Ancient Iraqi Artifacts Imported By Hobby Lobby to be Forfeited(justice.gov)
justice.gov
Ancient Iraqi Artifacts Imported By Hobby Lobby to be Forfeited
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/united-states-files-civil-action-forfeit-thousands-ancient-iraqi-artifacts-imported
166 comments
It's weird how you can provide significant economic resources to a terrorist organization and get off with a paltry fine, but the FBI is willing to sting mentally-disabled people and throw them in jail[1]
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2015/07/13/another-terror-arrest-an... http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a47390/alabama-isis-pey...
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2015/07/13/another-terror-arrest-an... http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a47390/alabama-isis-pey...
Don't forget Turkey&co is buying oil from daesh.
In Republican eyes, they are heroes for their Supreme Court victory over Obamacare. With that comes immunity from pretty much anything short of a dead girl or a live boy, as the saying goes.
And in Democrat eyes, they were already hated villains and they are cheering for the company to hit hard.
Yeah, but none of those Democrats are running the Justice Department right now.
Yes, but even when the Dems were running DOJ, they did not go after corporate executives.
new book on this by Pro Publica reporter:
https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Justice-Department-C...
new book on this by Pro Publica reporter:
https://www.amazon.com/Chickenshit-Club-Justice-Department-C...
Saw on Twitter that someone called them the "Wahhabi Lobby".
But actually, it seems ridiculous to me that this only warranted a $3m settlement. They've (almost certainly) been indirectly funding ISIS by robbing a country of its cultural artifacts. Not cool.
But actually, it seems ridiculous to me that this only warranted a $3m settlement. They've (almost certainly) been indirectly funding ISIS by robbing a country of its cultural artifacts. Not cool.
And perhaps equally infuriating and insulting is this Christian company not taking any responsibility for the theft or funding terrorists.
From the BBC articles;
>'Hobby Lobby said it "did not fully appreciate the complexities" of the import process when it began'
and
>'The company imprudently relied on dealers and shippers who, in hindsight, did not understand the correct way to document and ship these items," Hobby Lobby said'[1]
Its amazing that "committed evangelical Christians" who said religious beliefs barred them from paying for certain kinds of contraception in their employees health care doesn't have the same moral compunction when it comes to stealing or doing business with terrorists.[2]
Sources:
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40516932
[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/28093756
From the BBC articles;
>'Hobby Lobby said it "did not fully appreciate the complexities" of the import process when it began'
and
>'The company imprudently relied on dealers and shippers who, in hindsight, did not understand the correct way to document and ship these items," Hobby Lobby said'[1]
Its amazing that "committed evangelical Christians" who said religious beliefs barred them from paying for certain kinds of contraception in their employees health care doesn't have the same moral compunction when it comes to stealing or doing business with terrorists.[2]
Sources:
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40516932
[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/28093756
So how did this go down, in your mind? The President of Hobby Lobby got his eyes on some shiny objects, then was told to make the check out to Al-Qaeda, and decided that it was worth funding terrorism to get the items he'd been lusting after?
Also, would you arrest someone who purchased an item at a yard sale that had been stolen at one point? Come to think of it, should I be grilling every yard sale proprietor to make sure that they came into possession of all of their goods legally?
Yeah, antiquities are higher stakes, but I would hope that if I purchased a pair of pants that suspiciously looked like they belonged to the neighbor, you wouldn't be so uncharitable to me in the aftermath.
Look, it's possible that someone did something maliciously. I'd like to think I'd have acted more above board in this scenario. But this thread reads like plenty of people have their blinders on today and are fishing for some kind of hypocrisy story.
"Never attribute to malice...", etc.
Also, would you arrest someone who purchased an item at a yard sale that had been stolen at one point? Come to think of it, should I be grilling every yard sale proprietor to make sure that they came into possession of all of their goods legally?
Yeah, antiquities are higher stakes, but I would hope that if I purchased a pair of pants that suspiciously looked like they belonged to the neighbor, you wouldn't be so uncharitable to me in the aftermath.
Look, it's possible that someone did something maliciously. I'd like to think I'd have acted more above board in this scenario. But this thread reads like plenty of people have their blinders on today and are fishing for some kind of hypocrisy story.
"Never attribute to malice...", etc.
This isn't the same thing as buying a stolen lamp from a yard sale. In fact that's pretty ignorant to ignore the details with this case.
FTA: Notwithstanding these warnings, in December 2010, Hobby Lobby executed an agreement to purchase over 5,500 Artifacts, comprised of cuneiform tablets and bricks, clay bullae and cylinder seals, for $1.6 million. The acquisition of the Artifacts was fraught with red flags. For example, Hobby Lobby received conflicting information where the Artifacts had been stored prior to the inspection in the UAE. Further, when the Artifacts were presented for inspection to Hobby Lobby’s president and consultant in July 2010, they were displayed informally. In addition, Hobby Lobby representatives had not met or communicated with the dealer who purportedly owned the Artifacts, nor did they pay him for the Artifacts. Rather, following instructions from another dealer, Hobby Lobby wired payment for the Artifacts to seven personal bank accounts held in the names of other individuals.
FTA: Notwithstanding these warnings, in December 2010, Hobby Lobby executed an agreement to purchase over 5,500 Artifacts, comprised of cuneiform tablets and bricks, clay bullae and cylinder seals, for $1.6 million. The acquisition of the Artifacts was fraught with red flags. For example, Hobby Lobby received conflicting information where the Artifacts had been stored prior to the inspection in the UAE. Further, when the Artifacts were presented for inspection to Hobby Lobby’s president and consultant in July 2010, they were displayed informally. In addition, Hobby Lobby representatives had not met or communicated with the dealer who purportedly owned the Artifacts, nor did they pay him for the Artifacts. Rather, following instructions from another dealer, Hobby Lobby wired payment for the Artifacts to seven personal bank accounts held in the names of other individuals.
Yes, antiquities from this part of the world that are sold on the black market have higher stakes. The DOJ makes it clear Hobby Lobby acted very suspiciously/maliciously. If you're at a yard sale where you're asked to meet the seller at the back to see the "real goods" and pay in unusual ways, you're exposing yourself. Let's not forget, the president of Hobby Lobby isn't naive when it comes to the law... he navigated a lawsuit to the Supreme Court.
Source:
"Further, when the Artifacts were presented for inspection to Hobby Lobby’s president and consultant in July 2010, they were displayed informally. In addition, Hobby Lobby representatives had not met or communicated with the dealer who purportedly owned the Artifacts, nor did they pay him for the Artifacts. Rather, following instructions from another dealer, Hobby Lobby wired payment for the Artifacts to seven personal bank accounts held in the names of other individuals." https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/united-states-files-civ...
Source:
"Further, when the Artifacts were presented for inspection to Hobby Lobby’s president and consultant in July 2010, they were displayed informally. In addition, Hobby Lobby representatives had not met or communicated with the dealer who purportedly owned the Artifacts, nor did they pay him for the Artifacts. Rather, following instructions from another dealer, Hobby Lobby wired payment for the Artifacts to seven personal bank accounts held in the names of other individuals." https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/united-states-files-civ...
The DOJ makes it clear that they broke laws. I'm not disputing that. Clearly they did something wrong, and are paying a pretty penny for it (pocket change for the CEO, but almost twice what they paid overall).
And as I said, I'd like to think I'd have acted better. People are making good points in this thread. I'm not blindly trying to defend a company I know very little about; just trying to poke some holes in the groupthink here.
A few more points:
1. The BBC article says that they purchased 5,500 artifacts, and the original article says that they forfeited 144 items. So what's the story here - they took some calculated risks and ended up functionally paying 4.6 million for 5,356 items? Or, they were actually careful but unfortunately a little under 3% of the items were bad? Could be either, or neither.
