talkpolitics | There MUST be someone to hold accountable

tniassaint.livejournal.com posting in

Kenneth Feingold was on the radio this morning and was discussing his role in several mass settlement deals where victims of various events attempted to receive compensation through large funds set aside for that purpose. Honestly, Feingold is one of those people who are so easy to dislike; but he executed his responsibilities with a certain level of logic that at least sounds fairly sound. In listening to the interview on this subject that I was aware of but not well versed in I become curious of a point that was not discussed regarding the 9-11 Victims Compensation Fund.

I don't know anyone that would say that the 9-11 event would represent anything but a tragedy... at least no one that was not a friend of the organization that conducted the attacks. Soon after the attacks the Congress passed a law that allowed the families of the victims of the 9-11 attacks to collect monetary funds in compensation for the loss of their loved ones in lieu of filing suit against the airlines, who were also victims of the attacks. Let's understand that no amount of money can provide any real compensation for the losses of that day. What I am trying to understand is the legal and logical precedence that would make this an issue at all. Logically, the defendant of such a lawsuit would be, should be, the perpetrator of the criminal act that caused the deaths in the first place. Of course, the idea that the leadership of Al Qaeda could be compelled to make any sorts of payments on any sort of court award. Even seizing the assets of those that have any would probably be next to impossible. Any lawsuits would have had a negative impact on the airlines that were already in poor shape; but were not logical as they were clearly victims as well. There was an effort to claim that airline security was lax and that made them liable; but the logic is still unsound that one would blame the victim. When someone walks into a bank and shoots up the place, we do not sue the bank for having poor security. One could argue that the bank doesn't have a responsibility to search the patrons as they arrive, and that this demonstrates a level of culpability on the part of the airlines. There are ideas that the airlines were not maintaining security levels up to the minimum level required by the FAA and the security levels of that time. This is all hindsight and unreasonable. Nothing like this had ever been attempted before and the idea of something was out of the general psyche of the airlines and FAA. Sure, it had been discussed as a remote possibility, and there had even been warnings in the intelligence community that had largely been ignored (even by their own) at the time that something like this might happen - but the attacks were, at that time, so far beyond the realm of rational thought that no one was really prepared for such a thing. We all should also know that even with the "enhanced" security of post 9-11 air travel, various persons have been able to transport weapons and dummy weapons onto airliners. the weapons that were used in the 9-11 attacks were not prohibited, as I recall; and there is a question as to if they would have been seen anyway. About 90+ lawsuits were filed outside the fund and the average settlement was around $5 million or more; but again, what is the logic that would allow these cases to go forward and are they logically and legally sound? That they were awarded implies that they were sound; but is it possible that the awards were made due to emotional sympathies and have little to do with the legal soundness of the cases? Didn't this amount to nothing more than a preemption to avoid a stereotypical American knee jerk reaction that "someone HAS to pay and someone HAS to be at fault" and that the someone just HAD to be someone that could actually be held responsible even if said person was not the logical or even actual perpetrator?

Before I get flamed as just being insensitive, yes I do believe that ill was brought against these people and that those who brought this ill upon them do deserve whatever happens to them and any awards that could be served against them. I just don't believe that the fault is being placed in the right place, and that the awards would never be collected from the ones who should be paying for it. If anything the Taliban, as those in control of the Afghan government that protected Al-Qaeda - or even the various leadership of Al-Qaeda themselves should be the plaintiffs? Doesn't the fund, in essence, make me, and all US tax payers, responsible parties?

What is the logic of the Federal Government providing money for this fund; and what is the logic of protecting the airlines from what appears to be illogical lawsuits?

Mood: sick
Music: Badly Drawn Boy - Everbody's Stalking

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

lilenth.livejournal.com

The logic is to cover the expenses and to ease the suffering of families who lost someone, losing a family member is not only a huge emotional blow, it can cost a lot and sometimes it costs people their homes or jobs due to the aftermath.

That's the point of compensation schemes for these sorts of things.

From:

tniassaint.livejournal.com

OK - so who is to be held responsible for the compensation, and what is the logic of this instance - that is the actual question. I don't deny the case for ease of suffering, emotional blow (several states limit emotional compensation, btw) and etc.

This doesn't explain the logic of this instance. The prevention of the filings against the airline and airline security was cited as a specific cause for the law in the first place. How is this logical or even legal?

From:

underlankers.livejournal.com

It's logical in the sense that failure to realize Al-Qaeda was planning a major attack would logically fall to the CIA or US intelligence/military as opposed to the airliners the hijackers hijacked. Had the survivors sued the Bush Administration's intelligence apparatus that would have been an issue as explosive as a grain elevator surrounded by fine dust and high-octane fuel spilled from leaky tractor engines.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods.

There MUST be someone to hold accountable - rehashing the 9-11 Victim Fund

Credits & Style Info

Links

Summary