of its personnel considered a legally or morally justified act. The Iranian government was within its rights to break off diplomatic relations with the U.S. and may have had sound moral reason to do so; it totally stepped over the line with the seizure.
Incidentally, the money for this doesn't come from U.S. taxpayers so the last part of your rant is immaterial.
Incidentally, the money for this doesn't come from U.S. taxpayers so the last part of your rant is immaterial.
4
The article does not explain why they were barred from seeking compensation and why the BNP Paribas money made a difference to their case. Will have to seek this information elsewhere...but I shouldn't have to.
5
$10,000.00 a day for 444 days.
1
In the meantime the US continues to deny any compensation to innocent persons subjected to torture in the US torture program under Bush/Cheney. Indeed, the US will not even allow those tortured (because of mistaken identity, for example) to sue: the US ensures the cases never get to court.
71
The US also continues to deny a day in court for all of those who were subjected to "rendition" by us so they could be tortured by someone else.
Not allowing our victims to sue for justice, not prosecuting those Americans who carried out torture, not prosecuting those who committed the crime of aggression against Iraq, and the continuing American terror wrought by our drones are all causes for national shame, and hopefully - some future day - reckoning at the Hague, if we continue to refuse to ensure justice is rendered here.
Not allowing our victims to sue for justice, not prosecuting those Americans who carried out torture, not prosecuting those who committed the crime of aggression against Iraq, and the continuing American terror wrought by our drones are all causes for national shame, and hopefully - some future day - reckoning at the Hague, if we continue to refuse to ensure justice is rendered here.
Money makes everything OK, right?
1
Since we don't have a time machine that would enable anyone to go back there and do anything differently, what is your point?
I worked with a bunch of people that decided to go to Iran for the company. Benefits were good, from Iran they could travel to a large part of Asia.
One night they got a knock on the door and were told to meet in the lobby in five minutes. They were not to take anything exempt their passports. Ultimately they boarded a bus and were chased almost all the way to the Afghanistan border. They crashed through the checkpoint like they do in movies.
Even knowing how things worked out, I doubt many of the would have traded a year of their lives for $4 million, but there were a couple of crazies that would have.
One night they got a knock on the door and were told to meet in the lobby in five minutes. They were not to take anything exempt their passports. Ultimately they boarded a bus and were chased almost all the way to the Afghanistan border. They crashed through the checkpoint like they do in movies.
Even knowing how things worked out, I doubt many of the would have traded a year of their lives for $4 million, but there were a couple of crazies that would have.
22
Does that mean that the American People and each taxpayer should pay for their choices to benefit themselves in a high compensation job with risks???? I think not.
Most of the hostages were foreign policy specialists who helped develop and carry out the pro-Shah policies that caused most Iranians to deeply resent the U.S. Our relations with Iran at the time were at the cutting edge of American imperialism. Before you pay compensation, you need to consider the responsibility of the victims for their own fate. That's what the military has done with Bergdahl. Do we reward highly educated mid-level architects of the very policy that led to their victimization?
16
This is not true. The Embassy was completely restaffed after the Revolution. All were new to Iran.
4
Correction: from February to November 1979, the embassy was supporting the moderate transitional government, and not the Shah or the radicals.
1
While the hostages deserve compensation, it's unclear to me that $4.4M is a reasonable amount, or how that figure was calculated. I'd also be interested to know why the State Department blocked compensation in the past.
As stated in the article, the main impetus may be "taking control of the BNP Paribas money back from the Justice Department".
As stated in the article, the main impetus may be "taking control of the BNP Paribas money back from the Justice Department".
45
The article states how the amount was calculated. $10,000/day for each day of captivity.
1
It was blocked because the deal that got the hostages released in 1979 was that Iran would not have to pay restitution. So the courts had to block it (not just State). Like it or not, that's what was agreed to.
2
The answer is in the article if you read it entirely:
"The law now stands to bring closure to a saga that riveted the nation and ruptured America’s ties with Iran. The very agreement that won the hostages’ release in 1981 barred them from seeking restitution. Their legal claims were repeatedly blocked in the courts, including an appeal denied by the Supreme Court."
"The law now stands to bring closure to a saga that riveted the nation and ruptured America’s ties with Iran. The very agreement that won the hostages’ release in 1981 barred them from seeking restitution. Their legal claims were repeatedly blocked in the courts, including an appeal denied by the Supreme Court."
2
So when will the CIA compensate Iranians upended by Operation Ajax?
14
Now, finally, can we move on?
The US faces significant threats- Sunni and Arab.
It is time to let the events, 36 years in the past, go. It is time to move forward.