2. Are there any comparable companies/cases? I have no reference point for this story. When someone else bought a bunch of history, what did their buying practices look like, and have they ever been in trouble?
3. Does anyone here know what it's like to buy antiquities? I'd imagine most people who do it legally will have a more rigorous process, but I have to believe that in some cases it's not as clean as going to a Sotheby's auction.
4. Do we know who was responsible for what here? Obviously the buck stops with the CEO so he deserves to be the face of the criticism here, but is it possible that, since this was a process that probably spanned multiple transactions and weeks, he had some help that was less than competent? Doesn't absolve him of anything, and it didn't! His company was fined. But it pokes a hole in the "mustache-twirling" narrative.
And as I said, I'd like to think I'd have acted better. People are making good points in this thread. I'm not blindly trying to defend a company I know very little about; just trying to poke some holes in the groupthink here.
A few more points:
1. The BBC article says that they purchased 5,500 artifacts, and the original article says that they forfeited 144 items. So what's the story here - they took some calculated risks and ended up functionally paying 4.6 million for 5,356 items? Or, they were actually careful but unfortunately a little under 3% of the items were bad? Could be either, or neither.
2. Are there any comparable companies/cases? I have no reference point for this story. When someone else bought a bunch of history, what did their buying practices look like, and have they ever been in trouble?
3. Does anyone here know what it's like to buy antiquities? I'd imagine most people who do it legally will have a more rigorous process, but I have to believe that in some cases it's not as clean as going to a Sotheby's auction.
4. Do we know who was responsible for what here? Obviously the buck stops with the CEO so he deserves to be the face of the criticism here, but is it possible that, since this was a process that probably spanned multiple transactions and weeks, he had some help that was less than competent? Doesn't absolve him of anything, and it didn't! His company was fined. But it pokes a hole in the "mustache-twirling" narrative.
>"is it possible that, since this was a process that probably spanned multiple transactions and weeks, he had some help that was less than competent? Doesn't absolve him of anything, and it didn't! His company was fined. But it pokes a hole in the "mustache-twirling" narrative.
From a 2015 article in the Guardian:
"Patty Gerstenblith, a professor of law at DePaul University who is an expert in cultural heritage, confirmed to the Guardian that she was asked by the Green family to explain to them how import controls for ancient antiquities worked in 2010 – a year before the tablets arrived in Memphis. Gerstenblith said that she went to some lengths to set out for them the potential pitfalls.
“I read them the riot act,” she told the Guardian. “I explained to them how the system worked in the interest of trying to discourage them from doing anything illegal. I knew they were building a collection, so I was concerned they might be doing something they shouldn’t, even out of ignorance of the law.”[1]
The "moustache twirling narrative" goes something like this:
"The reason that he thinks the Green family might have broken international law or avoided ethical standards in the antiquities trade is to promote their overtly Christian beliefs — beliefs they fought for and won at the Supreme Court last year in their landmark case on the religious freedom of employers with regards to government mandates on healthcare.
“In their hearts, [I think] they think they’re doing the right thing,” Al-Azm said. “They look at this cultural heritage and they have a close affinity to it. They feel that this is something that touches their deep core beliefs, and they see it in an area or a place that is dangerous or unstable. So they can justify this sort of activity by saying I’m doing something good for posterity.”[2]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/28/hobby-lobby-...
[2] https://thinkprogress.org/experts-believe-hobby-lobby-stole-...
From a 2015 article in the Guardian:
"Patty Gerstenblith, a professor of law at DePaul University who is an expert in cultural heritage, confirmed to the Guardian that she was asked by the Green family to explain to them how import controls for ancient antiquities worked in 2010 – a year before the tablets arrived in Memphis. Gerstenblith said that she went to some lengths to set out for them the potential pitfalls.
“I read them the riot act,” she told the Guardian. “I explained to them how the system worked in the interest of trying to discourage them from doing anything illegal. I knew they were building a collection, so I was concerned they might be doing something they shouldn’t, even out of ignorance of the law.”[1]
The "moustache twirling narrative" goes something like this:
"The reason that he thinks the Green family might have broken international law or avoided ethical standards in the antiquities trade is to promote their overtly Christian beliefs — beliefs they fought for and won at the Supreme Court last year in their landmark case on the religious freedom of employers with regards to government mandates on healthcare.
“In their hearts, [I think] they think they’re doing the right thing,” Al-Azm said. “They look at this cultural heritage and they have a close affinity to it. They feel that this is something that touches their deep core beliefs, and they see it in an area or a place that is dangerous or unstable. So they can justify this sort of activity by saying I’m doing something good for posterity.”[2]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/28/hobby-lobby-...
[2] https://thinkprogress.org/experts-believe-hobby-lobby-stole-...
That Think Progress piece was an interesting read, thanks for sharing and giving some more context to this story.
When does skepticism become solipsism?
An excellent question.
Perhaps around the same time that underlying beliefs supersede reason.
Perhaps around the same time that underlying beliefs supersede reason.
I think skeptics uncover truth, while solipsists spread uncertainty.
Sometimes uncovering truth can disrupt previous certainties.
Your yard sale analogy is a little off, unless the yard sale is in the middle of an active war zone.
How do you think this went down? "Hey, let's buy this stuff from Iraq. Iraq, Iraq... where have I heard of that before? Hmm, isn't that where those ISIS fellows are? Well, never mind, they probably have nothing to do with it."
There's also the issue of inconsistent punishment. If you or I had done this we'd probably be in prison and even the cleverest yard sale analogy wouldn't save us. These guys get slapped with a fine equivalent to roughly three tenths of a second of profits and walk away clean.
How do you think this went down? "Hey, let's buy this stuff from Iraq. Iraq, Iraq... where have I heard of that before? Hmm, isn't that where those ISIS fellows are? Well, never mind, they probably have nothing to do with it."
There's also the issue of inconsistent punishment. If you or I had done this we'd probably be in prison and even the cleverest yard sale analogy wouldn't save us. These guys get slapped with a fine equivalent to roughly three tenths of a second of profits and walk away clean.
> "Hey, let's buy this stuff from Iraq. Iraq, Iraq... where have I heard of that before? Hmm, isn't that where those ISIS fellows are? Well, never mind, they probably have nothing to do with it."
To be fair, it looks like all this happened in 2010—ISIS wasn't in the nation's consciousness back then: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=isis
I'm not saying it was a good idea.
To be fair, it looks like all this happened in 2010—ISIS wasn't in the nation's consciousness back then: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=isis
I'm not saying it was a good idea.
>To be fair, it looks like all this happened in 2010—ISIS wasn't in the nation's consciousness back then"
You realize that ISIS is the rebranded Al Queda in Iraq right? Al Queda in Iraq(AQI) began in 2004. The rebranding came in 2011 when Arab Spring protests in Syria resulted in that country being destabilized and AQI was able to move in to Syria to re-supply.
Regardless of the name changes they would have been part of any legitimate antiquities expert's and dealer's consciences.
You realize that ISIS is the rebranded Al Queda in Iraq right? Al Queda in Iraq(AQI) began in 2004. The rebranding came in 2011 when Arab Spring protests in Syria resulted in that country being destabilized and AQI was able to move in to Syria to re-supply.
Regardless of the name changes they would have been part of any legitimate antiquities expert's and dealer's consciences.
> You realize that ISIS is the rebranded Al Queda in Iraq right?
And AQI was itself a rebranding of a different org that had no prior connection to al-Qaeda.
And AQI was itself a rebranding of a different org that had no prior connection to al-Qaeda.
That's incorrect. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the father of AQI, Daesh, ISIL, ISIS etc was most certainly in Afghanistan. He was there to fight the Soviets with the mujahideen as well as later on to run a training camp there. It's hard to imagine that without being a member of Al Queda. Anyway:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jun/08/iraq.alqaida1
Also the structure of Al Queda is that of a franchise:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/sunday-review/the-franchi...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jun/08/iraq.alqaida1
Also the structure of Al Queda is that of a franchise:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/sunday-review/the-franchi...
