Daniel Pearl's widow, seeking compensation from the Sept 11 victims' fund - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

onetime2 · 03-30-2004, 08:21 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast....ap/index.html

Quote:

Daniel Pearl's widow denied money from 9/11 fund
Tuesday, March 30, 2004 Posted: 9:14 AM EST (1414 GMT)

Daniel Pearl's widow, Mariane, is seeking compensation from the September 11 victims' fund.

NEW YORK (AP) -- The widow of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl is seeking compensation from the September 11 victims' fund, saying her husband, like the victims of the attacks, was a U.S. citizen targeted by Islamic extremists.

Mariane Pearl has filed a formal appeal with the fund after initially being denied, The New York Times reported for a story in Tuesday editions.

"What's horribly, painfully obvious is that if Danny Pearl had come from any other country in the world, he'd be alive today," Mariane Pearl's lawyer, Robert Kelner, told the Times. "And because there is a 9-11 fund which is compensating people for the exact same kind of death, we feel that Danny should be included as a victim in the same class as other victims."

Kenneth Feinberg, special master of the fund, said he denied the application about three weeks ago because it did not meet the government's stipulation that victims had to have died in New York, Pennsylvania or Washington as a result of the September 11 attack.

"I'm very sympathetic to the inquiry, but the statute is the statute, and I do not have any discretion," Feinberg told the Times.

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," Feinberg 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."

Daniel Pearl was kidnapped January 23, 2002, in the Pakistan city of Karachi while working on a story, and was later killed. Four Islamic militants have been convicted in the kidnapping phase of the case, but seven other suspects -- including those who allegedly slit his throat while a video camera rolled -- remain at large.

Mariane Pearl told the Times she has struggled to support herself and her son Adam, 2, since her husband's death. Daniel Pearl made a salary of about $100,000 a year at the Journal, she said.

The compensation fund has so far paid out 1,800 awards averaging about $1.4 million each. Feinberg has estimated that $5 billion eventually would be paid from the fund.

Unbelieveable that she could think she's entitled to this. He knowingly put himself in a dangerous situation with thoughts of authoring a grand story and the rewards that go along with it, yet somehow he's as much of a victim as those killed on 9/11.

j8ear · 03-30-2004, 09:19 AM

What a greedy bitch.

My advice to Marianne:

Loose the lawyer who's making you less and less sympathetic and write a book you moron.

If this is some of your 'peoples' brilliant idea to keep your name in the media in order to sell a book which is soon to be published, I will no longer buy it.

/no longer gives a shit about her or her suffering.

-bear

Sparhawk · 03-30-2004, 11:31 AM

I've never really liked the idea of the victim's fund in the first place - if military members get killed while on active duty, all the next of kin is entitled to is an $8k death allowance, to pay for funeral expenses. If the guy doesn't have life insurance, guess what the family gets on top of that? The big donut. And like Ms. Pearl is demonstrating, other American victims of terrorism get similar short shrift.

I think it comes down to a fundamental sense of fairness. Tragic though 9/11 certainly was, why are their deaths more "valuable" than, say, someone's mom getting shot in the line, patrolling the streets of DC?

Ms Pearl is doing a service by pointing out this inequity, and I salute her in her struggle to support herself and her son fatherless.

j8ear · 03-30-2004, 11:47 AM

Small correction Sparhawk....I remember the SGLI (servicemens group life insurance) being 50k 15 years ago and also remember that being upped to 100k recently?

Opting out of it saves like 6 bucks a month or something. Peanuts and only the most foolish do so. Foolishness is not something that should be rewarded or supplemented by the Federal Government at tax payer expense.

Someone please correct any mistakes or inaccuracies I posted about the SGLI....it's been a while for me.

Inequity, huh? I don't see it. I can see if her husband was an Oklahoma city bomber victim, but this is plain ole media pandering and greed on the part of her and her 'people.'

Go after the WSJ if anything. Not the tax payers.

-bear

filtherton · 03-30-2004, 11:50 AM

I always thought the main point of the victims fund was to get people to agree not to sue the airline industry. That's one of the stipulations for recieving compensation. It's not like the government really cares about compensating victims of tragedy. Seriously, if we were really trying to compensate the families of every person who died a tragic senseless death we'd have to raise taxes like a mofo.
Since she has no case against the airline industry she won't get any of the money.

Sparhawk · 03-30-2004, 03:00 PM

It's 16.25 a month for 250k, but there is comparable life insurance rates available civilian-side - so they deserve an extra 1.4 mil on top of that?

And she may or may not have selfish motives - I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to the widow of a man who died a truly horrific death.

Lebell · 03-30-2004, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
I've never really liked the idea of the victim's fund in the first place

And that is of course the heart of the matter.

There should have been no victim's fund.

People die horribly every day.

Welcome to reality.