Our enemy is Saudi Arabia. Iran is our greatest potential ally.
The US faces significant threats- Sunni and Arab.
It is time to let the events, 36 years in the past, go. It is time to move forward.
Our enemy is Saudi Arabia. Iran is our greatest potential ally.
7
Good news for the former hostages.
On a semi-related note, has anyone actually combed through the 2,000+ pages of the spending bill? It's been reported that hundreds, if not thousands, of tax breaks and regulatory favors for special interests were packed into the bill. It would be great if the NYT and other news media would dig a little further.
On a semi-related note, has anyone actually combed through the 2,000+ pages of the spending bill? It's been reported that hundreds, if not thousands, of tax breaks and regulatory favors for special interests were packed into the bill. It would be great if the NYT and other news media would dig a little further.
295
The "Cybersecurity" Information Sharing Act (CISA) got pushed through as text buried within that December 2015 Riderfest. That should say everything anyone needs to know about the bill, and of the current state and presence of democracy in US legislature.
3
In an article the NYT published they had a link to the tax breaks and favors. It was over 200 pages long. Depending on your outlook, you can decide if it was pork or smart funding. You should be able to search it.
1
It does not bode well for 99% of us, fact or fiction. The usual christmas rush to deceive us. Time for a changing of the guards and to actually elect people who will run OUR government for 99% of us instead of the wealthiest, most connected among us. It's simply ludicrous.
2
The United States of America pays $2500 for each innocent Afghan killed by it.
Meanwhile, a psychologically damaged American is receiving $4.4 million.
The message to the world: a psychologically damaged American is worth 1,760 times more than an innocent Afghan civilian killed.
Meanwhile, a psychologically damaged American is receiving $4.4 million.
The message to the world: a psychologically damaged American is worth 1,760 times more than an innocent Afghan civilian killed.
147
Another message could simply be that, regardless of the sum of compensation , America admits responsibility for those innocent civilians being killed, something Iran has not done with regard to taking these hostages.
5
In terms of real value, probably true. Most of the Americans were engineers.
1
Purchasing power in the USA is 420% higher than in Afghanistan. Translated - that means that you get a lot more bang for your dollar there than you do here. Also - that number assumes that you live as an American there. That however, is *not* how Afghanis live which means that to maintain your regular lifestyle costs even more here than there. Lots more.
How much do Afghanis earn per year or lifetime vs the same for Americans? Compensation should be relative to cost of living there - not relative to cost of living here.
How much do Afghanis earn per year or lifetime vs the same for Americans? Compensation should be relative to cost of living there - not relative to cost of living here.
3
These former hostages absolutely deserve compensation for being held against their will and against all norms of decency.
But we should also compensate the Iranian people for helping overthrow their democratically-elected government in 1953, installing a brutal dictator (whose overthrow, ironically, led to the hostage taking), supporting a cruel 8-year war against them, including helping their enemy Iraq target them with chemical weapons, and imposing a harsh sanction regime upon them.
What say you?
But we should also compensate the Iranian people for helping overthrow their democratically-elected government in 1953, installing a brutal dictator (whose overthrow, ironically, led to the hostage taking), supporting a cruel 8-year war against them, including helping their enemy Iraq target them with chemical weapons, and imposing a harsh sanction regime upon them.
What say you?
104
Reparations to the estates of government employees held for 15 months by a foreign government, but no reparations to estates of Americans held and tortured as slaves under US. Government sanctions for nearly a century?
27
My family emigrated here after slavery had ended.
I won't be putting any of my money towards reparations.
But, on a happier note, tens of thousands of Africans made money selling their people as slaves. I am sure they will put some of that profit towards reparations.
Afterall they surely derived a benefit from it.
I won't be putting any of my money towards reparations.
But, on a happier note, tens of thousands of Africans made money selling their people as slaves. I am sure they will put some of that profit towards reparations.
Afterall they surely derived a benefit from it.
8
Almost 600,000 Union soldiers died defeating slavery. Is that not sacrifice enough?
10
360,000 Union soldiers died though that's still plenty.
1
$4.4 million is a lot of money for an injury that occurred a long time ago and that isn't really the fault of the U.S. government. Anyone working in a US embassy assumes the risk of revolution. This looks like an anti-terror political publicity stunt at the expense of taxpayers. What's next, $4.4 million for every soldier who is wounded in action?
68
Theverything money comes from fines levied against sanctions violators. No taxpayer money involved.
The military are already being paid through disability payments, Estaban, sometimes even if they don't actually deserve them.
These fifty three hostages should have been paid way back by the Ronald Reagan administration. After all he used them to win his presidency.
