Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T05:44:18.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund: Support for Any Future American Terror Casualties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2008

Edward L. Lascher  and
Ellen E. Martin
Edward L. Lascher
Affiliation:
California State University, Sacramento
Ellen E. Martin
Affiliation:
California State University, Sacramento
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

If a future terrorist attack results in casualties on American soil, what, if any, government compensation should be provided to victims? Despite the enormous attention given to the September 11, 2001, attacks and the near universal sympathy for their casualties, there is no apparent consensual answer to the above question among politicians, academics, or within society at large. While tens of billions of dollars in public funds have been allocated to preventing another attack, and tens of thousands of personnel hours have been devoted to simulations aimed at helping victims in the immediate aftermath, relatively little attention has been given to what support might (or might not) be justified to provide for longer term needs. Victim compensation remains off the radar screen for even the vast majority of people whose daily lives are significantly consumed by contemplating terrorism.The authors would like to thank Michael Powers, Bruce Wolk, two anonymous referees for PS, participants in the PPA/Economics brownbag seminar, and Lascher's PPA 210 students for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Type
FEATURES
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 147 - 152
Copyright
© 2008 The American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ABC News/The Washington Post. 2002. ABC News/Washington Post Poll, January. ICPSR 3429.Google Scholar
Birkland, Thomas A. 1997. After Disaster: Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Lloyd, and Rachel Kaganoff Stern. 2004. Compensation for Losses from the 9/11 Attacks. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 2000. Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 2002. “Sovereign Virtue Revisited.” Ethics 113 (October): 106–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, Kenneth R. 2004. Interview on “Talk of the Nation,” National Public Radio, November 22.Google Scholar
Feinberg, Kenneth R. 2005. “Lessons from the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund: Their Relevance to Israel's Settlements Dilemma.” In the symposium “Compensation Schemes and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Beyond the Obvious.” Negotiation Journal 21 (2): 231–244.Google Scholar
Feinberg, Kenneth R., Camille S. Biros, Jordana Harris Feldman, Deborah E. Greenspan, and Jacqueline E. Zinns. 2004. “Final Report of the Special Master for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001.” Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Goldscheid, Julie. 2004. “Crime Victim Compensation in a Post-9/11 World.” Tulane Law Review 79 (November): 167.Google Scholar
Harrington, Scott E. 2000. “Rethinking Disaster Policy.” Regulation 23: 40–6.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Bruce. 2002. “Rethinking Terrorism and Counterterrorism Since 9/11.” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 25: 303–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, Bruce. 2003. “The Logic of Suicide Terrorism.” The Atlantic Monthly 291: 40Google Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Lascher, Edward L. Jr., and Michael R. Powers. 2004. “September 11 Victims, Random Events, and the Ethics of Compensation.” American Behavioral Scientist 48 (November): 281–94.Google Scholar
Melber, Jonathan D. 2003. “An Act of Discretion: Rebutting Cantor Fitzgerald's Critique of the Victim Compensation Law.” New York University Law Review 78: 749–81.Google Scholar
Morrison, Alan B. 2003. “Lessons to be Learned: The Victim Compensation Fund.” DePaul Law Review 53 (Winter): 821–30.Google Scholar
Mostaghel, Deborah M. 2001. “Wrong Place, Wrong Time, Unfair Treatment? Aid to Victims of Terrorist Attacks.” Brandeis Law Journal 40: 83–120.Google Scholar
Myers, Jim. 2002. “'96 Compensation Sought: Keating Wants Funds for OC Bomb Victims.” Tulsa World, May 23.Google Scholar
Nacos, Brigitte L. 2003. “The Terrorist Calculus behind 9-11: A Model for Future Terrorism?” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 26: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
National Insurance Institute, Government of Israel. 2003. “Your Rights from the National Insurance Institute.” Jerusalem: National Insurance Institute.Google Scholar
Peterson, Jessica. 2002. “Embassy Families Seeking Redress.” The Washington Times, June 23, A4.Google Scholar
Rabin, Robert L. 2004. “The September 11 Victim Compensation Fund: A Circumscribed Response or an Auspicious Model?” Stanford Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebenius, James K. 2005. “Introduction.” In symposium “Compensation Schemes and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: Beyond the Obvious.” Negotiation Journal 21 (2): 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, Hillel. 2003. “Providing Compensation for Harm Caused by Terrorism: Lessons Learned in the Israeli Experience.” Indiana Law Review 36: 335–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Jessica. 1999. “ The Prospect of Domestic Bioterrorism.” National Symposium on Medical and Public Health Response to Bioterrorism.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 5 (4) (July–August): 517–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. Risk and Reason: Safety, Law, and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zahariadis, Nikolas. 2003. Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy: Political Decision Making in Modern Democracies. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar