Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Who Deserves the Charity from the September 11 Attacks?

Aired November 06, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOIE CHEN, HOST: Americans donate a billion dollars for the victims of the September 11th attacks. Yet some victims say they're left begging for charity.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This whole experience has been, to say the least, a grueling experience.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's going to be virtually impossible to assure that everyone gets what is coming to them, and that the money is distributed fairly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: Greed or need? Who deserves compensation? How much should they get? And should victims of other terror attacks be included in the funds?

Also today, a plan to get Osama bin Laden. Send in the lawyers and sue his assets.

Did you guys get that? Sue his assets? Got it?

OK, welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. Thanks for being with us today, folks. America speaks out here. I'm Joie Chen.

In the aftermath of September 11th, all of us, or many of us wanted to open our hearts, and in many cases our checkbooks, wanting to do anything we could do to help. Americans gave a billion dollars to some 180 charities, all of it destined for the families killed in those attacks. And that was easy part, it turned out, giving the money away.

The hard part, as it turns out, is making sure the money gets to the right people, the people who deserve it and need it the most, and figuring out how much each person should get. And by the way, who is in charge of all that money?

Meet first today, Diana Henriques, a financial writer for "The New York Times." Diana, you've written about this subject, and we want to you help explain and put some perspective on this for our audience today.

Is there a relationship between the government money that's been talked about and the private funds all of us put in firemens' booths and at the grocery store and every place we went to give, sending checks to the Red Cross. Is there a relationship between those two things?

DIANA HENRIQUES, "NEW YORK TIMES": Yes, there is, Joie. And it's a crucial one. Americans, in this outstanding outpouring of generosity, as you have described, have given more than a billion dollars now, to a whole variety of charities, with the expectation that the needs of the people affected by the disaster would be met.

At the same time, as part of legislation that was designed to rescue the airline industry, the federal government created a victim compensation fund. Families of those lost or injured can make a claim to that fund in lieu of filing a lawsuit against the airlines or other parties who might have been blamed.

CHEN: Well, how much can they get from the government?

HENRIQUES: Well, that's really quite unclear at present. The rules for this fund are still being written by the Department of Justice. Although the expectation, in its creation, was that it would roughly be the equivalent of what you would have gotten if you had gone to court, with a discount for being able to get it much quicker.

You're assured of getting your claim paid within 120 days, and it's a no fault fund. You don't have to prove anybody is to blame. And it's a blank check on the American taxpayers. They'll pay you, whereas with the airlines, they have a limited amount of insurance available for litigation.

CHEN: And there are some people who had questioned whether the airlines would even be able to stay in business if people were to go and make those lawsuits.

HENRIQUES: Absolutely. So the expectation is that the government fund will need to be attractive enough to pull claims in and spare the airlines the litigation. But the crucial question now that's arising is: If families have received a substantial amount of charitable help, should that amount of money be deducted from what they are awarded by the federal compensation fund?

The Justice Department is trying to write rules that will clarify this issue. And that's the most stringent intersection right now, between that marvelous philanthropy money and the federal response.

CHEN: OK, you've said over a million dollars has been raised in private charity. We want to take a look at some of the big collectors in this, some of the big organizations that have collected the money. No. 1, the American Red Cross, as you might have anticipated, $452 million, correct, collected by the Red Cross so far. The September 11th Fund -- and we'll talk about that for a moment -- $320 million there. The Twin Towers Fund, $50.3 million. Others on the list, "The New York Times," your employer there, Diana, does the 9/11 Neediest Fund, $36 million there. Salvation Army, $35 million.

Those two funds, the September 11th, the Twin Towers Funds, who runs those?

HENRIQUES: Well, they're run by the boards and the management of those individual charities.

CHEN: Put together just for this particular situation?

HENRIQUES: Yes. In the case of the September 11th Fund, that fund was a joint venture of the New York Community Trust and the United Way. But they have a separate board of directors and separate management to oversee that fund. And that separates it from their ongoing charitable work in the New York area.