> That's incorrect.
No, its not. The group that became al-Qaeda in Iraq was founded in Jordan in 1999 as “Organization of Monotheism and Jihad” and was not affiliated with al-Qaeda. It affiliated with al-Qaeda simultaneously with it's 2004 rebranding as al-Qaeda in Iraq.
> The structure of Al Queda is that of a franchise
Yes, and just as sometimes a pre-existing unaffiliated business signs up with a commercial franchise, sometimes a pre-existing unaffiliated jihad group would join al-Qaeda.
No, its not. The group that became al-Qaeda in Iraq was founded in Jordan in 1999 as “Organization of Monotheism and Jihad” and was not affiliated with al-Qaeda. It affiliated with al-Qaeda simultaneously with it's 2004 rebranding as al-Qaeda in Iraq.
> The structure of Al Queda is that of a franchise
Yes, and just as sometimes a pre-existing unaffiliated business signs up with a commercial franchise, sometimes a pre-existing unaffiliated jihad group would join al-Qaeda.
>"Yes, and just as sometimes a pre-existing unaffiliated business signs up with a commercial franchise, sometimes a pre-existing unaffiliated jihad group would join al-Qaeda."
No you are completely wrong. This is exactly how you become part of Al Queda - you start an affiliate. This is not some grey area:
"As such, AQ’s dominant strategy since 2001 has been to encourage affiliate organizations to attack the West, sometimes with financial or operational support. [40] AQ gained affiliates post-9/11, as several groups either emerged or reoriented themselves to pledge allegiance to bin Laden. These groups included Al Qaeda in Yemen (AQY) (which later became Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP), Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which have been among the most deadly AQ affiliates throughout the 2000s'
Source: http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/group...
No you are completely wrong. This is exactly how you become part of Al Queda - you start an affiliate. This is not some grey area:
"As such, AQ’s dominant strategy since 2001 has been to encourage affiliate organizations to attack the West, sometimes with financial or operational support. [40] AQ gained affiliates post-9/11, as several groups either emerged or reoriented themselves to pledge allegiance to bin Laden. These groups included Al Qaeda in Yemen (AQY) (which later became Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP), Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which have been among the most deadly AQ affiliates throughout the 2000s'
Source: http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/group...
> No you are completely wrong. This is exactly how you become part of Al Queda - you start an affiliate
Which doesn't change that for the first five years of its existence the group that later rebranded as al-Qaeda in Iraq was not an affiliate, nor, more to the point which you falsely claimed was incorrect originally, does it change the fact that just as the rebranding from AQI to ISIS was a rebranding of an existing organization, so was the rebranding to AQI in 2004.
The arguments you make seem to be directed against the claim that the Zarqawi organization was not, at least when it was called AQI, really part of al-Qaeda. This might be a fine point to argue against, but for the fact that it's not an argument anyone has actually made in the thread, and your arguments against it are completely irrelevant to the comments they actually respond to.
Which doesn't change that for the first five years of its existence the group that later rebranded as al-Qaeda in Iraq was not an affiliate, nor, more to the point which you falsely claimed was incorrect originally, does it change the fact that just as the rebranding from AQI to ISIS was a rebranding of an existing organization, so was the rebranding to AQI in 2004.
The arguments you make seem to be directed against the claim that the Zarqawi organization was not, at least when it was called AQI, really part of al-Qaeda. This might be a fine point to argue against, but for the fact that it's not an argument anyone has actually made in the thread, and your arguments against it are completely irrelevant to the comments they actually respond to.
You are way off point. Your original statement that I responded to was:
>To be fair, it looks like all this happened in 2010—ISIS wasn't in the nation's consciousness back then:
You are suggesting that since the name "ISIS" hadn't yet become part of popular lexicon that there might a legitimate claim to ignorance.
The fact of that matter is it was known that there was a large terrorist organization controlling large swathes of Iraq at that time. And that this group was using looted antiquity to fund their activities. There is not a single expert on Mesopotamian art who disputes that. It does not matter which moniker they were using.
Everything you have written since that is really just you having an endless semantic argument.
>To be fair, it looks like all this happened in 2010—ISIS wasn't in the nation's consciousness back then:
You are suggesting that since the name "ISIS" hadn't yet become part of popular lexicon that there might a legitimate claim to ignorance.
The fact of that matter is it was known that there was a large terrorist organization controlling large swathes of Iraq at that time. And that this group was using looted antiquity to fund their activities. There is not a single expert on Mesopotamian art who disputes that. It does not matter which moniker they were using.
Everything you have written since that is really just you having an endless semantic argument.
The nation isn't being held responsible. :)
It think it is reasonable to expect an organization to take reasonable steps to ensure the legality of its own operations - such as not ignoring the advice of its own legal experts.
It think it is reasonable to expect an organization to take reasonable steps to ensure the legality of its own operations - such as not ignoring the advice of its own legal experts.
Yes if you buy a $1 million diamond at a yard sale for $5 you may go to jail for being the dumbest person on earth.
Buying antiquities and the consequences of supporting the black market aren't suddenly new or secret. What is appropriate has certainly been established. Either they chose to ignore laws or they chose to be willfully ignorant. Neither is a very good defense.
This isn't a yard sale. What they're doing is a big boy business and involved big boy money. There's big boy consequences for it.
This isn't a yard sale. What they're doing is a big boy business and involved big boy money. There's big boy consequences for it.
There are cases of people going to jail because they donated money to charities claiming to help orphans. Government argument in those cases was that they should have "known better."
Only reason executives are not charged with treason is because they are white Christians not brown Muslims.
Only reason executives are not charged with treason is because they are white Christians not brown Muslims.
> Only reason executives are not charged with treason is because they are white Christians not brown Muslims
Well, rich white politically-connected Christians. And the charge wouldn't be treason, because the charge is never treason, because of the Constitutional limits on attached to treason and the fact that any punishment can be attached to some other offense without those limits.
Well, rich white politically-connected Christians. And the charge wouldn't be treason, because the charge is never treason, because of the Constitutional limits on attached to treason and the fact that any punishment can be attached to some other offense without those limits.
>"And the charge wouldn't be treason, because the charge is never treason, because of the Constitutional limits on attached to treason and the fact that any punishment can be attached to some other offense without those limits."
There have been several Americans charged and convicted of treason. Tokyo Rose is a rather well-known one with many references in pop culture:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/asia/28rose.html
https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-1904-7.html
and also Robert Henry Best who served a life sentence and died in prison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Henry_Best
There have been several Americans charged and convicted of treason. Tokyo Rose is a rather well-known one with many references in pop culture:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/asia/28rose.html
https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-1904-7.html
and also Robert Henry Best who served a life sentence and died in prison:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Henry_Best
>"So how did this go down, in your mind? The President of Hobby Lobby got his eyes on some shiny objects, then was told to make the check out to Al-Qaeda, and decided that it was worth funding terrorism to get the items he'd been lusting after?"
Almost. From the BBC article and mentioned elsewhere:
"But prosecutors said the company was warned by an expert that such items from Iraq were likely to have been looted from archaeological sites and needed to be carefully verified."
and
"Prosecutors said the purchase "was fraught with red flags", and the company never met the dealer, working with a middleman instead, and making the payments to seven private bank accounts."[1]
Any legal counsel or consultants that Hobby Lobby would have used in attempting such a transaction would have apprised them of these red flags. The provenance of the items and the legitimacy of the sale would also have been surfaced with even a modicum of proper due diligence.
