Results 1 to 7 of 7
12-20-07, 07:51 AM #1Phantom BlooperGuest Free Member
Lawmaker: Issue Stamp to honor Beirut fallen
Lawmaker: Issue stamp to honor Beirut fallen
Posted : Wednesday Dec 19, 2007 17:47:44 EST
JACKSONVILLE, N.C. — For more than two decades, survivors and families of those who served in Lebanon have asked the U.S. Postal Service to issue a stamp commemorating the Beirut peacekeeping mission.
Now, they’re getting congressional backing.
Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introduced a resolution Tuesday expressing the opinion of the House that a commemorative stamp should be issued to remember the victims and honor the veterans of the mission, according to a press release.
More than 241 Marines, sailors and soldiers were killed Oct. 23, 1983, when a terrorist drove a bomb-laden truck into their barracks. A total of 273 servicemen died during the peacekeeping mission from 1982 to 1984.
“Since the tragic events of September 11th, Americans have joined in solidarity to defend the ideals upon which our nation was founded, and to combat the evils of terrorism,” Jones said in the release. “We must not forget that the soldiers who lost their lives in Beirut were some of our first victims of terror. These soldiers went to restore peace in a war-torn nation. A commemorative stamp in their honor would not just further mourn their loss, but would celebrate peace in the American spirit that was embodied in the mission of these fallen heroes.”
Most of those killed in the attack were Camp Lejeune, N.C.-based Marines. Each year, a memorial service is held in Jacksonville, N.C., at the Beirut Memorial, which contains the names of those killed during the peacekeeping mission.
“Families and friends in 36 states across the U.S. lost loved ones in and around Beirut in 1983,” Jones said. “There is scant justification for failing to seize the opportunity to recognize those who have given so much for our country.”
12-20-07, 11:56 AM #2Phantom BlooperGuest Free Member
12-20-07, 01:50 PM #3
08-14-09, 11:12 PM #4
"Never Forget?", you bet!
I admit I earlier agreed to shut up & go away, but reading this post makes that commitment impossible. So Moderator, I'll understand if you jerk this reply.
I wont forget a drug store cowboy former rear echelon Army Captain President sent the troops in, they were unprepared, poorly lead and attacked, and nothing was done.
Creating a stamp in the troops remembrance is worthless.
President Reagan did respond, he looked around and found somebody he might safely beat up on (deal with, as is said), Grenada.
There's no American I see on the national scene that demonstrates any Warrior capability or intentions.
So I don't see any revengeful response to this disgrace, ever, just a lot of cheap talk.
All the Americans on the National level are well dressed, 100# +/- overweight and are always pictured with their mouths open and the camera angle from about knee elevation. They're all insignificant individuals parading around in huge airplanes, trying to make some more money. (fill their sacks).
Phantom, I read your bio and see you were there at the time, so you got to know more about this than I do.
Maybe I'm reading the wrong books, just finished W.E.B. Griffin's The Hunters. This story details exactly how to identify, locate and render harmless bad guys. I recommend this book and methods & hope I live to see the day when 1 more male American Warrior comes along, although I doubt it.
I don't support the H.Res. bill. Gary Hall
01-19-10, 09:02 AM #5
Adding insult to infamy
26 years after attack on Marine barracks in Beirut, families stymied again in bid for restitution
Christine Devlin displayed a photo of her son Michael, who was killed in a 1983 terrorist bombing in Beirut. Below, US Marines pulled survivors from the rubble. (John Tlumacki/ Globe Staff)
By Bryan Bender
Globe Staff / November 14, 2009
- – +
On Veterans Day, Christine Devlin stood in the cold in Westwood for the unveiling of a new memorial to local soldiers lost overseas, including her son Michael, one of the 241 servicemen killed in the bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983.
Discuss COMMENTS (69)
Devlin is among 30 Massachusetts relatives of victims of the Beirut attack who have been fighting for more than a decade to get compensation for what many consider the first major terrorist attack against the United States. After a federal judge ruled in 2007 that Iran was liable for $2.65 billion in damages to be shared by 150 families seeking restitution, they believed they were on the cusp of victory.
But now, the Obama administration is going to court to try to block payments from Iranian assets that the families’ lawyers want seized, contending that it would jeopardize sensitive negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a potentially damaging precedent.
In a little-noticed filing in federal court, the Justice Department is arguing that giving the money to the victims “can have significant, detrimental impact on our foreign relations, as well as the reciprocal treatment of the United States and its extensive overseas property holdings.’’
The Obama administration’s position is a blow to those like Devlin, who is still waiting for some measure of justice for her son, who was 21 when Hezbollah terrorists rammed a suicide truck bomb into the peacekeepers’ headquarters.