The American Red Cross is slightly different. Their fund is still being administered by the same management and leadership that manages their overall operations. Each charity has arranged this slightly differently.

CHEN: I want to talk to some of the folks out in the audience here. Jerome had been talking before the program actually began about his concerns about this fund. Does this all make sense to you, what you are hearing from Diana?

JEROME: I really can't say that it does. I have a basic problem with the federal government trying to be all in all in the arbitrator of fairness, totally against public funds. I don't know necessarily what the right options are, but I also think that the legal system is out of control, if people can go suing the Twin Towers and airlines. That's pretty ridiculous, too.

The solution I would like to see, is I would like to see all of bin Laden's assets frozen, distributed without the intervention of attorneys, if possible. I don't know if that could be done by executive order. And then as a secondary measure, the private takeover.

But life is a risk. And we cannot compensate everybody nor determine fairness to everybody's satisfaction.

CHEN: Diana, you know, you have mentioned a significant amount of money collected by the private funds. I'm wondering if there is a possibility that the government will get to the point where it will say, hey, there is so much money in the private pool, let's just forget about giving money from the government fund to victims' families.

HENRIQUES: Well, I think that's unlikely. No. 1, it's built into the legislation that we've established to rescue the airline industry, and it was built there for a reason. If the airline industry was going to be shielded from litigation by federal action, then something had to be done by federal action to compensate...

CHEN: That's what Jerome here was looking for.

HENRIQUES: Well...

CHEN: To get away from litigation.

HENRIQUES: If people are going to give up their right to sue, to go to court and collect a wrongful death award, they have to be given something in compensation of that. The consensus in Congress was, and the president signed that bill, that that was a fair trade: to set up a fund that victims could apply to, in lieu of litigation, and thereby spare the airline industry the perhaps ruinous burden of that litigation.

And that is the outcome -- I should make a distinction, though. That federal fund is not charity. That's not a gift. Claimants will file a claim based on the circumstances of their individual family and the person they lost. And a decision will be made by the management of that fund, yet to be named by the Justice Department, about what the wrongful death award should be to them.

It stands in place of a court-ordered judgment. It's not a charitable gift like the billion-plus money that has been given to charity.

CHEN: All right. Just to make clear here, though, you say that the notion was they would be able to do this more quickly and expediently than letting it run through the court system. But they actually haven't named anybody to run the thing yet, and they don't have any rules for it yet. But it is going to go faster, right?

HENRIQUES: They do have a deadline. The statute requires the fund to be up and running by December 21. The Justice Department is seeking comment from Americans about this issue from those who are interested in the topic. They have set up an e-mail address and a web site where these comments can be read. They've put a very short comment period on that and will give greatest weight to those who respond early. But they expect to have the rules written and the leadership selected in time for it to be up and running by December 21.

CHEN: So we have all our viewers get a chance to be able to get their comments into the Department of Justice, I guess they...

HENRIQUES: And they should do so.

CHEN: Well, I guess, you know, it's interesting that the government has decided to go straight to the people to get some answers on this and they are looking for that. Diana Henriques thank you very much for being with us today. Diana writes for the "New York Times" and you will see her work there.

HENRIQUES: Thank you, Joie.

CHEN: Thank you. After the break here, we are going to meet a woman who lost a family member in the terrible events of September 11th. Also today we are going to have a roundtable of lawyers. One of them represents families involved in the tragedy. Another tried to sue -- has tried to sue Osama Bin Laden, and you don't want to miss what they have to say today. Stand by to TALKBACK.

Charity or tax dollars? How do you think the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks should be compensated? Take the TALKBACK LIVE on-line viewer vote at CNN.com/talkback. The AOL keyword: CNN. And while you're there, check my note and send us an e-mail.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE, STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY: I'm (UNINTELLIGIBLE) from Stony Brook. On the issue of this conversation, are we going to tax the population after what we have just endured? I think instead of just handing out checks we should concentrate on securing jobs and restabilizing the economy to benefit everybody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHEN: Interesting point from that young man at Stony Brook today. On the telephone line with us now is Andrea Russin. She is the widow of a one of the World Trade Center victims. And -- get this -- she gave birth to twins four days after the attack.

