Mike Low lost his daughter to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He's among the few victim families who has not "settled" for a pile of cash, but instead is pursuing a lawsuit against the makers of security equipment, the Boston airport, and Boeing. Now, after long delays, his case is about to be heard in court.
Mr. Low says it's not about the money. That's credible, because he could have taken a payment like others did. He's doing this because he believes that "more could have been done," and wants "all the facts to come out," by which he seems to mean malfunctioning scanners, missteps in security checks, and lack of lockable doors on the pilots' cabin in the aircraft.
I'm sure we all sympathize deeply with anyone who lost a loved one on that day. I do particularly, as a resident of Arlington, Virginia, the only other place besides New York that was successfully targeted. Still, I have to take some issue with the idea that victims' families have a moral right to a "settlement" from anybody, or to sue in court, to help assuage their grief.
People who died in New York weren't targets of terrorism except incidentally. The terrorists weren't seeking to kill employees of one investment firm or another, nor of American Airlines, by whom Low's daughter Sara was employed; rather, they selected the buildings because they were known worldwide, and perhaps even because they were relatively easy to find and hit. Essentially the same is true of Pentagon victims, although they were "targets" in a more specific sense - in choosing the Pentagon, the planners could be certain of an easily recognizable target, but also that those killed would be (mostly) military or civilian DoD employees. Thus both groups of casualties, as well as those on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, were victims of wanton and indiscriminate murder -- sad, but no different from people who are shot by snipers at universities or killed in a fire set by an arsonist. And from the standpoint of "liability" - because that's what's really in play when we talk about "settlements," they are not greatly different from victims of accident or natural disaster - a train crash or a hurricane.
The fundamental protection for the unexpected in life is insurance. It's offered in many channels and forms - life, disability, accident; through insurers directly, or from employers or affiliate groups. Some think to acquire it to protect their families, others don't. Many insurance companies rule out payments for war or terrorism; that, I suppose, is why we accept having government step in to offer some compensation. Enlightened employers might also be moved by a human tragedy of the scale of 9/11 to offer support, financial and other, to their employees' families -- and in fact many did respond with programs. Many charitable groups also offered various forms of assistance to victims' families.
Beyond that, however, other compensation usually depends on showing that some person or entity had some liability to prevent the event, and was negligent in carrying out that responsibility. I don't see that our 9/11 victims meet these tests. Could "more have been done," as Mr. Low asserts? Possibly, but all the actors appear to have been doing pretty much what was expected and "normal" for the security standards of the time. Security standards can be tightened, but even if people are willing to accept the costs and delays involved, there is and can be no absolute level of security. There is always a weak spot, a vulnerability, that terrorists will seek out and utilize. That's why it's ridiculous to argue that more could have been done. It's true, but it doesn't tell us anything useful.
If Mr. Low's case is decided in his favor, one sure result is that as a society, we'll have expended astounding amounts of money and effort on the litigation process; a likely result is that we'll probably get another round of costly but essentially ineffective security upgrades. Low will probably also get some money, whether that's what he's looking for or not, and perhaps he'll get somewhat greater publicity for some of the security shortcomings that made 9/11 possible - though most of that information is alreay known. But while his victory in this quixotic personal mission would undoubtedly be a positive thing for him, it has no positive face for the rest of us.
Comments