Opinion
Dan K. Thomasson: Widow should not claim compensation
Those who knew and worked with The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Pearl say he was an excellent reporter, one who took some chances, as any good journalist will now and then, particularly in a perilous part of the world where American reporters are at risk in the best of times and especially in the current atmosphere.
His recklessness, if that is what it can be called, cost him his life in Pakistan at the hands of psychopathic al-Qaida thugs who try to justify the unjustifiable in the name of Allah, which makes them no less coldblooded murderers.
Pearl, for his part, was after a story that perhaps he shouldn't have been, given his inexperience in that kind of reporting, but as a veteran of his craft, he must have known and accepted the dangers.
Certainly, as a member of the Jewish faith in the midst of a Muslim culture where hatred is rampant, he was more vulnerable.
Now his widow, Mariane Pearl, wants U.S. taxpayers to compensate her and her small child for their loss just as those who lost a loved one in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by al-Qaida are being made wealthy by their fellow citizens.
The 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund correctly rejected her original application for relief on grounds the fund covered only those involved in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and Pennsylvania tragedies.
But with the apparent encouragement of her lawyers, she is taking her case to Congress, where she hopes to win special legislation that would grant her dispensation worth about $2 million.
As much sympathy as one might feel for the young mother and her child, this shouldn't be a close call even for members of Congress who all too frequently lend themselves to any number of unworthy causes.
The stated motivation for Mrs. Pearl's action seems to be to force Congress to determine whether the creation of the fund was designed to help all those ravaged by the al-Qaida terrorists or whether its original purpose was to protect the nation's airline industry from ruinous lawsuits by the survivors and families of 9/11 victims.
The legislative history of this unparalleled law seems to point decidedly toward the latter, leaving one to suspect Mrs. Pearl or her attorneys aren't being quite honest about all this, that the intent might be more one of clearing the way for future legal procedures.
If the barrier were lowered to include the family of a reporter on assignment, it most likely would apply to everyone who has lost someone in the war on terror, maybe including even the families of military personnel.
Then, of course, there are all the relatives of those who died at the hands of the Oklahoma City bombers and any number of other terrorist attacks, all of whom would need legal representation that would produce substantial fees if they were permitted to seek monetary compensation from the government.
At any rate, it is disturbing that the widow of a young man so highly regarded as an honest and dedicated practitioner of his profession and who gave up his life believing accurately that he was performing a public service could be so used, if indeed she is being used.
There is another factor here. Daniel Pearl was involved, as we all are in this craft, in a commercial enterprise.
Unlike the unsuspecting victims of 9/11 or those who enter into a perilous undertaking in an official capacity, we do not have to put ourselves in harm's way unless we so choose.
What we report makes money for our sponsors, and if there is any responsibility for keeping our families whole should something happen, it belongs to our print or electronic corporations, not the taxpayers.
This is true despite the public-service mantle in which we constantly wrap ourselves.
Having sent any number of young men and women unarmed into war zones, I can attest to the constant fear one feels for them and the prayers uttered every night that they will heed your advice not to put themselves into untenable positions - that they will keep their heads down and their powder dry.
One seeks to find those who aren't encumbered by family for these jobs. But it isn't always possible.
When it isn't, there is an unspoken assurance that if the unthinkable occurs, their loved ones will be financially protected.
Daniel Pearl was among the best we have to offer. His colleagues and employers, recognizing this, have provided funds for his widow and child.
If it is not enough, Mrs. Pearl, like so many others in her situation over the years, should seek help elsewhere than from American taxpayers.
° Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service, 1090 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005; www.shns.com. |