Andrea, we thank you for being with us. I don't know how to begin to tell you how sorry we are for your loss. We are glad, though, that she -- you have two young lives in the world now to share and to work with. I am wondering how you have been able to make it all work, losing your husband and having these twins.

ANDREA RUSSIN, WIDOW OF TRADE CENTER VICTIM: We have had lot of help from everybody in our community. The American public has really gone out of their way to try to make this as bearable of a situation as it could be. And...

CHEN: People in your community, I understand, have been very helpful too?

RUSSIN: Yes, our community has set up a schedule for us. And every two hours we have different volunteers coming to help out with the babies and things that we need done around the house. People have asked what we need done as far as maintenance and we have so many volunteers really just coming and doing whatever they can for us and for the children.

CHEN: That is terrific. And I'm sure you must truly appreciate that. I'm wondering in terms of some of these charity organizations who I know have offered assistance, has it been complex for you to be able to get that kind of help, particularly in the situation that you now have, not only your twins but you have another young child as well. Has this been particularly difficult for you? RUSSIN: It has been very difficult because the money that is being -- that the organizations are saying that they are giving is not necessarily the amount of money that they are giving.

You have to keep going back with bills to prove that you need more money, even though monthly bills, monthly expenses, remain the same month after month. They ask us to go to Manhattan every two weeks with bills to get more money. And it is extremely difficult.

You have to make sure that you have childcare available. And the people that are going more often are getting more money. And the American public who is so generously donating for us are not aware that that is how it's -- how we have to get the money.

CHEN: So Andrea, you are of the impression that perhaps your family is entitled to more than what's actually been delivered, either because you don't know who to go to or just because the process is so complicated?

RUSSIN: I think that it could be much more efficiently handled, because the paperwork was filled out one time for most of these organizations, and we have to keep going to the same organizations and asking for more money. And the more people that you know -- most of us work -- have husbands who work in the same place and we can speak to one another. And we find out that the people who are going back most often are receiving the most amounts of money.

CHEN: Margaret is here in the our audience, Andrea, and she wants to ask you a question about the situation you're in now.

MARGARET: It sounds like you are very concerned with the immediate situation, like any of us would be. But what are your sort of long-term concerns? And did your husband and you make some plans should something like his death or your death occur? I'm just curious.

RUSSIN: Well, we have life insurance -- as most people who have children have life insurance -- although you never expect to use that life insurance, especially when your husband works at a desk job.

CHEN: But that is not enough to compensate you and take care of the needs you and your children have at this point? Or is it just the time problem?

RUSSIN: The truth is that my children were not born when my husband died. I have life insurance to cover one child. We had discussed that we have to increase the life insurance. But as most people say things, "Oh, we have to do it," it is not always done as efficiently as you would have liked. And the children weren't born yet, so it wasn't a rush. And we don't have -- we didn't have sufficient life insurance. We do have enough that will make everybody OK, but it is not enough.

CHEN: Well, we know what a challenging thing it must be for you to take care of all three of those young people. We are glad that you at least have help in your community, people reaching out to help you. I know you appreciate that. Andrea Russin, we appreciate your being with us today on the telephone line. And best of luck to you.

RUSSIN: Thank you.

CHEN: Joining us now here is a panel of attorneys to talk about the legal and some of the ethical issues as well. In Washington for us today, our friend CNN legal analyst Roger Cossack. From New York today, former prosecutor and Court TV anchor Nancy Grace, our friend as well. In San Francisco, criminal defense attorney John Burris and in New York, Joe Tacopina -- also a criminal defense attorney. Welcome to you all. We appreciate you being with us.

Joe, you represent five families who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center attack. Can you talk about the situation, the challenges? We heard some from Andrea -- some of the challenges they are facing now.