266
They were freed minutes after he was inaugurated, I don't think they minded being "used" if holding a president accountable for their plight resulted in their freedom.
1
Hostage-taking by the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism on Jimmy Carter's watch is Reagan's fault? Now I've heard everything.
1
Hey - you could look it up. You won't, but you could.
I count myself as a supporter of President Obama and as an opponent of many of his policies.
The Iranian nuclear deal will be stuck in my craw for a very long time, and I will not be
forgetting this on election day ln November, no matter the merits of Democrats who may be running.
I believe there are a considerable number of other voters similar to me, perhaps not enough
to elect a Republican President, but certainly enough to secure the number of Republican
Congressmen, Senators and Governors needed to insure against another sellout of Israel.
The Iranian nuclear deal will be stuck in my craw for a very long time, and I will not be
forgetting this on election day ln November, no matter the merits of Democrats who may be running.
I believe there are a considerable number of other voters similar to me, perhaps not enough
to elect a Republican President, but certainly enough to secure the number of Republican
Congressmen, Senators and Governors needed to insure against another sellout of Israel.
12
In the years to come this agreement will be praised. Will you apologize for that "craw" then?
5
3 billion USD, one-third of our foreign aid budget, annually goes to Israel. That's not a sellout. That's a major buy in.
6
I am not sure you are a president Obama supporter. I wonder why you'd think your comments would be more legitimate by prefacing with that.
7
The same people in Iran that took them hostage just launched a nuclear capable missile with a range of 1500 miles in violation of UN agreements.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-usa-idUSKCN0SA20Z20151016
It's North Korea with a crescent. (they kidnap people too) A peace loving democratic Islamic state.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-missiles-usa-idUSKCN0SA20Z20151016
It's North Korea with a crescent. (they kidnap people too) A peace loving democratic Islamic state.
12
How many "crescent" people did we kidnap and place/torture in Guantanamo? Years later we released many of these hostages without any charges. I'd say we owe them compensation.
2
at DaveD -- you wrote, "How many "crescent" people did we kidnap and place/torture in Guantanamo?"
My answer -- "Not enough."
My answer -- "Not enough."
1
Yea, the title says it all. Today, over 70% of Iran's population are under 30. You just cannot stop animosity againts these young people. Till last month we lived under sanctions and now that sanctions are lifted... You have discriminatory visa waiver program that bars all Iranian dual nationals from the program. Also, you just want to get compensation for some incident happened 36 years ago.
1
It was not just"some incident" 36 years ago: the take-over of the US Embassy in Teheran and the holding of US embassy personnel as hostages violated every long and ancient rules of how countries treat each other's diplomats.
Civilized nations do _not_ violate international laws about how diplomats are treated so that diplomacy and peace-making can be conducted in relative safety.
12
And civilized nations don't overthrow a democratically elected leader, and prop up up its own chosen tyrannical leader as the U.S. did in Iran.
5
Now if Congress will beef up the funds for security on our embassies, maybe there will be fewer such incidents.
15
Beef up the funds to secure our embassies? You don't think they already get enough funding? We spend $750 billion a year!
Iran should apologize as soon as the US apologizes for overthrowing and assasinating their popularly elected government in 1953.
179
Their "popularly elected government" which fell in 1953 was living proof that they are not worthy of self-determination.
It was President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Churchill working together who overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mosadegh who wanted to help the desparately poor people in his country with money gotten by nationalizing the Iranian oil fields.
1
The 1953 coup against Mosaddegh was to prevent the nationalization of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now called BP. It would be justice to use some of the money given by BP for the Deepwater Horizon spill to compensate Iranians.
I would like to know what Iran did to punish the students who kidnapped the Americans in the first place.
7
Nothing. Some went on to serve in the Iranian government.
1
I think they made one of them, Ahmadinejad, their president.
2
They were forced to watch Ronald Reagan's inauguration and subsequent speeches. Very sever punishment.
And watch their nation become the most successful sponsor of terror, judged by body counts, on the planet.
And watch their economy collapse. for almost forty years.
They got to see national resources wasted on A-bombs, when what the nation needed was more water. You can't drink U-235.
They got to move the nation toward being Judenrein.
And to work on removing all Zoroasters and Christians as well.
These plagues and others were visited on Iran buy it's own.
And watch their nation become the most successful sponsor of terror, judged by body counts, on the planet.
And watch their economy collapse. for almost forty years.
They got to see national resources wasted on A-bombs, when what the nation needed was more water. You can't drink U-235.
They got to move the nation toward being Judenrein.
And to work on removing all Zoroasters and Christians as well.
