Victim/Military compensation

outside looking in

outside looking in

<b>Registered Member</b>
OK, I'll say this up front... this subject will probably be controversial and somewhat "taboo," and Rush has had a few words to say about it. If either of those is a warning sign to you that perhaps you shouldn't read further, then please don't.


Right, so the families of victims of 9/11 are suing for compensation - to the tune of $1.85 million per victim. One court has already made a judgement in favor of some plantiffs, it's only a matter of enforcing payment.

Families of killed military personell receive, what, less than $8000 up front and around $1000 per month afterwards?

Where's the beef? I know it is expected that politicians are to be corrupt and lawyers to be evil, but c'mon.
 
I'm gonna go ahead and say it's not right...

I was angered when some families here in Ontario were battling with the Treasurer here, saying that they should get a deferral on the income/whatever taxes...because of the deaths. How many people die every year in tragic circumstances? None of them get special treatment from any gov't...I simply don't see this as being different. :eh:
 
neither do i but i guess cause it was televised and all but i dont see why they should when people die in car accidents, natural causes, and drugs and so many other things. and its always tragic when someone dies. but cashing in on someones death is just wrong
 
The victims compensation fund turned out to be almost a joke...ok, not funny, but ya'll know what I mean. Each family started out potentially receiving a decent amount, but after all the deductions it was just pathetic.

I don't think it's right that the victims receive compensation while military personnel doesn't...but I kinda think this money will never materialize.....:shrug:
 
This comment might not be quite welcomed, but i think they deserve the compensation.

Here's why: how many millions or billions of budget does the military has?, it seems that all those millions aren't paying for good protection after all. How come 2 airplanes went totally out of course without being noticed by all the military intelligence and radars?

They deserve the compensation for practically wasting their taxes money.
 
Luis G said:
This comment might not be quite welcomed, but i think they deserve the compensation.

Here's why: how many millions or billions of budget does the military has?, it seems that all those millions aren't paying for good protection after all. How come 2 airplanes went totally out of course without being noticed by all the military intelligence and radars?

They deserve the compensation for practically wasting their taxes money.
Click to expand...
Are the families of military personnel any less entitled to reparations for "wasted tax money?"

Are the families of every Iraqi civilian killed by our military forces entitled to reparations from the US? All the civilians in Japan and Europe from WWI/II? All the families of every civilian or military person killed by any US action?

It's a difficult subject, because it's hard to draw the line.
 
Those in the military know what their job is and the risks involved.

And yes to the 3 questions in your 2nd paragraph.
 
Luis G said:
Those in the military know what their job is and the risks involved.
Click to expand...

You know, on the surface that seems to make sense, but the more I think about it the more ridiculous it becomes. I often hear that reasoning... "but they agreed to take that risk."

Well, so what? Did the families sign waivers absolving everyone in the world of guilt for killing their loved ones? Is the death of the military person any less devastating to the familiy than the death of a civlian, either financially or emotionally? Are the same parties not ultimately responsible for all of these deaths?

Both civilians and military persons are at risk from terrorist attacks. Soldiers in Iraq died because of fake surrendering and and soldiers dressed in civilian clothing. How is that any different than an equivalent action on US soil? Well... I'll tell you the difference; if the soldier agreed to take that risk, that means his salary should be higher. Yet politicians are cutting budgets for military benefits, and if the democrats had their way your family would benefit more if you died from too much BurgerKing fat than if you died in the service of your country.

Is there any more honarable occupation than serving in the military? Should their benefits not be among the best in the country?

And perhaps some would like to make the distinction that you shouldn't be able to sue a government if they are legitimately at war with you, whereas terrorists aren't a legitimate operation. Does a country have to officially declare war then to be exempt from such lawsuits? Did the US declare war officially? What if it's just a presidential executive, like is typically the case in the US? What if it's a death by a sponsored government operation? What if the death is caused using government hardware? What if the government sponsored the action financially?

How do you propose to draw that line?

You know, in the end I think this comes down to the nature of entitlement and the right for compensation. People sue for getting fat at BurgerKing, losing money at casinos, being the descendant of slaves, and now I suppose being the family of someone killed by terrorists... so long as the victim didn't "agree" to take that risk.
 
Luis G said:
And yes to the 3 questions in your 2nd paragraph.
Click to expand...

All the families of every civilian or military person killed by any US action?
Click to expand...

If you agree with that, then shouldn't it work both ways? All the families of every US civilian or military person killed by foreign actions?
 
OSLI, it is cristal clear to me.

Those in the military know how much they'll earn and the indemnizations their family would receive if he ever dies in combat.

Should they get a higher indemnization?, hell yes.
Should they be paid better?, hell yes. (And i never said otherwise)

Still, that doesn't make it wrong to give better indemnization to civilians (since they didn't accept the risk and conditions), does it?
 
i'd have to say that military personel and their families should be well aware of the risks entailed of their being part of the military. that is not to say that their loss is any less to the families, but there should be some acceptance on the families part that the risk of being killed is more likely when driving a tank surrounded by flying metal than laying carpet.

the pay should perhaps recognise the risk more though.
 
I don't think any of them deserve compensation. The military people go in with both eyes wide open. They know the possibilities of war & their status as a soldier. Since more than 99% get discharged safely, except during active war time time, there is already a damned nice severance package waiting, It's the GI bill. Those who are KIA get burial benefits & their survivors are awarded just compensation.

