The widow of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl has filed a formal appeal with the federal September Eleventh victims’ fund after being denied compensation for her husband’s killing.
Mariane Pearl believes her family qualifies for compensation under the fund because Daniel Pearl, like the victims of the September 11th, 2001 attacks, had been a U.S. citizen targeted by Islamic extremists.
I’m having trouble pinpointing a reason for this action. Is she trying to make a statement that the 9/11 fund should be open to all American victims of acts of terror, or just victims directly relating to 9/11? Is it just for victims of al Qaeda attacks, or victims of Islamic extremists? Or is this just a case of just wanting money?
Can anyone articulate a good reason of why we should give ANY money to ANY victims in these circumstances? I mean, its not like we compensated the victims of past wars or other terrorists, using public (federal) money. I suppose there have been some state and local compensation payments over our history but the big Federal payout for 9/11 is unique IMO. And I don’t really see why the public should be paying this, when we don’t pay other war/disaster/terrorist victims.
The entire idea for the fund was so that family wouldn’t launch crippling lawsuits against the airline industry and the government. At least, that’s what I’ve read. So no, it’s supposed to be a one-time thing, only for victims directly affected by 9/11.
That’s hard to say. It never sat too well with me that 9/11 victims and their survivors were compensated while other victims of terror (like Oklahoma City) weren’t. Actually, considering the fact that the only reason that the fund was put together to stave off the slew of valid wrongful death lawsuits that the airlines were going to get hit with, I’d go as far as to say it downright bothers me.
Angers me too. I don’t support corporate welfare, and throwing money around to protect the airlines certainly qualifies. As for Pearle’s widow, could she be any more grasping? Pathetic.
Without reading anything that she has said that might give a clue to her motives, I don’t know if I’d be willing to say she’s simply going after the money. I know that if I lost my spouse in a terrorist attack, I’d be more than I little bitter about the special treatment that some victims were getting and you’d be damned sure that I’d be making as much noise as possible through any means possible.
Submitting an application to the 9/11 fund was actually pretty smart from that perspective. If she gets shot down it gains media attention and brings the issue of why the fund only exists for some victims back into the spotlight. If the application is accepted then it’d cause uproar with other victims and would bring the same issue back into the spotlight.
Maybe this was the whole point:
However, her application “does raise the fundamental question as to why 9-11 _ and not other terrorist attacks or other acts of terror both at home or abroad _ is covered,” [Kenneth Feinberg, special master of the 9-11 fund] said. “I think Congress will address at some point whether the 9-11 compensation fund should be a precedent for future compensation or whether it is a unique response to a unique historical event.” (emphasis theirs)
I don’t want to say I think she is trying to get her hands on some money, but it was reported in the article (or a similar one) that her husband was earning over $100,000 per year. If she were trying to sustain the kind of living one would presume a family with that sort of income would have, yeah, I’d imagine she’d be in a financial struggle.
I agree, its entirely possible that was the point behind it. That’s why I brought this up for discussion, in the hopes that someone far smarter than myself would be able to find something insightful into the topic. :)
The discussion about the fund itself is interesting, as well. Isn’t the 9/11 fund made entirely of donations (be they from corporations or private citizens)? I’m almost certain there was a similar fund set up after the Oklahoma City Bombing.
I don’t think so. According to the law that sets up the fund: “This title constitutes budget authority in advance of appropriations Acts and represents the obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the payment of amounts for compensation under this title.” The law does have a provision for accepting private donations, though.
There were some private funds set up but what the government paid out after Oklahoma City was mostly employee death benefits.
I’d say it’s a bad thing both because it is our tax dollars that are paying for the airlines mistakes and because it is our tax dollars giving the some victims of terror attacks special treatment.
The fund really benefits the airlines, to keep them from all taking a massive financial hit from the victims’ families suing. On top of the massive dropoff in airline passengers following 9/11 the lawsuit liability could have driven these companies completely out of business. This isn’t a bad thing in my book.
I’m conflicted on this. I think it’s unduly harsh to say “Well, the airlines are at fault.” Nobody really anticipated this kind of attack. It seems unfair to hold the airlines responsible for not having better security screening or reinforced cockpit doors or whatever. Before 9/11, nobody thought that stuff was at all necessary.
