Coin dealers' lobbyists in America may claim that the Greek arrests of culture criminals are a "diversion", nevertheless over here in Europe there are attempts to capture and punish those involved in criminal dealings in antiquities such as smugglers. In America such things are pretty rare (Cultural Heritage Lawyer Rick St. Hilaire,'Focusing on Cultural Heritage Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions', March 5, 2012): Those who follow cultural property cases closely are aware that Homeland Security generally implements a seize and send policy with regard to cultural artifacts. While the agency boasts in its latest press statement and elsewhere that “[s]ince 2007, HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] has returned more than 2,500 artifacts to 23 countries …”it is silent about successful cultural property prosecutions. Such prosecutions are rare.As St Hilaire notes, the ICE's website characterises the HSI "Cultural Property, Art and Antiquities Investigations Program" merely as: “Returning a nation’s looted cultural heritage or stolen artwork", the aim of which is that it "promotes goodwill with foreign governments and citizens, while significantly protecting the world’s cultural heritage and knowledge of past civilizations”. The whole emphasis of the US authorities here is on sending cultural objects to home countries, rather than developing cases for criminal prosecution. The political motives are all too transparent, by sending stuff back to victim nations, the USA plays the benign culturally-sensitive Uncle Sam, but by preventing the cases being dragged through the courts every time a culture crime is detected an attempt is being made to hide the scale in which US citizens are involved in such culture-crimes, which would not be so good for the image of the nation. St Hilaire suggests that:
Whatever issue prevents ICE from doing its job to investigate and prepare cases for presentation to a federal grand jury and subsequent criminal prosecution must be resolved. [...] ICE has talented investigators. But more must be done to bring the talents of these federal agents to the next level so that their cases serve to provide a meaningful deterrent to archaeological smuggling. Investigators must be permitted to conclude their cases by submitting them to receptive US Attorneys for review and possible indictment. Cases concluded through seizure, forfeiture, and repatriation alone do not have a similar impact on criminal activity.It seems though that the US has a very selective approach to penalising culture crime of all types.
There is a link here to a video of a fourteen year old girl being tasered in Allentown, Pennsylvania when she objected to being arrested for walking in the middle of the road. I could link to another recent one of Officer Davis in Mesquite, TX pepper-spraying a squirrel which came too close (but I will not, as it is profoundly disturbing). Now let ICE show us the video of an antiquities smuggler being tasered in the US for resisting arrest.
Vignette: Enforcing a bit of culture on American streets.
.jpg)
7 comments:
Perhaps you will also print my comment to St Hilaire's blog which he has not yet seen fit to publish:
"You might also note that much, if not most, of the material seized and returned is abandoned by the importer. You assume it is because it is looted; in actuality it may very well be because the litigation costs of fighting CBP greatly exceed the value of the artifact. As for the lack of prosecutions, that likely has to do with the fact that the Government cannot show criminal intent. Thankfully, that is still required despite efforts of archaeological fanatics to diminish this bedrock protection of American law."
Frankly, though St. Hilaire may pitch himself as some sort of legal analyst, it's a bit of false advertising as he's really just another archaeo-blogger like yourself.
1) "the litigation costs of fighting CBP greatly exceed the value of the artifact"
Well, initially we are not talking of any "costs" beyond the importer going along to the customs office when called in to give an account of the package that is queried (NOT yet confiscated). Of course the question may well fall about the "intent" of the importer caught with dodgy goods. (Is THAT not the reason why the importer decides discretion is the better part of valour and does not turn up?)
2) Perhaps there should be some form of insurance policy for antiquity dealers to cover costs of any court cases which in te end are thrown out by the Judge Waddoupses of the US legal system. Maybe the ACCG could negotiate one with an insurance company?
3) "Criminal intent". Oh I do love it when you lot insist on playing the wide-eyed innocent victims of the callousness and cynicism of other people.
If the collectors of the US do not know right from wrong, then perhaps it would be good for a so-called Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild to get their legal experts to set it down in black and white for them.
When is buying stolen and unlawfully exported coins right, and when is it wrong? Please.
Where is the boundary between criminal intent and criminal negligence?
4) "Frankly, though St. Hilaire may pitch himself as some sort of legal analyst, it's a bit of false advertising as he's really just another archaeo-blogger like yourself."
So, not all bad then?
I think there is a very clear difference between the quality of writing, line of argument and intellectual honesty of Rick St Hilaire and certain other US lawyers claiming expertise in the field of international heritage protection. He is civil, thorough, fair and does not see a conspiracy around every corner.
So, what you are saying is this:
http://www.culturalheritagelawyer.com/Contact-Us.html
... is all lies then?
That would be a shame, as it seems to me from what I have seen that his is legal advice I would recommend, he really gives me the impression that he knows very much what he is talking about. Some lawyers from other US firms I have come across in my readings around the subject do not create such an impression of solidity.
Looks like your preferred counsel is so unwilling to acknowledge other views that he has taken down the option to comment and has taken down a link to my blog, but left a link to your blog on this subject.
I repost my link here:
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2012/03/half-truths-from-self-styled-cultural.html
Talk about half-truths!
What a jolly good job we have your "Cultural property Observer" to serve as the only real source of true and balanced information, setting the wide range of issues in their wider context. When is it going to start fulfilling that promise?
I note St Hilaire's blog does not feature in the list of 'other blogs on these issues' in the left margin of your own - neither does mine.
St. Hilaire's website is one of the most measured and thorough on the subject of legal issues concerning cultural property. I enjoy very much reading what he has to write. I typically find little in the way of 'judgment' there.
While I hate to see the ability to comment taken away, I fully understand the (probable) reason behind his choice to do so. Clearly you have a vociferous group of individuals out there who can do little to support their precarious position with evidence and instead to choose to make snide comments, innuendo, or launch personal attacks. I too have had to reject comments from such people.
I trust he will not lose heart and keep up the excellent work.
Spoken by the individual who wrote an absolutely disgraceful article personally attacking the founders of an organization that uses ancient coins to teach kids about ancient history? And on a blog mostly known for its obnoxious posts? You must be kidding.
I have read Professor Elkins' article in a peer-reviewed journal (I read it before you did if you remember). I saw there, and see, no personal attack, nor anything that would justify the adjective "disgraceful". In my opinion, the ACE is an American disgrace disguised as "education" (whatever that means over the other side of the sea). Those who support ACE in its current form should be ashamed of themselves.
I see no reason why ACE cannot be discussed whether or not US dealers and their LOBBYISTS consider such open discussion an "obnoxious" idea.
Nobody is forcing you to visit a resource which you consider "obnoxious". Not even the PNG.
As Professor Elkins observed:
"Clearly you have a vociferous group of individuals out there who can do little to support their precarious position with evidence and instead to choose to make snide comments, innuendo, or launch personal attacks".
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Post a Comment