David Green Hobby Lobby's CEO and the person who oversaw this is worth over 5 billion dollars. It's unlikely they he didn't have the resources to properly vet such a significant transaction.[2]
Its worth noting this glaring excerpt from the recent Atlantic article:
"Law-enforcement officials report that in 2010, Hobby Lobby’s president, Steve Green, visited the United Arab Emirates with an antiquities consultant to inspect more than 5,548 artifacts. The objects—which were precious and collectively worth millions of dollars—“were displayed informally,” the complaint stated, “spread on the floor, arranged in layers on a coffee table, and packed loosely in cardboard boxes, in many instances with little or no protective material between them.” They included cuneiform tablets, which display writing used in ancient Mesopotamia, and clay bullae, or balls of clay printed with ancient seals."[3]
>"Also, would you arrest someone who purchased an item at a yard sale that had been stolen at one point? "
That's a total straw man. To compare buying an item at a neighbors yards sale to buying a large quantity of antiquities from a war torn country for millions of dollar from people you never met is a joke.
The "aww shucks we didn't know" bit of false naivete is insulting. The issue of looted antiquities from the region is not exactly an esoteric subject. A google search using the terms "stolen antiquities war Iraq" shows 3.4 million results.
What's more likely is that Steve Green's legal council explained the downside risk to him was that if caught he would be slapped with a fine in the low millions. A slap on the wrist for someone of his outsized wealth.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40516932
]2 https://www.forbes.com/profile/david-green/
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/hobby-l...
Almost. From the BBC article and mentioned elsewhere:
"But prosecutors said the company was warned by an expert that such items from Iraq were likely to have been looted from archaeological sites and needed to be carefully verified."
and
"Prosecutors said the purchase "was fraught with red flags", and the company never met the dealer, working with a middleman instead, and making the payments to seven private bank accounts."[1]
Any legal counsel or consultants that Hobby Lobby would have used in attempting such a transaction would have apprised them of these red flags. The provenance of the items and the legitimacy of the sale would also have been surfaced with even a modicum of proper due diligence.
David Green Hobby Lobby's CEO and the person who oversaw this is worth over 5 billion dollars. It's unlikely they he didn't have the resources to properly vet such a significant transaction.[2]
Its worth noting this glaring excerpt from the recent Atlantic article:
"Law-enforcement officials report that in 2010, Hobby Lobby’s president, Steve Green, visited the United Arab Emirates with an antiquities consultant to inspect more than 5,548 artifacts. The objects—which were precious and collectively worth millions of dollars—“were displayed informally,” the complaint stated, “spread on the floor, arranged in layers on a coffee table, and packed loosely in cardboard boxes, in many instances with little or no protective material between them.” They included cuneiform tablets, which display writing used in ancient Mesopotamia, and clay bullae, or balls of clay printed with ancient seals."[3]
>"Also, would you arrest someone who purchased an item at a yard sale that had been stolen at one point? "
That's a total straw man. To compare buying an item at a neighbors yards sale to buying a large quantity of antiquities from a war torn country for millions of dollar from people you never met is a joke.
The "aww shucks we didn't know" bit of false naivete is insulting. The issue of looted antiquities from the region is not exactly an esoteric subject. A google search using the terms "stolen antiquities war Iraq" shows 3.4 million results.
What's more likely is that Steve Green's legal council explained the downside risk to him was that if caught he would be slapped with a fine in the low millions. A slap on the wrist for someone of his outsized wealth.
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40516932
]2 https://www.forbes.com/profile/david-green/
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/hobby-l...
No. I do attribute this to malice. Or at least to not giving a shit about the law. They knew this wasn't on the up and up. And given that this is the same company that fought for exemptions from the ACA on religious grounds. If they want to claim religion, then they need to follow through with that in all of their business; not just picking and choosing what aspects of the religion they get to follow.
> who said religious beliefs barred them from paying for certain kinds of contraception in their employees health care
And who actually offered that contraception as part of their health care for decades, no problem, until obamacare mandated it, at which point they suddenly realized they had a deep-seated religious conviction against it.
And who actually offered that contraception as part of their health care for decades, no problem, until obamacare mandated it, at which point they suddenly realized they had a deep-seated religious conviction against it.
Do you have a source for this one? I'd haven't heard this before.
Your "article" says they were offering it unknowingly. This does not support OP's implication that they dropped it to protest Obamacare.
No, the article says they claimed they were offering it unknowingly. Here are the facts:
> In 2012, a lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit Washington law firm, called Hobby Lobby's general counsel to inform him of the health law's contraception requirement and to ask whether the company wanted to file a suit.
> Mr. Green says he was shocked to discover Hobby Lobby was in fact offering in its insurance plan some of the emergency contraceptives at issue. He called for the insurer to revoke that coverage and signed onto the lawsuit.
He only dropped the coverage subsequent to being approached by a lawyer from a conservative group shopping for people to use to sue the government.
Readers will draw their own conclusions but to me that does support the implication.
> In 2012, a lawyer for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit Washington law firm, called Hobby Lobby's general counsel to inform him of the health law's contraception requirement and to ask whether the company wanted to file a suit.
> Mr. Green says he was shocked to discover Hobby Lobby was in fact offering in its insurance plan some of the emergency contraceptives at issue. He called for the insurer to revoke that coverage and signed onto the lawsuit.
He only dropped the coverage subsequent to being approached by a lawyer from a conservative group shopping for people to use to sue the government.
Readers will draw their own conclusions but to me that does support the implication.
Thank you.
[deleted]
The 3rd (of the 10) commandments should loom large enough in the Evangelical faith that religion should just never be brought into business. No matter how good the intention at the outset, this seems an entirely predictable (and often repeated) result.
I think it's great to be a Christian in business and try to live out your faith, but I think it's trouble to try to be a "Christian business" and use it as part of your advertising/PR.
I think it's great to be a Christian in business and try to live out your faith, but I think it's trouble to try to be a "Christian business" and use it as part of your advertising/PR.
[deleted]
Yes, according to the Bible, God clearly wants his followers to be closeted.
If I recall, they made these purchases in 2010. So just AQ linked Iraqi warlords (who you could probably bet on having joined ISIS).
Ironically, if these artifacts were from northern Iraq, where ISIS has had its main destructive presence, there's a good chance they would have been destroyed.
Still, gross to see a "Christian" company wanting to get items from the 'holy land' that have been totally plundered to build a bible museum.
Ironically, if these artifacts were from northern Iraq, where ISIS has had its main destructive presence, there's a good chance they would have been destroyed.
Still, gross to see a "Christian" company wanting to get items from the 'holy land' that have been totally plundered to build a bible museum.
Except that many of the artifacts that ISIS "destroys" are in fact sold: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/islamic-sta...
I agree but I think this a more recent development. Specifically as ISIS has been driven out of a number of oil fields in the North of Iraq and lost that oil as a source of funding.
I think the "idolatry smashing" propaganda videos are more selective now as ISIS needs to rely more on the sales of those artifacts for funding due the loss of the oil.
I think the "idolatry smashing" propaganda videos are more selective now as ISIS needs to rely more on the sales of those artifacts for funding due the loss of the oil.
> Ironically, if these artifacts were from northern Iraq, where ISIS has had its main destructive presence, there's a good chance they would have been destroyed.
It's largely understood that ISIS destroys archaeological sites so it's harder to notice that they've looted the artefacts to sell them. It also makes the artefacts harder to track and link to their POI.
It's largely understood that ISIS destroys archaeological sites so it's harder to notice that they've looted the artefacts to sell them. It also makes the artefacts harder to track and link to their POI.
See also The Museum of Lost Objects which talks about some of the artifacts that have been destroyed.
Here's one about Abu al-Alaa al-Maarri.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35745962
Here's one about Abu al-Alaa al-Maarri.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35745962
> They've (almost certainly)
Is that true? More importantly, is there evidence that makes it more likely than not that (1) this is true; and (2) that Hobby Lobby knew about it, or was willfully blind about it?
