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
(
Read more... )
Comments 116
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.
Reply
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?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I think you have missed the point of the question. I am not questioning that the responders and those who were employed or volunteered as responders should be properly compensated. I am suggesting that the with regards to the victims that the legal and moral fault is being placed on the wrong shoulders - and that it has been done because the real perpetrators are unapproachable and we, as a society, are litigious and feel that someone HAS to be held accountable - and why not the ones with the deepest pockets. I am asking why the airlines, the building management, etc. are the responsible parties and why they are the ones that required legal protection by way of this fund established by Congress.
Reply
Ah. If that's what you were saying then yes, I agree with what you said. I think where the fault would have laid were this to actually be legally charted would be with both the Clinton and Bush leaders of the CIA and other intelligence agencies who after the first terrorist attack on the Twin Towers did not realize when a second one aimed at them and the Pentagon and at least one other place was in the offing in sufficient time to nip it in the bud.
Reply
How do you nip a plane flying into a building in the bud?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
You say we cannot plunder, but the concept of holding the airlines or the federal government (and therefore the tax payers) responsible is plunder just as well.
Why not allow a court to hold the Al-Qaeda and Taliban legally responsible as the actual perpetrator and facilitator. If the government can garnish wages when legal responsibility is determined why not in a case like this?
Reply
Legally, I am not sure what, if any compensation go to individuals killed or harmed during an act of war.
Were any civilians killed during Pearl Harbor compensated by the Japanese? By the US?
Were the Japanese civilians given compensation after Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the civilian internment camps?
How about the businesses renting in the Twin Towers? Are they due compensation for loss of business? Or is it just the people?
People bravely volunteered to help clean up the mess of the aftermath, knowing there HAD to be nasty stuff floating around (first clue to me there was a problem, was the EPA insistence the air was peachy clean). They volunteered. Now they want compensation?
I kind of agreeing with the OP; where do you draw the line on compensatory damage, leaning to morally or legally motivations?
Reply
Reply
Reply
I have seen nothing that established the Constitutionality of the fund under those terms. Can you provide that? (Not being snippy, I 'd really like to see something like that.)
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment