The ‘Silent’ 9/11 Settlement
October 5th, 2007 by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist
Four of the comparatively few families who declined to participate in the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund have settled claims against the airline and other companies involved with American Airlines Flight 77, which was flown into the Pentagon.
The families assert that they opted for litigation to learn more about what went wrong.
Said Irene Golinski of Columbia, Maryland, whose husband, Ronald was aboard Flight 77 and one of 125 people to die at the Pentagon:
“I really didn’t go into it for the money, I went into it for the answers.”
The families, however, will be unable to share those answers because of a broad gag order that is part of the settlement, the financial terms of which also are confidential. It therefore is not known if the families received more than they would have from the compensation fund set up by Congress after the terror attacks.
Participants in the fund, administered by attorney Kenneth Feinberg, had to agree to not sue the airlines.
Feinberg was appointed by Attorney General John Ashcroft to be Special Master of the fund, who worked for 33 months pro bono.
In a Herculean task, Feinberg had to decide how much each family would receive based on how much each victim would have earned in a full lifetime. He personally presided over more than 900 of the 1,600 family hearings and eventually awarded a total of $7 billion to 97 percent of the families. The average payout was $1.8 million.
I’m with blogger Ed Morrissey in having problems with the hold-out families, who to put the most charitable face on their litigation saw their seemingly altruistic intentions undercut by their not being able to get paid if they talked.
Captain Ed writes that:
“This bothers me more than most settlements of this nature. The families who sued, who opted out of the VCF to do so, insisted that the money was not important to them. They wanted answers to how the failures occurred, and decided that their separate lawsuits could provide more answers than government investigations. Apparently they have somehow been satisfied as a result of that process — but can’t tell us why. They agreed to remain silent as a condition of the settlement.
“Why? If truth was that important to them, why do they now choose silence and a payoff instead of revealing the deficiencies of the system that led to the deaths of almost 3,000 people? Given their statement of mission, it makes it seem as though they either learned nothing more than what the official investigations revealed and took the money rather than admit it, or that they let the airlines off the hook for a substantial amount of cash.”
Some 13 other non-victims fund cases are still pending.
This entry was posted on Friday, October 5th, 2007 at 8:13 am and is filed under Legal Matters, 9/11. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:39 am
These families wanted to find out the ‘truth’… for their benefit and not on behalf of society as a whole and as such, they’re under no obligation to share what they learned with those standing on the sidelines and it is unfair and a cheap shot to infer that they sold out.
If you think you and society have a right to learn the truth, then bring a lawsuit yourself.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:35 am
I’ve got to agree with steve. I don’t recall them ever claiming they wanted to broadcast the truth, just learn it.
It’s impossible to know their motivations here. And I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Completely not bothered by this.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:10 am
The whole subject of the 9/11 victims has twidted and turned until it’s hard to sort it out in clear yes/no categories.
First, although there were many awe inspiring heroes on that awful day, somehow all the victims became heroes by virtue of their victimhood. We will all die one day. Will we all be heroes?
The families have also been given unprecedented powers to paritcipate in plans for the aftermath.
While I think it appropriate that they be given the opportunity to offer opinions and suggestions, one doesn’t become wiser merely by having a family member die. A sense of proportion between showing consideration and treating them like authorities was lost along the way. Some have shown themselves to be thoughtful and itnelligent guiding lights on all things to do with 9/11, but they earned the respect shown then. Others demand respect simply ‘ because’.
The principles behind compensation are not clear to me either. I’m very glad families will be compensated for lost wages, but how does this translate to victims of other disasters? Was the government more liable for damages in this instance than in New Orlwans, where it failed to proivde proper levies?
Litigation is a whole bag of slippery eels. While I strongly agree that worngdoing or negligence should be addressed in courts, there seems to be a pervasive feeling that nothing bad can happen without it being someone’s faul.t If struck by thunder, then someone must be responsible for not preventing it.
I agree with Morrissey about the silent settlers, at least to the extent, that the ‘not for the money’ claim seems dubious. Who knows what’s in their hearts, though? Only they know for sure.
I find it hard to come to firm conclusions about any of this.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:23 am
domajot:
You touch on a ghoulishly fascinating aspect of this whole ‘arama.
The mad rush by Congress to protect the 9/11 airlines from being sued into bankruptcy and beyond was not altrusitic, but what grew out of it is IMHO one of the most noteworthy examples of public service in memory — the work of Kenneth Feinberg as the victims’ compensation fund special master.
Feinberg had no less than the Solomonic task of putting a dollar figure on human life, which is fascinating in and of itself and is told with great sensitivity in What Is Life Worth?, a terrific little book that he penned after his work was completed.
I obviously would not have written this post in the manner in which I did if I did not agree with Captain Ed.
This was not a dog-bite case. And while I am respectful of the losses the four families suffered, I find their rationales unconvincing and not in the spirit of the Feinbergs and others who have sweated blood to try to make sure that some good came of that horrible day.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Not that I want to belittle what those families went thru, but this story reminded me of an old saying. If anyone ever tells you its not about the money, trust me, its about the money.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Shaun-
There was a segment on PBS about Feinberg some time ago.
There is a true hero, one who restores meaning and honor to the term ‘public service’.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:38 am
I find their rationales unconvincing and not in the spirit of the Feinbergs and others who have sweated blood to try to make sure that some good came of that horrible day.
They owe you nothing. They owe Feinberg nothing. They suffered their loss, they carried their own loads in dealing with it, and they made their own compensation arrangements. If they want to keep their mouths shut about how much they received, or agreed to as part of gaining their settlement, it’s their business, not yours. And blocking release of unadjudicated discovery evidence in suits that settle pre-trial is extremely common, and was almost certainly ordered by the court in light of the other pending suits. Not requested by the plaintiff.
Maybe they did indeed want to get more in compensation than they thought they would get from the commission. So what? THEIR business, not yours.
And while I am respectful of the losses the four families suffered,
No, not really. Not that I can see. Empty words. You’re perfectly willing to make them out as greedy ogres just because they aren’t sharing the details of THEIR work with you.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Tully said:
“They owe you nothing”
What does that mean?
They owe others nothing, but, equally,
others,owe them nothing, not even the silence of not commenting.
Everything to do with 9/11 is of public interest,, and eventually,, of great cost to them.
What the airlines pay, they will recoup, never fear.
.
What is private business does often impact on others, and the fence around ‘private business’ is not always clearly demarcated - especially in such an enormours area of concern as 9/11.
You are right to assert your opinion, but not by implying that other opinions shouldn’t enjoy the same privilege.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I agree with Shaun. This isn’t just an ordinary slip-and-fall case.
This is being kept secret because somebody is hiding something. Even if it’s just the size of the cash settlement. So I also think this will just feed the paranoia of the consipiracy theorists.
October 5th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
It sounds to me that if during the course of this settlement it became obvious that no new answers were going to be forthcoming or, some answers were revealed but were destined to be placed under gag, then these families found nothing else to take away from it than the money.
I have a sense that my views about this incident aren’t popular, but isn’t this the plane crash with no plane? Why has the US Government gone to such incredible lengths to obscure and cover up what happened at the Pentagon? Out of all the cameras that operate on the premises, they can only show me 3 blurry frames?
3 blurry frames is worth whatever amount the families got.
October 5th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
So your saying that on a day 3 other planes were hijacked and used as weapons to crash into buildings, you think this 4th case is something entirely different? That is was a missle or what? I’ve never really gotten the whole conspiracy theory about the Pentagon crash.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
It’s about the money.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
You are right to assert your opinion, but not by implying that other opinions shouldn’t enjoy the same privilege.
Heh. Then you either missed the point entirely, or you simply don’t want me expressing my opinion. Shaun has every right to express his opinion, and I have every right to disagree with it and criticize it.
Everything to do with 9/11 is of public interest
You may be interested, but that doesn’t give you the right to pry into the private affairs of others. They have a right to privacy. They are not public property, they are private citizens, who engaged in a private suit, and have no obligation whatsoever to share their affairs with the world for the sole purpose of satisfying the vulgar curiousity of the masses.
And it’s downright churlish and childish to slur them in public and impugn their motives because they exercised their right to keep their private affairs private.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Tully=
“You may be interested, but that doesn’t give you the right to pry”
I suggest you calm down and take a deep breath.
Who’s prying? Is anybody hiring lawyers to sue for access to court papers?
People comment on what’s in the news. They’re curious; they wonder. I note you spend a lot of time doing the exact same thing,. When you offer your opinions about public figures, are you also “prying”???
Using double standards is not an honorable way to debate or discuss.
And. yes, your comment: “it’s their business, not yours”.: does suggest that no one should even be commenting about these families. Well, excuuuse me, but each person, including yourself, will be making up his/her own mind up about when and about what to comment and about what the comment should say.
It seems to me you are just having an outrage moment in search of a reason for having it.
Otherwise, it makes no sense.