It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
The Unites States paid close to $50,000 in compensation for each Afghan killed in the shooting spree attributed to a U.S. soldier in southern Afghanistan, a U.S. official told NBC News on Sunday.
The official, who asked not to be named, would not say exactly how much was paid to the families, but added the amount was "significant" and "substantial."
Originally posted by Jameela
Too bad for the families that American sees very little monetary value on the life of Afghani innocents compared to Pakistani
Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya
If compensation is the way to go couldn't Afghanistan government have paid the victims of 9/11
Originally posted by desert
Originally posted by Jameela
Too bad for the families that American sees very little monetary value on the life of Afghani innocents compared to Pakistani
Could it not also say that the CIA contractor was of more value than the soldier?
Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya
If compensation is the way to go couldn't Afghanistan government have paid the victims of 9/11
Compensation would have to come from Saudi Arabia, as consequences of the Saudi hijackers. So far, it has not. Abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by ABNARTY
reply to post by Ek Bharatiya
is just commensurate with the level of regret and sincerity of the apology. Not just to the families but the population in general too.
In the report he delivered to Congress, Special Master Kenneth Feinberg pronounced the Victim Compensation Fund a success. More than 98 percent of those eligible participated. Only a handful of families sued the airlines.
But Feinberg has also written that the formula was “defective.” He found valuing life to be an almost impossible task. “The family of the stockbroker and that of the dishwasher,” he wrote, “should receive the same check.” Or no check at all.
The Victim Compensation Fund, he says, is not a model that should be repeated.
Burke, Hamdani and Wolf all said the money raised questions for them, even though they accepted it.
“Loking at it from the Muslim perspective, there is a clause in Sharia law that if blood has been shed and victim's family are willing to be compensated, it is allowed,” Hamdani said. “And this is what that was. The only thing is, our government paid it out. Does that make the government accountable? That is another debate but it came in handy.”
And in the end, there is no way to put a price on life.
Originally posted by desert
reply to post by Jameela
Thank you for your reply and link. Ah, yes, the CIA man had been in prison in Pak versus the quick return of the soldier in Afgh to America.
Here is what you and I might be remembering re Saudi "blood money"(?). Yes, it was refused, but not by the victims themselves.
9/11 monetary relief caused the same valuations of a life you bring up:
In the report he delivered to Congress, Special Master Kenneth Feinberg pronounced the Victim Compensation Fund a success. More than 98 percent of those eligible participated. Only a handful of families sued the airlines.
But Feinberg has also written that the formula was “defective.” He found valuing life to be an almost impossible task. “The family of the stockbroker and that of the dishwasher,” he wrote, “should receive the same check.” Or no check at all.
The Victim Compensation Fund, he says, is not a model that should be repeated.
Burke, Hamdani and Wolf all said the money raised questions for them, even though they accepted it.
“Loking at it from the Muslim perspective, there is a clause in Sharia law that if blood has been shed and victim's family are willing to be compensated, it is allowed,” Hamdani said. “And this is what that was. The only thing is, our government paid it out. Does that make the government accountable? That is another debate but it came in handy.”
And in the end, there is no way to put a price on life.
source
Even American courts must place a value on a life, in "wrongful death" suits, for ex.
If, to the Afgh victims' families, the "blood money" was sufficient, would that satisfy that justice had been done, regardless of what you and I might think?
Law and reparations can be debated, but in the end the loss of innocent life is always a tragedy. War truly is Hell. Too bad those politicians who sent troops to war a decade ago never themselves went to war.
Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya
If compensation is the way to go couldn't Afghanistan government have paid the victims of 9/11 and tried Osama Bin Laden in Afghan court and asked him to pay compensation?
Originally posted by Ek Bharatiya
So it seems like the families have been paid off by the government of United States. Will it make the killings okay? If compensation is the way to go couldn't Afghanistan government have paid the victims of 9/11 and tried Osama Bin Laden in Afghan court and asked him to pay compensation? Why did US insisted and later declared war on Afghanistan to try Osama in US court for crimes attributed to him when same as not allowed for Sgt. Bales? Some thoughts to ponder on..
worldnews.ms nbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Originally posted by Xcathdra
It doesnt make the killings ok, however it is recognizing their customs under sharia law / quran for the eye for an eye mentality. If a person is done wrong, it allows for the family to decide how to proceed. It is permissible to offer compensation to account for the loss. The family can choose to accept it or continue to seek justice.
If they accept the money then the claim for justice is resolved.
In this particular case the family is going to get the best of both worlds. They are compensated under their laws and customs, releasing the accused. However, instead of walking free, he is being charged with 17 counts of murder under US military law, with the possibility of the death penalty.edit on 25-3-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)