Like, what percentage of unprovenanced antiquities sales are used to support terrorism? It's like saying buying drugs (or diamonds, or products containing certain metals) finances terrorism. Yeah, some does. But the percentage is not such that it would be reasonable to try and pin someone who bought a back of weed as being responsible for funding terrorism.
Is that true? More importantly, is there evidence that makes it more likely than not that (1) this is true; and (2) that Hobby Lobby knew about it, or was willfully blind about it?
Like, what percentage of unprovenanced antiquities sales are used to support terrorism? It's like saying buying drugs (or diamonds, or products containing certain metals) finances terrorism. Yeah, some does. But the percentage is not such that it would be reasonable to try and pin someone who bought a back of weed as being responsible for funding terrorism.
That's a good point.
One could make a decent argument that by paying taxes in some places you have funded 'terrorism'. Unfortunately terrorism is a word that is polarising and is generally shouted hysterical such that it's devoid of meaning and you can't really use it helpfully.
These are great questions that need to be answered. Nearly all the rest of the comments in this thread are think veiled vitriol for Hobby Lobby and Christianity. I expect more of the HN community.
Thanks for trying to improve the level of discourse here.
Thanks for trying to improve the level of discourse here.
Any percentage above 0 makes it true.
That makes no sense. Say 10% of unprovenanced sales go to funding terrorism. In that case, it's vastly more likely than not that any given sale does not go to fund terrorism. Moreover, you're not willfully blind as to the risk of funding terrorism if you do buy unprovenanced articles, because statistically speaking it's probably not funding terrorism. Willful blindness doesn't just require ignoring a risk, but an unacceptably high risk.
To me this seems tantamount to funding terrorists and yet no one will spend even 1 hour in jail. From a purely practical perspective, why doesn't the government pursue prison for individuals involved in this?
The highest levels of the government now are good buddies with people just like this. I'm surprised they aren't just being let off scot-free to keep their artifacts.
If you think the law has anything to do with justice I've got a bridge to nowhere for sale ...
That's how the "justice" system works in America.
Giant crime by a party with a lot of money? DOJ will just slap you with a relatively small fine.
Bag of weed? You're going to jail, buddy!
Giant crime by a party with a lot of money? DOJ will just slap you with a relatively small fine.
Bag of weed? You're going to jail, buddy!
The difference is that in drug cases, there is almost always overwhelming proof that someone committed a crime. Nobody has a kilo of cocaine shoved down their waistband and doesn't know about it. In a case like this, maybe it's a "giant crime," or maybe it's just a customs violation. Unless you have proof of the entity's state of mind, it's impossible to tell the difference.
The overwhelming majority of cases never go to trial. Too often the accused can't afford to make bail, can't afford to be stuck in jail for potentially years while they wait for trial, can't afford competent legal counsel, and end up pleading guilty to whatever crime they're accused of whether they're guilty or not. The types of appeals that you mention in your other comment are not representative of the bread and butter of the US criminal legal system, which is plea bargains.
You can't just accept a plea deal where the prosecution has no evidence. Plea deals must be approved by judges, and involve a colloquy with the defendant and a showing by the prosecutor of the evidence that the government would be prepared to put forward to establish guilt at trial.
And plea cases come up on appeal all the time (and in fact are probably the typical criminal appeal). A plea bargain agreement generally precludes appeal of the conviction, but does not preclude appeal of the sentence (because the judge, not the prosecutor, decides the sentence).
I have lots of friends who are public defenders. Almost everyone they work with is guilty (much of the work is hammering out plea deals that ensure that they're convicted of the correct things). Same thing for people who work with Innocence Projects, where filtering out all the requests for aid from guilty people is a big part of the work. If the issue were just not sending large numbers of innocent people to prison we would have fixed it. What makes criminal justice so challenging is the constant fight to protect the rights of the innocent within a system where the overwhelming majority of the accused are not just guilty, but obviously so.
And plea cases come up on appeal all the time (and in fact are probably the typical criminal appeal). A plea bargain agreement generally precludes appeal of the conviction, but does not preclude appeal of the sentence (because the judge, not the prosecutor, decides the sentence).
I have lots of friends who are public defenders. Almost everyone they work with is guilty (much of the work is hammering out plea deals that ensure that they're convicted of the correct things). Same thing for people who work with Innocence Projects, where filtering out all the requests for aid from guilty people is a big part of the work. If the issue were just not sending large numbers of innocent people to prison we would have fixed it. What makes criminal justice so challenging is the constant fight to protect the rights of the innocent within a system where the overwhelming majority of the accused are not just guilty, but obviously so.
"Intent to distribute" charges get slapped on people an awful lot without much hard proof.
because the law has defined "intent to distribute" purely by the amount of drugs you have. They don't have to actually prove intention to distribution.
Really it should just be called "possession of a lot of drugs."
The reason the laws were changed was that it was tough to convict someone if you had to actually show they intended to sell.
Really it should just be called "possession of a lot of drugs."
The reason the laws were changed was that it was tough to convict someone if you had to actually show they intended to sell.
If you think officers need a shred of proof to arrest somebody and judges need a shred of proof to convict, i've got a bridge to nowhere for sale ...
the us criminal system is a machine run for profit, not for justice, simply because SOME of the convicts are murderers is simply correlation
the us criminal system is a machine run for profit, not for justice, simply because SOME of the convicts are murderers is simply correlation
I have a lot of criticism for the U.S. criminal justice system, but I've also got first-hand experience with it and I think your assertion is inaccurate. As a judge's clerk I saw the files of numerous criminal convictions on appeal. I can't think of a single one where there wasn't overwhelming evidence to support the conviction.
The felon caught with a gun in his car, or the drug dealer who tried to sell drugs to an undercover cop, or the guy who was arrested after beating his wife bloody. That's the bread and butter of the justice system. You can argue that two of those three things shouldn't be crimes (and I agree--but at least half the country doesn't) but the idea that people are routinely convicted without evidence is a myth.
The felon caught with a gun in his car, or the drug dealer who tried to sell drugs to an undercover cop, or the guy who was arrested after beating his wife bloody. That's the bread and butter of the justice system. You can argue that two of those three things shouldn't be crimes (and I agree--but at least half the country doesn't) but the idea that people are routinely convicted without evidence is a myth.
So when someone from HL inevitably is jailed over this, will you admit that you and your outlook are wrong?
I'm not OP, but I do share OPs views the about disparity in laws themselves for white-collar crimes on the order of $3M and drug possession of $ values 100,000 less.
If there is a criminal prosecution, that would certainly affect my outlook for the better, and I would gladly admit that I was wrong to the degree that I was! I really hope that you're correct on the "inevitably," but I'm also extremely doubtful.
That said, I'm not sure that we have the full picture here. With somebody as political as Hobby Lobby's management, and as politically viewed as they are, there's probably an entirely different side to the story that never makes it out.
If there is a criminal prosecution, that would certainly affect my outlook for the better, and I would gladly admit that I was wrong to the degree that I was! I really hope that you're correct on the "inevitably," but I'm also extremely doubtful.
That said, I'm not sure that we have the full picture here. With somebody as political as Hobby Lobby's management, and as politically viewed as they are, there's probably an entirely different side to the story that never makes it out.
"inevitably"? Is there a criminal case pending? I can't find any reference to one.
And my outlook is not wrong. There are two justice systems in America - one for the fairly-to-very wealthy and one for everyone else. I used to be a law clerk to a federal judge (no longer a lawyer). My outlook is unfortunately accurate.
And my outlook is not wrong. There are two justice systems in America - one for the fairly-to-very wealthy and one for everyone else. I used to be a law clerk to a federal judge (no longer a lawyer). My outlook is unfortunately accurate.
Per Hobby Lobby statement: https://newsroom.hobbylobby.com/articles/artifact-import-set...