JOE TACOPINA, ATTORNEY: Well, obviously the main challenges are trying to get their life back together as much as possible. All five of my clients are either spouses who have lost either a husband or wife. In three instances, it is families of firefighters. In two instances, it's a -- just parents who have lost a husband and wife and have young children to care for.

And there is whole host of concerns, unfortunately, at this point, as we heard on the top of the show, that these issues are still being hammered out down in Washington at Justice and we have to sort of sit back as lawyers, I think, and wait. And I am watching how the landscape unfolds here a little bit.

CHEN: So you are not necessarily say, "Hey, clients, you need to go ahead and we need to file a lawsuit against an airline or the World Trade Center or anything else?"

TACOPINA: Actually, to the contrary at this point, it -- there seems to be about to be put into place a terrific compensation package that these individuals who suffered losses -- at least 6,000 families plus people who were injured -- are going to be awarded or -- or given through the government.

I mean, the president is doing a terrific job at really just heading us in the right direction. Of course, you are going to have issues that are going to arise. Whenever lawyers get involved in things, they just seem to -- to murky up waters and I don't think this is going to be any different.

CHEN: Well, fortunately we have four of them here to murk things up for us.

TACOPINA: Yeah, you're going to have issues where, you know, do -- do charitable contributions. I have three firefigher family clients. You know, people are walking around the country with boots in their hands giving, you know, money to firefighters' families who were lost in there, people who didn't have to be in that building who ran to save lives.

No, the question is, I don't think people who donated into that boot -- the silver boot, as they call it -- did so with the intention of having their monies, their personal funds, be offset by some government fund that all of the families are going to get.

CHEN: Nancy, I want to ask you how this all relates to what -- what would have happened in -- in a -- not a criminal court, a civil court had this gone through, if there had not been all these other funds, if some -- if this had to be decided as a personal injury case would be. How would these decisions be made?

NANCY GRAVE, COURT TV: Well, as you know, Joie, when there is civil case for wrongful death you do not take into account, for instance, an insurance award.

Now what is concerning me right now that is going on in Washington our "representatives" are -- are suggesting that this government superfund -- the award given to each person's family that was lost in the World Trade Center -- is going to be detracted by charitable contributions. In other words, like the lady we just spoke with, Andrea Russin. Because her community has given her some help, therefore her award, her victim's right award will be decreased.

And you know who that hurts, Joie? It hurts the poor -- the less wealthy victims in this case -- because they are the ones that right now need food on the table. They need their electric bill paid. And they are seeking charity. And it is wrong.

CHEN: Robert here has a question for our lawyers on the panel.

ROBERT: Yes, as long as there are public, private and federal funds, how do you prevent money profiling or selected distribution with all the amounts available?

CHEN: I don't know how you answer that. Joe, Roger, John, anybody got a word on that?

JOHN BURRIS, ATTORNEY: All I can tell you...

TACOPINA: I mean, you don't -- go ahead Roger. John.

CHEN: John. I think that was John.

BURRIS: I was just going to say, I think that you -- you ultimately are going to have to have some kind of standard, some criterias that are going to have to be uniformly applied, not only to the government and their ability to distribute funds, but also, I think the charitable people as well. Those organizations are going to have to have a basic criteria that can be applied.

It's going to be a form of rough justice, of course. But you have got to have some way when you've got 6,000 people. Very much like a class action, where you have got to come up with some kind of parameters that can be uniformly applied. Recognize that it can't be -- necessarily be totally equal and that there may be some inequities there. But you got -- there's a lot of people involved here for that to happen.

CHEN: Roger, let me ask you...

GRACE: Why does it have to be unequal, John? I don't see one life as being more valuable than one of the other lives. Just because somebody is a stockbroker making a ton of money, why should they get more than somebody who was a blue-collar worker on the elevator? I don't think that's what the public had in mind.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: Nancy, Nancy, those are just basic -- those are basic tort problems.

CHEN: What do you think about that? Yes? No?

BURRIS: Those are basic tort problems that you have in every case and you determine what the value is. I am not saying it is right...

GRACE: Yeah.

