While I bear no animus toward Daniel Pearl and his family, this strikes me of an abuse of the original purpose of the 9/11 fund. While Daniel was certainly a victim in every sense of the word, his job and life’s decisions did also certainly put him in harms way. To me this opens the door to a free terrorist insurance program. By free I mean funded out of my pocket, as a tax payer.
NEW YORK (AP) — The widow of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl is seeking compensation from the September 11 victims’ fund, saying her husband, like the victims of the attacks, was a U.S. citizen targeted by Islamic extremists.
Why stop at only Islamic terrorists or at innocent victims. Why not compensate the the family of Rachel Corrie a US activist (and Darwin Award candidate) who jumped around like a chicken on the front of an Israeli bulldozer until it ran over her.
The IDF also killed Rachel Correy, a U.S. activist for the group. She was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer in March 2003, when she tried to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian house in Rafah
Israel at the time was demolishing houses and tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists.
Aaron has some further comments concerning Rachel Corrie.
My reason for bringing her into the discussion is that once you qualify anyone but a direct 9/11 victim, you greatly open up the definition of victim. A lawyer or family member could certainly portray the view that Rachel was a “victim” of Israeli terrorism, while just the opposite is closer to the truth.