"At no time did Hobby Lobby ever purchase items from dealers in Iraq or from anyone who indicated that they acquired items from that country."
lol. Don't ask don't tell, amirite?
It's funny to see HL running through the motions defending themselves on this one. Surely nobody there is stupid enough to think that we actually buy their excuses.
lol. Don't ask don't tell, amirite?
It's funny to see HL running through the motions defending themselves on this one. Surely nobody there is stupid enough to think that we actually buy their excuses.
So in your mind it's just flat-out impossible that the decision-makers here didn't fully grasp the complexities of the arena they were entering into?
The linked article says that the most we know for sure is that "an expert on cultural property law retained by Hobby Lobby" warned the company of some things and the company ignored those things. It doesn't say who heard the warning, who called the final shots, or what their motives were.
Do you know something these we don't? Perhaps you read a source that I didn't here.
The linked article says that the most we know for sure is that "an expert on cultural property law retained by Hobby Lobby" warned the company of some things and the company ignored those things. It doesn't say who heard the warning, who called the final shots, or what their motives were.
Do you know something these we don't? Perhaps you read a source that I didn't here.
Are you that dense? That gullible to believe the PR from big company XYZ who had just gotten caught illegally smuggling artifacts from a warn-torn region of the world?
Did you not read the part of the article
"The acquisition of the Artifacts was fraught with red flags. For example, Hobby Lobby received conflicting information where the Artifacts had been stored prior to the inspection in the UAE. Further, when the Artifacts were presented for inspection to Hobby Lobby’s president and consultant in July 2010, they were displayed informally. In addition, Hobby Lobby representatives had not met or communicated with the dealer who purportedly owned the Artifacts, nor did they pay him for the Artifacts. Rather, following instructions from another dealer, Hobby Lobby wired payment for the Artifacts to seven personal bank accounts held in the names of other individuals."
HOBBY LOBBY WIRED PAYMENT FOR THE ARTIFACTS TO SEVEN PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNTS
LOL. THIS MUST BE HOW THE BIG BOY COLLECTORS DO IT HUH? Just hit up the western union and transfer some cash to a few different bank accounts.... of course. Nothing funny going on.
And there's more
"All of the intercepted packages bore shipping labels that falsely declared that the Artifacts’ country of origin was Turkey."
Did you not read the part of the article
"The acquisition of the Artifacts was fraught with red flags. For example, Hobby Lobby received conflicting information where the Artifacts had been stored prior to the inspection in the UAE. Further, when the Artifacts were presented for inspection to Hobby Lobby’s president and consultant in July 2010, they were displayed informally. In addition, Hobby Lobby representatives had not met or communicated with the dealer who purportedly owned the Artifacts, nor did they pay him for the Artifacts. Rather, following instructions from another dealer, Hobby Lobby wired payment for the Artifacts to seven personal bank accounts held in the names of other individuals."
HOBBY LOBBY WIRED PAYMENT FOR THE ARTIFACTS TO SEVEN PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNTS
LOL. THIS MUST BE HOW THE BIG BOY COLLECTORS DO IT HUH? Just hit up the western union and transfer some cash to a few different bank accounts.... of course. Nothing funny going on.
And there's more
"All of the intercepted packages bore shipping labels that falsely declared that the Artifacts’ country of origin was Turkey."
Talking about gullibility when it comes to religion is disingenuous.
Being realistic instead of assuming the legal scrutiny level of a judge, the burden of proof is on them here IMO.
When you spend millions of dollars on antiquities, you are at least casually interested in their provenance... Especially when you've hired an expert.
When you spend millions of dollars on antiquities, you are at least casually interested in their provenance... Especially when you've hired an expert.
Isn't that kind of the point of hiring an expert?
If you knew the provenance of an item, what it was worth, and how it was obtained, why waste money on hiring an expert?
If you knew the provenance of an item, what it was worth, and how it was obtained, why waste money on hiring an expert?
Logic in american political discourse is too big of an ask.
As long as there is a compelling narrative and complicit media, literally absolute bullshit can be accepted as valid discourse or even valid history.
As long as there is a compelling narrative and complicit media, literally absolute bullshit can be accepted as valid discourse or even valid history.
It's exhausting to see all these big corporations and individuals getting away with absolute insanity. Get caught, fight hard in court to get the prosecutors to agree to a settlement... then have the old PR team release some garbage for the plebs to read.
"Oh so sorry, we just didn't know. First time collectors, you see."
"Oh so sorry, we just didn't know. First time collectors, you see."
It's not about people buying their excuses. They don't expect you to. They don't care.
It's about giving talking points to "defenders".
It's about giving talking points to "defenders".
Information can be a liability too. Sometimes you shouldn't ask.
I had a summer job at Hobby Lobby roughly a decade ago. The founder has an autobiography for sale by all the registers that we used to hate-read in the breakroom over our depressing, windowless lunch breaks. Our favorite bit was the part where he justified not having bar code scanners on the registers by saying that employees take more pride in their work (like sticking price stickers on 1000's of items) when they do it by hand.
Buy priceless artefacts from warzones and funding terror groups who steal them!
Hey Hobby Lobby, you should also build a conflict diamond collection. If you want to take a chance you could also get into human trafficking or organ smuggling.
Hey Hobby Lobby, you should also build a conflict diamond collection. If you want to take a chance you could also get into human trafficking or organ smuggling.
"Man's gotta have a hobby."
Is it just me, or does Hobby Lobby seem to go out of their way to remind their customers that their values aren't the same as the customers? Seriously, they should go out of business.
> Is it just me, or does Hobby Lobby seem to go out of their way to remind their customers that their values aren't the same as the customers? Seriously, they should go out of business.
It's probably just you (or more precisely, those like you).
It's quite possible that your values are not typical of their customers, or their customers don't care about the values of the owners of the craft store they patronize.
It's probably just you (or more precisely, those like you).
It's quite possible that your values are not typical of their customers, or their customers don't care about the values of the owners of the craft store they patronize.
True enough, but I always got the impression their customers would skew liberal. But that might be my liberal assumptions about who does craft projects showing through. :)
Oh, no. Hobby Lobby's customers are typically conservative suburban Christians. Liberals with any political awareness at all would know very well of their contraception case at the SCOTUS, and go to Michael's instead. There's no shortage of middle-class evangelical Christians in suburban areas who are perfectly happy to patronize Hobby Lobby and support their political efforts.
I'd say the vast majority of their customers are just people who want crafting supplies and it happens to be the nearest big box store for them. I think a relatively small fraction of the population is as politically aware as you suggest.
The one opportunity I had to go in this store was safely avoided by going to a Michael instead. specifically because I refuse to give them a cent.
it is extremely difficult to avoid stores/businesses owned by religious groups.
I recently avoided purchasing an item from Yakima due to the coming across the following [0]. In reality businesses like Marriott Hotels and Chic Filet irritate me and I avoid when I can (business uses Marriot for work)
if there was a list of athiest or agnostic owned businesses I would likely spend more money at these locations than any others.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcapita#Compliance_with_Shari...
it is extremely difficult to avoid stores/businesses owned by religious groups.
I recently avoided purchasing an item from Yakima due to the coming across the following [0]. In reality businesses like Marriott Hotels and Chic Filet irritate me and I avoid when I can (business uses Marriot for work)
if there was a list of athiest or agnostic owned businesses I would likely spend more money at these locations than any others.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcapita#Compliance_with_Shari...
>I recently avoided purchasing an item from Yakima
Luckily, there's a lot of other options there, depending on exactly what product you're looking at. Thule is a very big competitor here, plus there's lots of other smaller name-brands too.
But I agree, someone should compile a list of religious-owned companies to avoid, and a list of atheist/agnostic owned companies to choose instead.
