'Comp' Is A Four-Letter Word

If anyone needed further proof that government-sponsored monetary compensation for randomly selected death and disability has spun out of control, then consider what the U.S. gubbermint has recently arranged to do for "victims," who were accidentally killed or injured when, some two decades back, Libya conspired to blow Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland, and then again when that same nation reportedly carried out a bombing of a Berlin disco, supposedly popular with U.S. citizens in Germany.
Two hundred seventy perished when Flight 103 went down; another three died in the disco bombing, which also injured 229. According to a lawyer getting rich off Lockerbie victims' families: Libya would set aside $516 million to pay just the remaining claims from the Lockerbie incident, and $283 million to compensate U.S. citizens killed and wounded in the Berlin disco.
And then, although the subject is little reported by U.S. media, can you believe that in return for Libya's compassionate act, our lunatic government, according to a BBC broadcast, will pay $300 million to compensate relatives of some 40 persons killed when, in 1986, the U.S. military openly and intentionally bombed selected targets in two Libyan cities?
Of course, such compensatory action is patently absurd! There is, and cannot be, any rational excuse for paying these particular persons million of dollars, merely because some relative was killed or injured during a predictable act of war. As we have attempted to point out several times in past columns: No single, unexpected and untimely death of a loved one is any more, nor less, tragic than may be any other. Therefore, for a government to pay millions to distant relatives of someone killed by a bomb, while essentially ignoring the death of a young mother killed by a drunk driver, is so unreasonable, so unfair, so immoral as to be obscene. No relatives of the dearly departed should receive any payments from any government - no matter the circumstances.
The "brilliant" Dr. Rice, whom surely, at the very least, approved of the sleazy deal with Libya, has obviously more than a few cards missing from the deck with which she once attempted to play International Relations. The reported $300 million, to be paid to relatives of those killed when we decided to punish Libya for their acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens and interests, comes to about $8 million per reported death.
s that what we will, from now on, pay to greedy relatives of persons killed through combat actions by our armed forces? Will the policy be retroactive? Will it, for example, include second uncles, twice removed, of someone killed when we bombed Nagasaki, so as to bring an end to Japanese aggression? How about the great niece of a man killed when Dresden, Bremerhaven or Ploesti were bombed into rubble?
Clearly this policy of reparations or compensation is insane.
Obviously, when discussing survivor compensation, the still-sensitive subject of 9/11 comes readily to mind. Some 2,750 perished, accidentally, in that incident. Surviving families, whether independently wealthy or not, whether or not responsibly protected by private policies of life insurance and in spite of relative need, received generous amounts of money and material aid from a sympathetic public.
Nevertheless, ambulance chasing lawyers soon had many of the "grieving" survivors threatening to sue the airlines. ("Oh how we miss good old Uncle Jerry - or was it Aunt Gertrude - no matter, pay us enough and we'll get over our anguish.") Rather than telling those greedy persons where to go, our government decided to use our tax dollars to buy them off, with about $2 million, tax free, per griever. About $7 billion, of what you and I paid in taxes, were thus distributed to the un-needy.
Reportedly, fewer than 100 tearful survivors teamed up with amoral lawyers to sue, rather than simply accept the hush money offered by Uncle Sam. It has taken more than seven years for those disgraceful legal actions to wind their costly way through our ineffective courts, which are clogged with more than 10,000 other frivolous lawsuits. Throughout those years, fat-cat lawyers kept lining bulging pockets with relevant dirty money.
Recently, four of those 100 cases had reportedly been settled, with awards of between $5.5 million and $8 million each. No, that was not to replace the expected earnings of some overpaid stock trader in the Twin Towers: It was awarded to survivors of "modest wage earners in the Pentagon," who anyway should have had their own insurance. The judge soon rejected the proposed award, which he should have simply thrown out, charging all court costs, and punitive fines, to the shameful lawyers involved.
Folks - what in the world is wrong with us? How is it that we are unable to see the dangerous, unjust and socially destructive effect of routinely paying undeserved fortunes to any distant relative of someone killed or injured accidentally - even as an act of war? Clearly, we shouldn't make such payments in any case, but to open our national bank to pay millions to Libyans killed in a military action, and/or to office workers in the Twin Towers, while not offering similar largesse to survivors of servicemen killed in places such as Iraq, is worse than unconscionable: It is simply intolerable.
Bottom line is: We should pay compensation to none.
But don't look to our hard-working, moral, ethical and dedicated government to correct this disgraceful situation: The major beneficiaries of most such actions are wealthy lawyers, who also make up the largest parts of our legislatures.