Theoretically, that means the airlines shouldn’t lose the lawsuits even if people bring them, so there’s no need for protection. But we all know that in the real world, defending those suits is enormously costly and juries are a total crapshoot–they can easily ignore the law when there’s a weeping widow on the stand and nobody on the other side but a bunch of corporate lawyers and a big company. So I can see the argument that, just for this one singular anomalous event, it makes sense for the government to step in and shield an airline industry that is important to the country and its economy. I’m not saying I 100% agree, but I can definitely see the argument.
Of course, the other view is that fine, the airlines get sued and go bankrupt, and some new airline will take their place, probably with better insurance or better security procedures. I can see that view too, although especially during a time of crisis (particularly a crisis of confidence like what we had after 9/11), that’s bad for the country. And you could say “Okay, shield the airlines if you want to, but there’s still no reason to pay out cash to the victims. Just tell them too bad, it was an unforseeable tragedy, and they’re out of luck and should have had life insurance.” I can see that view, too.
In part, yes. Airlines were well aware of how vulnerable the cockpits were and didn’t do anything about it because they decided it would be too expensive.
My Google skills are failing me but there was a report commissioned by the State Department in the 1997-1999 timeframe that described 9/11 almost to a tee. It warned that airliners could be used as weapons by being flown into large buildings and such attacks would be probably staggered by a half an hour so the subsequent attacks would be seen on TV. I’ll keep digging. Anyone else hear about this one?
I don’t want to say I think she is trying to get her hands on some money, but it was reported in the article (or a similar one) that her husband was earning over $100,000 per year. If she were trying to sustain the kind of living one would presume a family with that sort of income would have, yeah, I’d imagine she’d be in a financial struggle.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter if he was making 100k or 10k, the only sure thing in this situation is that life style is going to change for survivors. The standard of living is going to drop. That guy was, what, 40ish? He was just getting into his big earning years. Doesn’t really matter that he was already doing well, he was going to do much better over the next 20 years. That’s all gone now. Hopefully they had enough insurance to secure the house. The only big difference between losing a 100k earner or 10k earner at that point, is that the 100k guy most likely has more insurance.
I heard about a report like that but don’t take this as a confirmation since I’m too lazy to pour through a Google search.
This same type of thing was also part of the climax to a Tom Clancy novel. Granted, the details aren’t exactly the same about how to take over the plane, but the results were pretty much the same. I don’t think the idea of using a plane as a weapon should be considered a stretch before 9/11. I think after some time had passed, I began to wonder why someone hadn’t done something like that sooner.
Also, plane hijackings aren’t uncommon, and I think poor security for the cockpit was part of the problem with those as well.
She’s now a single mom, probably employable given her background, but with additional childcare cost. She’s trying to do what’s right for her kid.
:roll:[/quote]
Yes, grasping. Her husband went to Pakistan/Afghanistan after 9/11. He knew there were risks. Any reporter deployed to a conflict zone knows there are risks. It’s part of the job. The smart ones insure themselves (I have no idea whether Pearl was insured or not) against possible tragedy. Anyone who feels the risks are too great or who cannot afford enough insurance can cover a different beat or find another job.
I don’t want to say I think she is trying to get her hands on some money, but it was reported in the article (or a similar one) that her husband was earning over $100,000 per year. If she were trying to sustain the kind of living one would presume a family with that sort of income would have, yeah, I’d imagine she’d be in a financial struggle.[/quote]
Doesn’t matter if he was making 100k or 10k, the only sure thing in this situation is that life style is going to change for survivors. The standard of living is going to drop. That guy was, what, 40ish? He was just getting into his big earning years. Doesn’t really matter that he was already doing well, he was going to do much better over the next 20 years. That’s all gone now. Hopefully they had enough insurance to secure the house. The only big difference between losing a 100k earner or 10k earner at that point, is that the 100k guy most likely has more insurance.[/quote]
All true, but reporters die in conflict zones almost every year. When it happens, there’s generally a little blurb on the news about it, the main anchor expresses the news org’s condolences, and it’s never mentioned again. For Pearl’s widow to claim that her husband’s death is somehow more deserving of governmental compensation than that of every other reporter who’s died while covering a story is ridiculous.
Wasn’t there a special on the history and creation of the WTC on eithe The Learning Channel or Discovery Channel, that featured an interview with the head of security from his office high in the towers speaking his concerns about threats to them including a plane intentionally being flown into them?