However, I do have to ask what your beef with Marriott is. I looked through their Wikipedia page and couldn't find anything about them being religious, except for a mention that they include a copy of the Book of Mormon along with the Bible in each room, but that could be just a PR thing (pretty much every hotel in the US has a Bible in each room after all, and they aren't all religious, they're just catering to America's population). The company itself is publicly traded, unlike privately-held Hobby Lobby.
The ones that irritate me are ChicFilA and In-and-Out Burger, as they're both overtly Christian.
This BTW shows why it's a good idea to, in general, avoid buying from American companies and instead buy from Japanese or western European ones. Japanese ones are probably easily the safest bets, since Japan has an extremely non-religious society, and the Abrahamic religions in particular have almost no representation there. And Japanese companies aren't in bed with Middle Eastern ones.
Luckily, there's a lot of other options there, depending on exactly what product you're looking at. Thule is a very big competitor here, plus there's lots of other smaller name-brands too.
But I agree, someone should compile a list of religious-owned companies to avoid, and a list of atheist/agnostic owned companies to choose instead.
However, I do have to ask what your beef with Marriott is. I looked through their Wikipedia page and couldn't find anything about them being religious, except for a mention that they include a copy of the Book of Mormon along with the Bible in each room, but that could be just a PR thing (pretty much every hotel in the US has a Bible in each room after all, and they aren't all religious, they're just catering to America's population). The company itself is publicly traded, unlike privately-held Hobby Lobby.
The ones that irritate me are ChicFilA and In-and-Out Burger, as they're both overtly Christian.
This BTW shows why it's a good idea to, in general, avoid buying from American companies and instead buy from Japanese or western European ones. Japanese ones are probably easily the safest bets, since Japan has an extremely non-religious society, and the Abrahamic religions in particular have almost no representation there. And Japanese companies aren't in bed with Middle Eastern ones.
Have to admit, I really don't care if a firm abides by Sharia business laws. They're not compelling anyone else to do it and they're not taking rights away from their employees.
Maybe those people need to be made aware that Hobby Lobby did this. And that it could have contributed to the rise of ISIS.
No one in the US has contributed more the rise of ISIS than Democrats.
The current situation in northern Iraq is exactly what was predicted would happen if the US withdrew before the Iraqi government was stable enough. In response, Democrats said that the anti-government AQ forces were "freedom fighters" and said that what happened there was "none of our business."
This is the "peace" Democrats wanted.
The current situation in northern Iraq is exactly what was predicted would happen if the US withdrew before the Iraqi government was stable enough. In response, Democrats said that the anti-government AQ forces were "freedom fighters" and said that what happened there was "none of our business."
This is the "peace" Democrats wanted.
> No one in the US has contributed more the rise of ISIS than Democrats
The invasion of Iraq and the bungling of early phases of the occupation are the main reason AQI, as such, existed and began the process by which it metastasized into ISIS.
While some Democrats do near some responsibility for that as enablers, they weren't the ones directing the relevant policies.
The invasion of Iraq and the bungling of early phases of the occupation are the main reason AQI, as such, existed and began the process by which it metastasized into ISIS.
While some Democrats do near some responsibility for that as enablers, they weren't the ones directing the relevant policies.
You are taking way too short a view of this. Perhaps invading was the wrong decision. Or was not taking Saddam down earlier in war 1.0 the wrong decision. Or was funding Saddam for years the wrong path?
The current situation is a culmination of (at a minimum) decades of failure by many countries.
How is your extremely biased, partisan attack relevant to the point that Hobby Lobby illegally bought these relics, which quite likely helped fund ISIS?
I'm curious what responsibility you lay at the feet of Republicans who invaded and destabilized Iraq for manufactured reasons?
Their customers are obviously perfectly happy to patronize them regardless of this.
Source?
https://www.forbes.com/companies/hobby-lobby-stores/
Not definitive proof of anything, as they could be losing money, but that's a big enough number to suggest that plenty of people don't know, don't care, or know but don't care about their extracurricular activities.
Not definitive proof of anything, as they could be losing money, but that's a big enough number to suggest that plenty of people don't know, don't care, or know but don't care about their extracurricular activities.
Does anyone know what the purpose of the purchase was? Hobby Lobby isn't a place people would go to buy things like this. So, I'm assuming it was something unrelated to their main line of business.
The owners of Hobby Lobby are building a museum of the bible in Washington DC. via http://www.npr.org/2017/07/06/535823149/hobby-lobby-agrees-t...
Well... I don't know what I expected.
Here's some background:
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/5-things-to-know-ab...
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/5-things-to-know-ab...
Ahh, okay. The Hobby Lobby owner is also a founder and board member for "Museum of the Bible". https://www.museumofthebible.org/board-members
Amazing, I don't see any outrage from conservatives on funding ISIS by Hobby Lobby. There are some even defending Hobby Lobby because according to them Hobby Lobby saved important artifacts from destruction.
The Republicans have proven repeatedly that they put party over everything else. It doesn't matter. If Ben & Jerry's did this "send them to Gitmo!" If Hobby Lobby does it? They're good Christians; they can do no wrong...
I think a lot of people on here are "fishing for a hypocrisy story" as one commentor said.
What's the point in that? what if you're right,is it a surprise that hypocrisy exists? it only speaks to the character of the individual(s) not the quality or correctness of their belief. A person did something criminal. period. what point is there to be made with respect to their religion? Did they claim their religion mandated the importation of the artifcats or the ignorance of the laws involved? or is the expectation here that people of certail beliefs or moral values are incapable of committing crimes?
Regardless, I hope the people making this about religion also hold other corporations who commit crimes to the same standard and associate their beliefs or religion with their crimes.
I for myself won't correlate an unrelated moral or ethical stand someone is making to a separate crime they've committed. Would you call a theif a hypocrite because he said he was against murder? or the same accusation to a murderer because he was against rape?
Come on... leave some room to reason.
What's the point in that? what if you're right,is it a surprise that hypocrisy exists? it only speaks to the character of the individual(s) not the quality or correctness of their belief. A person did something criminal. period. what point is there to be made with respect to their religion? Did they claim their religion mandated the importation of the artifcats or the ignorance of the laws involved? or is the expectation here that people of certail beliefs or moral values are incapable of committing crimes?
Regardless, I hope the people making this about religion also hold other corporations who commit crimes to the same standard and associate their beliefs or religion with their crimes.
I for myself won't correlate an unrelated moral or ethical stand someone is making to a separate crime they've committed. Would you call a theif a hypocrite because he said he was against murder? or the same accusation to a murderer because he was against rape?
Come on... leave some room to reason.
>"I think a lot of people on here are "fishing for a hypocrisy story"
There's no need to fish. See my comments above, they Green's were well briefed on this before they started their collection. They were briefed by a well-known legal authority. Honestly you sound like a shill.
>"Regardless, I hope the people making this about religion also hold other corporations who commit crimes to the same standard and associate their beliefs or religion with their crimes.
Why wouldn't they?
>"Come on... leave some room to reason." Except that none of the actions or claims by the Hobby Lobby stand up to reason, which is why they lost in court.
There's no need to fish. See my comments above, they Green's were well briefed on this before they started their collection. They were briefed by a well-known legal authority. Honestly you sound like a shill.
>"Regardless, I hope the people making this about religion also hold other corporations who commit crimes to the same standard and associate their beliefs or religion with their crimes.
Why wouldn't they?
>"Come on... leave some room to reason." Except that none of the actions or claims by the Hobby Lobby stand up to reason, which is why they lost in court.
Nein, the story is about a crime, why fish or something else?
> Why wouldn't they? Because it happens all the time and nobody says "Oh, <insert corp> are atheists,that's why they're so bad, hypocrits!" maybe that's just because their beliefs has no moral standards at all.
>"Come on... leave some room to reason." Except that none of the actions or claims by the Hobby Lobby stand up to reason, which is why they lost in court.