Boo · 03-30-2004, 11:48 PM

SGLI (VGLI for retirees) is now at 250K. It is not automatic or free.

splck · 03-31-2004, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
And that is of course the heart of the matter.

There should have been no victim's fund.

People die horribly every day.

Welcome to reality.

Agree 100%

matthew330 · 03-31-2004, 07:49 AM

Whether or not you agree with the Victims fund is beside the point. You can rest assured that this woman's motivation is not pointing out some sort of "inequity", and she doesn't deserve to be applauded for trying to capitalize on a fund set up that has nothing to do with the death of her husband. As the previous poster pointed out, he knowingly put himself in a dangerous situation. If this is your job you should have the forsight to make damn sure your family is taken care of in the event something happens to you.

If Richard Clarke's apology has any merit and you found any solace in it, then you are apparently of the mindset that the government did indeed "fail" us, and as such is responsible on some level for compensating those who were directly effected by their failure.

And out of curiousity, does anyone know how much of this fund is from private contributions?

onetime2 · 03-31-2004, 07:57 AM

Quote:

And out of curiousity, does anyone know how much of this fund is from private contributions? [/B]

My understanding is that the 9/11 victim's fund is a government funded project. The moneys donated by individuals went to other fund raisers such as the Red Cross, Firefighters & Police funds, etc.

It was designed to limit lawsuits against the government by declaring it a no-fault situation. It may extend to lawsuits against the airlines, the WTC, fire departments, etc. but I'm not sure.

03-30-2004, 09:19 AM	#2 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	What a greedy bitch. My advice to Marianne: Loose the lawyer who's making you less and less sympathetic and write a book you moron. If this is some of your 'peoples' brilliant idea to keep your name in the media in order to sell a book which is soon to be published, I will no longer buy it. /no longer gives a shit about her or her suffering. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

03-30-2004, 11:31 AM	#3 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	I've never really liked the idea of the victim's fund in the first place - if military members get killed while on active duty, all the next of kin is entitled to is an $8k death allowance, to pay for funeral expenses. If the guy doesn't have life insurance, guess what the family gets on top of that? The big donut. And like Ms. Pearl is demonstrating, other American victims of terrorism get similar short shrift. I think it comes down to a fundamental sense of fairness. Tragic though 9/11 certainly was, why are their deaths more "valuable" than, say, someone's mom getting shot in the line, patrolling the streets of DC? Ms Pearl is doing a service by pointing out this inequity, and I salute her in her struggle to support herself and her son fatherless. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

03-30-2004, 11:47 AM	#4 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Small correction Sparhawk....I remember the SGLI (servicemens group life insurance) being 50k 15 years ago and also remember that being upped to 100k recently? Opting out of it saves like 6 bucks a month or something. Peanuts and only the most foolish do so. Foolishness is not something that should be rewarded or supplemented by the Federal Government at tax payer expense. Someone please correct any mistakes or inaccuracies I posted about the SGLI....it's been a while for me. Inequity, huh? I don't see it. I can see if her husband was an Oklahoma city bomber victim, but this is plain ole media pandering and greed on the part of her and her 'people.' Go after the WSJ if anything. Not the tax payers. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

03-30-2004, 11:50 AM	#5 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I always thought the main point of the victims fund was to get people to agree not to sue the airline industry. That's one of the stipulations for recieving compensation. It's not like the government really cares about compensating victims of tragedy. Seriously, if we were really trying to compensate the families of every person who died a tragic senseless death we'd have to raise taxes like a mofo. Since she has no case against the airline industry she won't get any of the money. Last edited by filtherton; 03-30-2004 at 08:52 PM..

03-30-2004, 03:00 PM	#6 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	It's 16.25 a month for 250k, but there is comparable life insurance rates available civilian-side - so they deserve an extra 1.4 mil on top of that? And she may or may not have selfish motives - I choose to give the benefit of the doubt to the widow of a man who died a truly horrific death. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

03-30-2004, 11:48 PM	#8 (permalink)
Boo Leave me alone! Location: Alaska, USA	SGLI (VGLI for retirees) is now at 250K. It is not automatic or free. __________________ Back button again, I must be getting old.

03-31-2004, 07:49 AM	#10 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	Whether or not you agree with the Victims fund is beside the point. You can rest assured that this woman's motivation is not pointing out some sort of "inequity", and she doesn't deserve to be applauded for trying to capitalize on a fund set up that has nothing to do with the death of her husband. As the previous poster pointed out, he knowingly put himself in a dangerous situation. If this is your job you should have the forsight to make damn sure your family is taken care of in the event something happens to you. If Richard Clarke's apology has any merit and you found any solace in it, then you are apparently of the mindset that the government did indeed "fail" us, and as such is responsible on some level for compensating those who were directly effected by their failure. And out of curiousity, does anyone know how much of this fund is from private contributions?