BURRIS: But I also know that we place different values on different lives based upon the amount of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in life.

CHEN: And that is what is court system would do...

BURRIS: That's what the court system -- look I have a situation that is even equally comparable to this. I represent 2700 Kenyans and Tanzanians who were injured and killed in a bomb blast.

There has been no compensation on the part by the U.S. government, even though they are comparable to the individuals that are related to the -- in the 9-11 case. But likewise we are trying to deal with Bin Laden as well.

So we have the issue of how do you determine whose life is more valuable than not. My question is, are the African lives any less valuable for compensation than American lives when they each were victimized by Bin Laden's terrorist group. There has been no...

CHEN: I want to get -- I want to get Roger in on this. Roger, how do you decide what is fair?

ROGER COSSACK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: First of all, I think you have to start from the beginning and start defining a little bit of what these funds are. You know, the charitable funds are made up of donations from -- from the people who just felt terrible and wanted to help those people who were injured in those 9-11 blasts. The tax benefits that the government is giving. Guess what? That is our money too. That is not the government's money. That is the taxpayers money.

GRACE: That's right, Roger.

COSSACK: So it's all one fund. It's not -- it's just but segregated into two different things. And what the government has now come along and said is look, "we know that going to court may take you for ever to get money which eventually you are going to get.

So we have these two funds. One is the charitable fund. We can give you money right now. Hopefully everyone will be treated equally. And the other is this tax fund where we're going to be able to give you some money, and hopefully everybody will be treated equally.

But the fact of the matter is, people still have the right to go to court if they want to and take their chances.

GRACE: Unless they -- unless they sign...

COSSACK: But seems to me...

BURRIS: Not if they get some of the government money they will not be able to.

COSSACK: That's right. But they can opt out of the government money, which means that those who are better off will be -- will be in a better position to go to court. But it seems to me...

GRACE: But Roger, they will never recover. It will take them forever.

COSSACK: Right, Nancy. And I agree with that, Nancy. The one thing, though, that I do think is this, and I may be an unpopular opinion. I just don't think there should be double-dipping from an account that is made up of the same money from the same people. One is charitable given. One is tax given. But it's the public's. People should not double benefit.

CHEN: Audience?

COSSACK: They should get everything they should have. They should get it all. They should get every dime that they are entitled to but not double benefits.

CHEN: All right. That is the word before the break. We'll come back, we'll talk about where else you could get the money from. Maybe Osama Bin Laden's bank account. We will be back after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHEN: Thanks very much. We are back here at TALKBACK LIVE. Want to get in a couple of e-mails from some of viewers. Coming to us online from Steve in Rhode Island: "Tens of thousands of lives were personally affected by the terrorist attacks. Financial compensation should not be a problem. Every penny of Osama Bin Laden's frozen financial assets should go to the victims' families. Those responsible should be held accountable financially."

Also from Allen in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Allen says he's an attorney and he believes that Bin Laden could and should be sued by those who were directly affected by the 9-11 attacks.

Allen, I am a little bit of worried about you. Shouldn't you be working instead of watching TV at this hour of the day? In any case. John Burris, does it make sense to go after Osama Bin Laden? You have been involved in this kind of litigation with the -- the survivors of the embassy bombings.

BURRIS: Yes, I think it makes sense in the sense that a lawsuit should be filed, efforts should be made to get a judgment against him and then go after the assets.

I will say that that is long road to follow. The government as part of the anti-terrorism bill has made an effort to -- to freeze those assets. Once they are frozen, then I think if judgments have been obtained, those assets can be distributed.

But I think what should ultimately, if that does occur, that again, there should not be double-dipping. To the extent that money is recovered -- say $200 million -- that money should then go back to the government to the extent that the government has paid out $200 million and that they -- because the truth of the matter is the money from Osama Bin Laden will be years in recovering.

CHEN: Yes, and Nancy...

BURRIS: And the monies that are going to be given out now would be very effective and so you offset that money at some later point. But I do think that it is an effective way to go right now. We are making efforts to do that ourselves.