These plagues and others were visited on Iran buy it's own.
Let me play devil's advocate here for a second. While there is nothing wrong with these folks being compensated by an illegal act by the Iranian government, I wonder if any of this money will go towards the Iranian victims of the Shahs' brutal dictatorship and repression of his people, a government backed and sponsored by the U.S., which led to the revolution and rise of the current theocratic Iranian government?
98
The American hostages get $4.4 million each. The 200+ Iranians killed by our military which shot down a civilian airliner get less than $200K each. Something is wrong with this picture.
79
And there was no admission of guilt but somehow that makes Americans "principled " and Iranians "bad'
2
One was accidental; the other was deliberate.
Also note that "In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement: ""...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...""
Note also that inflation also takes a toll. The US dollar has been inflated by 51% since 1996.
Also note that "In 1996, the United States and Iran reached a settlement at the International Court of Justice which included the statement: ""...the United States recognized the aerial incident of 3 July 1988 as a terrible human tragedy and expressed deep regret over the loss of lives caused by the incident...""
Note also that inflation also takes a toll. The US dollar has been inflated by 51% since 1996.
3
"state-sponsored terrorism".
How much money each widow, widower and orphan in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and now Syria will be compensated with?
Let me guess: zero.
$4.4 million for Americans who are "psychological and emotionally damage"!!??
How much money each widow, widower and orphan in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and now Syria will be compensated with?
Let me guess: zero.
$4.4 million for Americans who are "psychological and emotionally damage"!!??
54
Oh, the always exceptional Americano hypocrisy.
Has the US paid the Iranian victims of the American coup de etat that deposed their elected government in 1953?
Has the US paid the Iranian victims of the US armed Saddam Hussein when he used US supplied chemical weapons and US supplied satellite imagery to use those WMD's on Iran?
And, oh, the bleating about the hostages. Not mentioned is the fact that, at the time, the US Embassy Tehran was the largest CIA station in the world.
We did pay the 290 victims, 66 of them children, when the USS Vincennes shot two missiles that blasted Iran Air 655 out of the sky. We never did apologise though.
On the other hand, has any American, wrongly convicted and imprisoned, for decades, in our own country, been paid $10,000 a day? As we, the always exceptional, would say:
Nope.
Has the US paid the Iranian victims of the American coup de etat that deposed their elected government in 1953?
Has the US paid the Iranian victims of the US armed Saddam Hussein when he used US supplied chemical weapons and US supplied satellite imagery to use those WMD's on Iran?
And, oh, the bleating about the hostages. Not mentioned is the fact that, at the time, the US Embassy Tehran was the largest CIA station in the world.
We did pay the 290 victims, 66 of them children, when the USS Vincennes shot two missiles that blasted Iran Air 655 out of the sky. We never did apologise though.
On the other hand, has any American, wrongly convicted and imprisoned, for decades, in our own country, been paid $10,000 a day? As we, the always exceptional, would say:
Nope.
307
The amount was calculated using amounts previously paid for people wrongly imprisoned with additional amounts for torture and emotional abuse.
3
nicely stated; United State Of hypocrisy -Malcolm-X
1
The only bleating I hear is that of a whiny contrarian who sees nothing good in the US. Go try criticizing the Iranian government in Iran and see how far you get. Really, please do.
4
there are no words.
7
Awesome. I am happy for them.
7
On August 12, 1969 my 19 year old brother was killed, along with 20 other Marines, in the Arizona Territory in Vietnam. All our families have suffered their loss for these long decades. Now their descendants will be taxed to provide compensation to the estates of the Iranian hostages.
129
I agree. This is an example of the irresponsibility of those we elect deciding who gets the spoils of the tax payers money. I feel for these people but do not understand why the government has to compensate them. There are millions of people work for the government in foreign countries and that is part of the risk.
To me it means that the role of government and tax money has been lost. This is a blatant example of the US government playing the "rich uncle" with taxpayer dollars. Totally irresponsible.
To me it means that the role of government and tax money has been lost. This is a blatant example of the US government playing the "rich uncle" with taxpayer dollars. Totally irresponsible.
4
Did you read the article? No one is being taxed. The money is coming from a multi-billion dollar fine paid by BNP Parabas bank.
And even if we were paying taxes to support the compensation - something I'm ok with - this "what about mine?" attitude that currently pervades America is ripping our country apart.
And even if we were paying taxes to support the compensation - something I'm ok with - this "what about mine?" attitude that currently pervades America is ripping our country apart.
14
The money will be paid from the $9 billion penalty paid by BNP Paribas, not by taxing Americans.
10