The victims of 9/11 should get nothing from the government. It's not in the Constitution to compensate victims. Many/most had life insurance. The building may have had additional policies. If they want mo' money, have 'em sue Usama or AlQiada. Maybe the binLaden family or their construction company, just for having the same last name.

They were victims of a terrorist attack. Would they have been compensated if Uganda or Portugal or Cambodia was the attacker? Doubtfully. Since it wasn't (officially) state sponsored, there is a very bad precedent being set. What about the victims of OK City? Where's their money? It could go on forever. They have my deepest sympathies but they don't need our cash.

Speaking of suing for compensation...even a liberal judge saw the connection:
Judge rules 9/11 lawsuit can 'barely' apply to Iraq
05/08/03 Larry Neumeister Associated Press

New York - A federal judge yesterday awarded nearly $104 million in damages to the families of two victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, finding the plaintiffs had provided some evidence that Iraq provided support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

Judge Harold Baer outlined the damages against bin Laden, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government in a written decision in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Baer said he had concluded that lawyers for the two victims "have shown, albeit barely . . . that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida."
Click to expand...

Plain Dealer
 
Let me make a few points:

(1) Gonz - I don't think these lawsuits are seeking money from the US government. The legislation allows families of victims of terrorist attacks to sue the terrorists, and if there is any money paid to them it will somehow have to come from terrorists. They're trying to make a link between 9/11 and Iraq (and legally I think that's very sketchy), but even in that case any reparations would come from Iraqi money, not US taxpayer money. It might be funds that the US has seized, but it isn't taxpayer money. It might be funds needed to feed Iraqis or rebuild Iraq, but it isn't US taxpayer money. Just wanted to make sure that is clear.

(2) ris and Luis - a few words on how "waiver's" work. You can sign your name and waive your rights (to sue, or whatever else), but you can't sign your name and waive someone else's rights. For instance... I want to play roller hockey on the local college tennis courts. I can't because of the possibility that I might sue the college in the event that I become injured (stupid, I know, but people do just that). If I really wanted to play, I could suggest that I am willing to sign a waiver absolving the college of any liability in the event of injury. Won't fly. Why? Because I can't forfeit my family's rights in the event that I am injured (or killed, or whatever). So... a soldier knows what he is getting into. He agrees to sign up none-the-less. Does that waive his family's rights to pursue legal action if killed by a terrorist act? They should be afforded the same rights as the families of 9/11 victims. There is no difference, even if on the surface there appears to be.

(3) I'm not arguing that everyone should be able to sue for whatever they feel like (well, technically you can, but I mean have a legitimate chance at winning the suit). I'm just pointing out the huge disparity between settlements being made for civilians killed by terrorists, and soldiers killed by terrorist acts.

(4) At the heart of the issue is the legality of compensatory lawsuits in general. Can you sue a homeowner because you broke into their house and tripped on toys that were lying in the floor? Perhaps toys aren't commonly recognized as being dangerous... Can you sue a fast food restaraunt because they are selling fattening foods (and in a sense, dangerous foods)? Hmm, consumed in average quantities as part of a generally healthy diet they aren't usually dangerous... Can you sue gun manufacturers for making dangerous weapons that can kill innocent people? A little trickier; guns have legitimate uses and aren't always dangerous... Can you sue cigarette manufacturers for making cancer causing addiction sticks? Oh boy... used for their intended purpose, they are almost always dangerous.
And then you have criminal act compensation. You can sue the man who murdered your wife in cold blood. Can you sue the man who kills your husband as an act of war? Can you sue the crazy dictator that gave the orders?

Man, what a mess. Sorry I got into this. :lol:
 
outside looking in said:
I don't think these lawsuits are seeking money from the US government.
Click to expand...

There are several possibilities for compensation...the lawsuits are fine but here is what I'm referring to:

Posted on Fri, Aug. 30, 2002 JEFF JACOBY
Victims Compensation Fund sets a bad precedent

Last week the federal Victims Compensation Fund announced its first 25 awards to the families of those killed on Sept. 11. The amounts offered were not uniform, but after taking into account the mandatory deductions for life insurance policies and pensions, the average award came to $1.36 million.

That much income ordinarily would be taxable at the highest rate -- currently, 38.6 percent. Thanks to legislation passed in January, however, the victims' families will receive their awards tax-free. The same law also exempted Sept. 11 victims retroactively from income tax liability for 2000 and 2001. Any taxes they already paid will be refunded.
Click to expand...
Miami Herald

Look up "Federal Compensation Fund".
 
Is this going to spouses or children left without parents only? I know, I could look it up, but I don't feel like it. I think it's wrong if it isn't, and I think it's excessive if it is. 1.36 Million? :disgust2:
 
Surviving spouses & minor children only. No live-ins, to my knowledge. They started talking about this fund almost immediately after the attacks. It's BS.
 
Whoa, I think there may be two things going on here which I didn't realize were separate and different! :eek:

I had heard on NPR that legislation passed previously allowed survivors of victims of terrorist acts to sue the terrorists. I know there was a lawsuit brought against Iraq, and that at least one court had ruled in favor of the plantiffs. Later I saw figures stating over 1 million in compensation per 9/11 surviving family.

I didn't realize at all that there was also Federal money being provided to these families. And, it looks like that is what I had seen figures for, not the terrorist lawsuits.

That's even more fucked up. Families of civilians get more from the US than families of soldiers? Wait... it's just a nightmare, I'll wake up in a minute.





ouch.










oww!
















damnit.




















ouch....






















fuck. :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top