CHEN: I want to get Nancy on that. Will the victims ever see -- any money that way, if you go after -- I mean, we know Osama Bin Laden has a lot of money.

GRACE: Hey, listen. If he has imagined to hide in a cave in Afghanistan and evade the U.S. entire military. I doubt, John Burris, that your process servers are going to be able to file papers on him.

BURISS: No, we already have -- no, no, we have personal -- we have service on him. That's not the point.

GRACE: But my long story short in response to Joie's question is, it will take forever, but yes, I agree with John in this one case that Osama Bin Laden as well as the terrorist state that supports him should be sued and that is made possible by the '96 anti-terrorism bill. We can now sue Afghanistan...

CHEN: And Joe -- Joe, you represent some of those folks, some of those families already from World Trade Center.

TACOPINA: Yeah, and we discussed that. And believe me, if there was anything that we all -- they want to do is for sort of feel-good litigation was to sue Bin Laden.

But the fact of the matter is, it really goes along the same lines as the other potential litigants and defendants. Let the government do what they have to do here. Let them seize and freeze and get his assets and then let's see what kind of compensation packages are available. The last thing I want as a lawyer -- I'll be honest -- I saw one of the online e-mails saying lawyers shouldn't get any money from this. I am not taking any money from any of these clients. I want to help them in any way possible get what's best.

I have -- I have a total of 12 children who are without one parent right now, out of these five families. And I just want to do what is best for them. And I think we have to be a little patient and trust in our government a little bit to see what they can do.

BURRIS: Well, you know, Joe, that is fine if you don't engage in litigation. I think that's very. That is pro bono.

But if you were involved in litigation where you had to sue the government or sue Bin Laden to do that, I think your view would be slightly different. I think suing Bin Laden is an -- an important thing to do. It not only sends a message, in the end, obviously, there is a collection problem. The U.S. government will help in that regard...

CHEN: That's a -- that's a serious collection problem.

(CROSSTALK)

COSSACK: Let's talk a little practically here for a second, if we can. The -- the reality is is that you can sue Bin Laden. And John Burris, I know you can even get the service over him, probably by public...

CHEN: John Burris is tough.

COSSACK: It's probably good enough for our courts that say that we have jurisdiction over him. The problem is, now you have got the judgment. Now you have this piece of paper that says Osama Bin Laden owes you $200 million. Now what do you do with it?

You go over to the government or you go to the bank where the assets are frozen and you say, "I would like my $200 million, please," and that is when the party begins. And oftentimes you have the United States government coming in and saying, "You know what? We don't want this money turned over so fast."

In fact, in recently -- in some of the Iranian judgments, it was the United States government that paid off and settled with the litigants rather than have them go and attack the Iranian assets. So I think that...

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: That is how it ought to be, Roger. That's how it should be, Roger.

COSSACK: ...one, getting the money and two, getting a -- you know, getting a successful suit.

BURRIS: I think that is it ought to be. It ought to be -- there ought to be judgment, but also the U.S. government collects that money, pays off the litigants. That is why I talk about the offset. If the government pays out $200 million, they get the assets back then they keep the $200 million. I think that's an effective way to go.

CHEN: Last word. I want to...

COSSACK: In other words, what you do is you shift it to the government...

BURRIS: Absolutely. They collect.

COSSACK: But the -- the government's money is your money and my money. So we are the guarantor of that, not the government.

CHEN: Hey, you know what. This is amazing. We have four lawyers on TV, nobody gets to talk. We are going to have to get tougher with all four of you. Thank you very much for being with us.

I'm sorry we had to abbreviate that, but we appreciate all of our friends being with us today. Roger Cossack, Nancy Grace, John Burris, Joe Tacopina. Thanks all to all of you in our studio audience and to those of you at home watching, as well as Allen in North Carolina who should be working as an attorney.

TALKBACK LIVE: AMERICA SPEAKS OUT returns tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 Eastern. Now we move ahead to what's next on CNN, and for that here is Judy Woodruff now. Judy, good afternoon.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com