“It is offensive that our government - the government that [the Marines] were fighting for, who sent them there - are against us collecting from Iran,’’ Devlin said in an interview this week. “I felt justice was going to be served, but so far it hasn’t.’’
“We can’t go on with our lives,’’ said Marlys Lemnah, 62, of St. Albans, Vt., whose husband, Richard, a Marine sergeant nearing his 20-year retirement, was killed in Beirut. “It’s not about the money. We need something tangible: responsibility and accountability. We will fight until we have no more fight left.’’
The lawsuit, specialists say, also demonstrates the enormous difficulty for terrorism victims in general to collect damages. Despite a host of court rulings in its favor and legislation passed by Congress to make it possible to sue foreign governments that sponsor terrorism, the executive branch has long resisted such payments, arguing that seizing the assets of another country could restrict the president’s ability to conduct diplomacy. There are also significant legal disagreements over what kind of assets can be seized.
“Two branches are supporting [the families’] position and the executive branch is directly trying to undermine them,’’ said David J. Strachman, a Providence lawyer who has represented numerous families in terrorism cases involving Iran, but is not involved in this case.
Even the courts have grown frustrated. Royce C. Lamberth, chief judge of the US District Court in Washington who ruled in favor of the Beirut families, wrote in a Sept. 30 opinion that “these case have consumed substantial judicial resources while achieving few tangible results for the victims.’’
Over the years, Iran, which since 1984 has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the US government, has been found liable for nearly $10 billion in damages for attacks on Americans attributed to the Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian terror groups including Hamas and Islamic Jihad that the United States says are financed and trained by Iran.
But in only a few cases have any Iranian funds been seized as compensation for the victims or their families - most notably from Iranian funds held by the US government before the two countries severed diplomatic relations in 1979.
Lawyers representing the Beirut families first went to court seeking damages in 2001, after Congress passed a law giving US courts jurisdiction over such lawsuits against nations that sponsor international terrorism.
Building the case took four years of depositions from victims’ relatives, US government officials, and even a former Hezbollah member, amounting to 30,000 pages of testimony, according to Thomas F. Fay, one of the lawyers representing the families.
The families’ first victory came in 2003 when the US District Court in Washington found that Iran’s Ministry of Information and Security helped plan and facilitate the Oct. 23, 1983, attack. Then, two years ago, the same court ruled the Iranian government was liable for the $2.65 billion in damages.
The families’ legal advisers and the Obama administration - like the Bush administration before it - disagree on how many Iranian assets could be legally seized in the case.
The Treasury Department estimates there is only $45 million in seizable Iranian assets in the United States and has argued in court that some of the property that the families’ lawyers have sought is outside the United States and cannot be legally seized.
“The total amount of judgments against terrorist states for exceeds the assets of debtor states known to exist within the jurisdiction of US courts,’’ an analysis published by the Congressional Research Service, which advises lawmakers, concluded last year.
But Fay maintains that he has identified as much as $2 billion worth of seizable Iranian assets, including securities held in a vault in New York that he said a senior US official has testified under oath is owned by Iran. Another source of funds he previously identified is an office tower in Manhattan, estimated to be worth $1 billion, that was among properties seized Thursday by federal prosecutors who assert they are owned by a foundation that is a front for the Iranian government.
“It is clear from the seizures of Iranian assets in New York and elsewhere that the government of Iran does indeed have significant tangible financial holdings in the United States,’’ Fay said yesterday.
Still, a deeper disagreement revolves around the possible consequences of seizing the assets of a foreign state and handing them over to victims of terrorism.
Fay and other lawyers who have represented terrorism victims assert that doing so would strengthen the government’s leverage with nations like Iran because there would be a clear price to pay for supporting terrorism.
The Justice Department declined to comment further on the administration’s position, but as the congressional analysis stated, “The issue has pitted the compensation of victims of terrorism against US foreign policy goals and some business interests
05-03-13, 05:55 PM #6
Gary, I can certainly understand your frustration, but the bill isn't about who sent them, it's about those who did their duty. Who obeyed orders and made the supreme sacrifice. Was it a good mission? I can't answer that question, but I can say without a doubt, that the Marines and Sailors who died there have earned an honored place in my heart. - Doug RP2, Lebanon, April 1983
05-05-13, 05:57 AM #7MongooseGuest Free Member
Gary Hall, when you commented they were unprepared, poorly led, and attacked.....you could have been talking about any conflict or war, we were ever involved in. Your post shows a lack of character.....something common with those who don't get it!
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)