I wasn't defending hobby lobby, "reason" in that context means accusing someone of a different crime when the evidence/context is for a present crime. You're calling a thief a hypocrite because he said he doesn't approve of murder. that is unreasonable.
> Why wouldn't they? Because it happens all the time and nobody says "Oh, <insert corp> are atheists,that's why they're so bad, hypocrits!" maybe that's just because their beliefs has no moral standards at all.
>"Come on... leave some room to reason." Except that none of the actions or claims by the Hobby Lobby stand up to reason, which is why they lost in court.
I wasn't defending hobby lobby, "reason" in that context means accusing someone of a different crime when the evidence/context is for a present crime. You're calling a thief a hypocrite because he said he doesn't approve of murder. that is unreasonable.
Anyone else reminded of Snow Crash by this?
Honestly no. Which part?
The themes of Snow Crash include anarcho-corporatism, psychological hacking, and virtual reality. Which of those involves ancient artifacts, smuggling, and Christian craft stores?
The themes of Snow Crash include anarcho-corporatism, psychological hacking, and virtual reality. Which of those involves ancient artifacts, smuggling, and Christian craft stores?
>In Snow Crash, a sinister industrialist has obtained and translated ancient nam-shubs and is using them to wreak linguistic havoc in the modern world. [1]
>Yes. These practical Kabbalists used a so-called 'archangelic alphabet', derived from first-century Greek and Aramaic theurgic alphabets, which resembled cuneiform. The Kabbalists referred to the alphabet as 'eye-writing,' because the letters were composed of lines and small circles, which resembled eyes. [2]
1. http://deoxy.org/aleph/nam-shub.htm
2. http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/impact/f93/students/tracy/tracy_m...
>Yes. These practical Kabbalists used a so-called 'archangelic alphabet', derived from first-century Greek and Aramaic theurgic alphabets, which resembled cuneiform. The Kabbalists referred to the alphabet as 'eye-writing,' because the letters were composed of lines and small circles, which resembled eyes. [2]
1. http://deoxy.org/aleph/nam-shub.htm
2. http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/impact/f93/students/tracy/tracy_m...
L. Bob Rife used an Evangelical Christian church as a cover for his plan to spread the mind-virus that he developed from the information in ancient Sumerian tablets.
Bingo, I was mainly thinking of a large christian organization acquiring ancient artifacts from the middle east.
The big bad organization wasn't Christian though. They just acted like they were.
[deleted]
Snow Crash also features the Tower of Babel, Sumerian language, and Eurasian refugees.
I can see the connection... it's fairly vague though.
I can see the connection... it's fairly vague though.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Remember when a Fox News cameraman was busted for doing the same thing?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/23/sprj.nilaw.antiquities/
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/23/sprj.nilaw.antiquities/
I've been taking it as a given that 2017 would just basically be Snow Crash, and even I didn't see "Evangelical fundamentalists secretly acquiring ancient cuneiform tablets" coming.
Edit: disregard.
Title is bad. There's a civil suit attempting to take the artifacts, but the government hasn't won yet.
Title is bad. There's a civil suit attempting to take the artifacts, but the government hasn't won yet.
From the article:
"The government also filed a stipulation of settlement with Hobby Lobby, in which Hobby Lobby consented to the forfeiture of the artifacts in the complaint, approximately 144 cylinder seals and an additional sum of $3 million, resolving the civil action."
Whoops, never mind.
Real lovely group of humans over there at Hobby Lobby.
If you read the indictment, you'll see that it is very clear that it was not a straightforward or honest mistake.
Here's just one small tip, of many: If you're buying antiquities from a war-torn region, and the seller tells you to instead wire the money to eight different people, none of whom is him, it's possible that this transaction is not on the up and up.
Oh, and a second tip: if you're legally exporting things you think you bought lawfully, don't disguise them as something else.
But yeah... I get it, you're not really interested in the truth of the matter. You're just trying to pretend that you're smart or some crap like that.
Here's just one small tip, of many: If you're buying antiquities from a war-torn region, and the seller tells you to instead wire the money to eight different people, none of whom is him, it's possible that this transaction is not on the up and up.
Oh, and a second tip: if you're legally exporting things you think you bought lawfully, don't disguise them as something else.
But yeah... I get it, you're not really interested in the truth of the matter. You're just trying to pretend that you're smart or some crap like that.
It looks like you've created several accounts to post this kind of personal attack today. Would you please not do that here?
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14719496 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14719496 and marked it off-topic.
> you're not really interested in the truth of the matter
This is factually incorrect (though perhaps difficult to prove). I am interested in the truth of the matter.
If you are so quickly and incorrectly judging my motives, perhaps it's possible that you are doing the same to the people in this article as well?
Do you think this article is on the front page of a bunch of news sites if it's a boring B2B with a boring CEO who bought the same stuff in the same way for her personal collection? I feel pretty confident that if President Obama was buying these (he wouldn't, but let me make the point), the arguments would be the same but the people arguing them would be reversed.
And that's my prevailing interest in commenting today. This is the forum where people will give Uber and Tesla every benefit of the doubt, so it was disappointing to click into the comments and see a mostly one-sided pile-on.
This is factually incorrect (though perhaps difficult to prove). I am interested in the truth of the matter.
If you are so quickly and incorrectly judging my motives, perhaps it's possible that you are doing the same to the people in this article as well?
Do you think this article is on the front page of a bunch of news sites if it's a boring B2B with a boring CEO who bought the same stuff in the same way for her personal collection? I feel pretty confident that if President Obama was buying these (he wouldn't, but let me make the point), the arguments would be the same but the people arguing them would be reversed.
And that's my prevailing interest in commenting today. This is the forum where people will give Uber and Tesla every benefit of the doubt, so it was disappointing to click into the comments and see a mostly one-sided pile-on.
Tired of these tribalism arguments from the right. This is not a nuanced position like taxes. The left would not defend Obama if he tried to support terrorist groups by smuggling in stolen artifacts.
Don't be silly. Only poor, dark-skinned people get convicted of inadvertently supporting terrorism. Good White Christians make honest mistakes.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14719484 and marked it off-topic.
I know. I'm wondering if I'm white and rich enough to avoid consequences for having "giving money to terrorist organizations" in my browser history.
How quickly The Troubles and the IRA are forgotten.
I haven't. Donating money to the IRA used to be very fashionable in Boston bars throughout the 80s and 90s (According to my Northern Irish Protestant family). I also remember when a Hollywood actor also publicly donated to the IRA as well.
Forgotten? There are groups who reject the ceasefire to this day.
tomswartz07(1)
gorkonsine(3)
When they start getting their hands on harleys and nukes from the orthos, call me. Happy to lend a hand.
Ever since Drumpf was elected ignorance is now permissible as a total excuse from the law
This was in 2010 - so according to you that makes it President Obama's fault.
But the settlement occurred in 2017, so according to the calendar it's back to being President Trump's fault.
That's not how time works.
There are cases where simply donating money intended for orphan to the wrong type of Islamic organization has led to jail time.
What more giving millions to buy black market artifacts from ISIS!
I'll try to dig up a link about the charitable donation.
Edit: Supreme Court ruling on providing support to organizations designated as terrorist organizations.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-court-idUSTRE...
This is a better article about the same case:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/21/high-court-u...
ACLUs commentary on Chilling Muslim charitable giving in the "war on terrorism funding"
https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/humanrights/blockingfaith.pd...
And here we go, this is the case I recall. Two "normal" women tried and convicted of providing terrorist support. The government made the case that, despite the intended charity to orphans, the women should have known they were funding a terrorist organization's larger efforts. The Hobby Lobby guys need to be held to the same standards as these (likely poor) women.
http://www.startribune.com/two-rochester-women-get-10-20-yea...