Home

By DAVID W. CHEN
The New York Times
03-30-2004

It is a 22-page application, typed in boldface and completed in a just-the-facts fashion like thousands of others processed by the federal fund compensating relatives of those killed on Sept. 11. The victim was 38, in the prime of his life, and employed by a Wall Street corporation. His wife was pregnant. His death was horrific.

What makes claim No. 212-005347 different, however, is the fact that it was filed on behalf of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was kidnapped in Pakistan, then beheaded by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, once Al Qaeda's top operational commander and the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 hijackings.

Three weeks ago, the administrator for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, Kenneth R. Feinberg, while expressing deep sympathy, rejected the claim filed by Mr. Pearl's widow, Mariane, because it lay outside the bounds of the Congressional statute governing the fund. So now, Ms. Pearl and her legal advisers have filed a formal appeal, and are asking Congress to consider drafting a new law that would grant eligibility to her and her son, Adam, who is almost 2. An award from the fund would likely mean a tax-free payment of close to $2 million.

In making the claim, Ms. Pearl and her Manhattan lawyer, Robert S. Kelner, are essentially trying to publicly test the true intent of the fund. As they frame it, was the fund created as an act of unparalleled compassion that was meant to apply to all American families who were devastated by the war of terror waged by Al Qaeda? Or was it a politically expedient program, for instance, intended to bail out the airline industry by shielding it from potentially ruinous litigation?

Ms. Pearl and Mr. Kelner, who in December just beat the fund's deadline for filing, acknowledge the daunting odds they face in pressing their case; after all, previous efforts to widen the circle of eligibility to cover victims of other terror attacks have gone nowhere in Congress. These include, on domestic soil, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and on international ground, the 1998 bombing of American embassies in East Africa and the 2000 bombing of the destroyer Cole in Yemen.

Still, Ms. Pearl and Ms. Kelner argue that Mr. Pearl was singled out as a symbol of American capitalism, and that his death has since been fodder for Qaeda propaganda. At the same time, they believe that the case raises important questions as to how, to what extent — or even whether — governments should compensate the victims of terror attacks, past, present and future.

"What's horribly, painfully obvious is that if Danny Pearl had come from any other country in the world, he'd be alive today," said Mr. Kelner, who is offering Ms. Pearl his assistance without charge. "And because there is a 9/11 fund which is compensating people for the exact same kind of death, we feel that Danny should be included as a victim in the same class as other victims."

Mr. Pearl, the South Asia bureau chief for The Journal, based in India, vanished in Karachi, Pakistan, on Jan. 23, 2002, while researching an article about Islamic extremism. Several weeks later, investigators obtained a videotape that graphically showed Mr. Pearl's death at the hands of Mr. Mohammed, according to the authorities.

Since then, Ms. Pearl, a 36-year-old journalist, has worked to track down her husband's killers. Part of that search was detailed in her memoir, "A Mighty Heart: The Brave Life and Death of My Husband, Danny Pearl," which was published by Scribner in September.

The book, while far being from a best seller, has provided enough income to enable Ms. Pearl and her son to live in New York, for the short term. They are entitled to some insurance money, too, as well as a few hundred thousand dollars from a memorial trust in her husband's honor that was set up, in part, by The Journal.

Even so, Ms. Pearl said she had few long-term options that would come close to replacing her husband's salary of about $100,000 a year. As a result, some of her legal advisers urged her to apply to the victim compensation fund. She has the support, as well, she said, of her in-laws, who live in the Los Angeles area.

"This whole bizarre thing of associating somebody's death and money is very difficult," Ms. Pearl said in an interview in Mr. Kelner's 37th-floor offices in Lower Manhattan, overlooking ground zero. "It's unnatural. It's very uncomfortable. But I have good people around me, who are like, Whatever my emotions, I have to think of my son."

The fund has proven to be a very popular option for families wary of the uncertainty of litigation against the airlines. About 98 percent of those eligible filed by the December deadline. So far, the government has cut checks for about 1,800 families totaling $2.45 billion, or an average of close to $1.4 million per family.

Some families have attached personal essays, photos or even videos to humanize an application that is typically packed with statistics and dollar figures. But not Ms. Pearl, whose husband's harrowing tale is already so well known. Her application, instead, spells out the barest details of his financial profile: his salary in each of his last three years; his modest 401(k) of $12,510; his son's Social Security payments of $1,409 a month.

But barring any acts of Congress, the fund is very specific about its criteria: the victims had to have died in New York, Pennsylvania or Washington as a result of the Sept. 11 attack.

"I'm very sympathetic to the inquiry, but the statute is the statute, and I do not have any discretion," Mr. Feinberg said in an interview yesterday. "But the application does raise the fundamental question as to why 9/11 — and not other terrorist attacks or other acts of terror both at home or abroad — is covered. I think Congress will address at some point whether the 9/11 compensation fund should be a precedent for future compensation or whether it is a unique response to a unique historical event."

Some relatives of Sept. 11 victims have said that they would not begrudge Ms. Pearl anything if she were successful because her husband was also a Qaeda victim and because any money that would go to his family would come from a fund that is open ended.

The same tacit support was voiced, as well, by Edith Bartley, whose father and brother died in the Nairobi embassy attack in 1998. To date, her efforts to widen the pool of terror victims eligible for the fund have led to nothing but frustration.

"Whatever way Mrs. Pearl is able to secure some kind of compensation for her tremendous loss — more power to her," Ms. Bartley said. "Just the fact that Mr. Pearl was killed by Al Qaeda is a direct link to all of our families, and I think it absolutely does warrant our government looking into all victims of international terror finding some compensation and reprieve from their loss."