Reporter's Widow Is Making Her Case for a 9/11 Payment

[kskiska]

It is a 22-page application, typed in boldface and completed in a just-the-facts fashion like thousands of others processed by the federal fund compensating relatives of those killed on Sept. 11. The victim was 38, in the prime of his life, and employed by a Wall Street corporation. His wife was pregnant. His death was horrific.

What makes claim No. 212-005347 different, however, is the fact that it was filed on behalf of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was kidnapped in Pakistan, then beheaded by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, once Al Qaeda's top operational commander and the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 hijackings.

Three weeks ago, the administrator for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, Kenneth R. Feinberg, while expressing deep sympathy, rejected the claim filed by Mr. Pearl's widow, Mariane, because it lay outside the bounds of the Congressional statute governing the fund. So now, Ms. Pearl and her legal advisers have filed a formal appeal, and are asking Congress to consider drafting a new law that would grant eligibility to her and her son, Adam, who is almost 2. An award from the fund would likely mean a tax-free payment of close to $2 million.

In making the claim, Ms. Pearl and her Manhattan lawyer, Robert S. Kelner, are essentially trying to publicly test the true intent of the fund. As they frame it, was the fund created as an act of unparalleled compassion that was meant to apply to all American families who were devastated by the war of terror waged by Al Qaeda? Or was it a politically expedient program, for instance, intended to bail out the airline industry by shielding it from potentially ruinous litigation?

more…
http://nytimes.com/2004/03/30/nyregion/30PEAR.html?hp

[FlashHarry]

1. Explain to me why 9/11 victims get government compensation?

At least of that high a figure? Does the widow of a soldier killed in Iraq (or in a stateside "training accident," for that matter) get $2M tax-free? How about a firefighter killed in action? What about the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing? I'm not trying to be crass or facetious here. I'm just curious as to why 9/11--devastating though it was, and is--rates this sort of compensation. Flame me, if you will.

Also, I remember hearing that acceptance of government compensation for 9/11 meant that you waived your right to sue the airlines. Is this true?

[aquart]

3. 9/11 victims get compensation because

The airlines were negligent.

Or the government was negligent.

Or they both were negligent.

Planes are NOT supposed to fly into buildings. It is reasonable to expect the airline to prevent such a usage.

They didn't. Four planes. Four. Piece of bloody cake.

The compensation is lawsuit insurance. Remember the thing they have to sign to get the money: Swear to god I will not sue?

They aren't being compensated because they're victims. They're being compensated because they're the victims of jet planes.

Daniel Pearl was not killed by a jet plane.

[GainesT1958]

2. He was a victim every bit as much...

As those victims were on Sept. 11, 2001. The difference is, he may have been killed not by al Quaeda operatives, but by ISI operatives with ties to the CIA. If the Repub leadership in Congress takes the lead in rejecting her appeal, count on this angle of Danny Pearl's story to have more than a simple ring of truth to it!:mad:

B-)

[keopeli]

4. OK. There must be some clarification. We can not give money out

to everyone who is the survivor of a victim of a war crime or an attack. Sep 11 was an attack. The souls lost are casualties of a war that was being ignored.

It is important to know that it was not the soul of congress that gave this money to help these survivors. It was a very practical way of creating a settlement long before the matter became an issue. The Sep 11 fund from the government is a settlement between the government, which was being mis-managed, and the survivors of the attack. This is because it would be very easy to attribute blame to negligence on the part of the US government. Imagine how Clarke's revelations would sound in a court room as the survivors sue the US Government. See?

Now what we all have to understand is that Congress and the White House were able to figure this out within just a few days of the actual event and come up with this solution. We are just now finding out about reality because we are not privy to reality when it is happening.

So, for Pearl's widow, there should be no compensation from a settlement for the negligence of 9-11 as long as her husband's death was not caused by the attack itself.

Pearl's widow is clearly concerned about her own finances, as well she should be. I empathize with her position. But the US can not give our $$$ to survivors of victims of acts of war. If you consider the posibility of a much larger attack even remotely, it is easier to understand why this policy could never work. It points toward the ambiguity of the use of 9-11 for leverage. Expect this sort of behavior to increase.

As a final point of emphasis, I believe the Fed Sep 11 money is a settlement for all intents and purposes, and should be treated as such. Whether this Fund should ever have been established is a matter for future consideration. Though Pearl's widow should not be eligible, if she really wants to pursue justice, she should consider aligning herself with some of the Sep 11 survivors who did not accept the settlement and are 'considering other options.'

Keo