Death from WTC dust added to 9/11 list

Death from WTC dust added to 9/11 list

"NEW YORK - Felicia Dunn-Jones died of lung disease five months after Sept. 11, and last year her family asked that the city's medical examiner add her name to the death toll.

New York City Chief Medical Examiner Charles Hirsch refused, writing back that his office could not link her death to the exposure "with certainty beyond a reasonable doubt."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_re_us/attacks_health;_ylt=A9G_...

Now with some saying that there should be less government and strict interpretation of the constitution, how do we address this type of situation?

"New York lawmakers seeking federal funding for Sept. 11 health issues said more names should be added to the list."

Does the federal government need to give money for this?

And the related deaths and health problems from the dust will be with us for some time.

No votes yet

But you misunderstand, this IS the land of endless handouts; can you blame anyone for trying to cash in?

(Heavy sarcasm)

I'm not surprised though; there was so much money being tossed around that everyone FEELS entitled.

After all, it's the GOVERNMENT's MONEY, it's not like it comes out of our own pockets. . .

Hooda Thunkit

If there are people who are suffering an illness that is caused by the fallout from the attack then why shouldn't their deaths be added to the list? We all saw the images of thousands of people covered head to toe in the dust and debris from the fall of the towers. It's na

Good point Darkseid, these people were told the air was ok. They wouldn't lie to them, would they?

http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/

...why is it the responsibility of everyone in the country to monetarily compensate these people for any illness or injury as a result of what someone else did to them? Our congress is doing the same thing in Guam - compensating people who were mistreated by the Japanese Military - WHY????

The 'government' doesn't have anything that it doesn't take from us - the taxpayers. If these 'victims' want to blame anyone and get compensation or reparations or renumeration from someone, why not from those who attacked us? If you're really interested in making those who are responsible account for it, sue Osama bin Laden or whoever in the World Court.

I guess my question back to your, NC, is why is it the responsibility of the country to "address this?" Why is it whenever anything tragic (accident, natural disaster, etc...) happens to someone that the government must somehow play a roll in paying people?

I say why compensate them? Instead allow them to use the same medical facilities and get the same medical treatment that our Veterans do. Both sacrificed for nobel causes. Why not treat both of them the same?

MikeyA

MikeyA

Reading the wiki entry we can see that military people were removed in advance of an attack but not the indigenous people, so maybe the compensation is related to the attacks on the indigenous people of an American territory.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

And the answer is;

"Guam is seeking compensation from the federal government, which forgave Japan's war debts decades ago."

http://www.guampdn.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070509/NEWS01/705090321

"Further, Congress has no legal or statutory authority to confiscate funds from U.S. citizens to pay for harm inflicted on individuals by another nation."

Confiscate?

The Congress appropriated the funds.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

Was the expenditure ruled or judged to be unconsitutional by over seer of the branches of government, the courts?

"money they wouldn't have had to take from us if they weren't giving it away...that's confiscation, as I wasn't given the option to donate myself or opt out."

And this also applies to people who do not support schools through increased taxes or levies when they have no direct result from not having a child in the system, as an example.

We gave our representatives the right to act on our behalf and therefor you cannot opt out or donate but merely offer an opinion against or in favor of the legislation or mount a campaign to over turn the issue.

And that is the beauty of the Constitution, it sets out ways to regulate the government through actions, be it tests in the courts or at that the ballot box and the intent of the constitution as it applies to today and tomorrow when new issues come along is priceless.

"Government has nothing that it hasn't taken from you, me and everyone else..."

Quite, and the confiscations that the feds have taken from me to fund programs that I may not agree with are not confiscations at all but merely the way the system operates.

The funds have to come from some where and that is as old as the oldest government and is nothing new.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

It is not as if Guam is a foreign country. Guam is a U.S. territory and the people of Guam were granted U.S. citizenship in 1950.

So the compensation was to people of the U.S. in a way.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

I am simply stating the facts that are out there.

Whether or not you, me or anyone else beleive it be okay is not what I am after.

You will remember, please, that I have no production goals.

Guam was taken over by the U.S. in the Spanish-American War, it is an American territory, the U.S. governed and continues to govern the island, it is not a "foreign" country, it is American territory, the U.S. government forgave the Japansese government and U.S. Representatives put forth legislation to compensate the people of Guam, the survivors and others for the crimes that the Japanese army committed.

"Bordallo and Delegate Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, D-American Samoa, spoke in support of the bill with no opposition. A roll call vote is scheduled for Tuesday in the nation's capital, which is early this morning, Guam time."

No objections, not one peep from anyone.

""It is a tragic injustice of history that, following the liberation, Congress did not provide for war claims for the people of Guam in the same manner and with the same opportunities that were afforded to other Americans," Bordallo said."

And you are correct it was in 1950 that Guam became citizens of the U.S.

"the damage (the Japanese) are not being held responsible and that we - the American taxpayer - are taking care of it for them...and I believe 1950 is AFTER the war ended"

And again the U.S. forgave Japan, so Japan cannot be held responsible.

To me it is not a we versus them, it is us helping fellow citizens, yes after 1950 but people before that were part of an American holding.

The human issue then becomes does the U.S. have a responsibility to people that were taken into the U.S. through an action of war?

And when did I argue or deny that the Japansese did not inflict the harm?

Heck, I even posted information showing in black and white that some of the Japanese army did perform the horrific acts.

But, again, once more, the U.S. forgave the crimes of Japan with regards to Guam, there see, I said, Japan's crimes to the people of an American Territory.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

What I have stated is the facts. It is not for me to decide if the people of Guam an American territory should or should not receive damages they received in war time from an attack from another country on American soil, as in Guam.

"because we forgave the Japanese government...whatever reason may come up"

I did not come up with the reason, the American government came up with the plan and action to forgive the Japanese government.

"You seem to see the role of government to 'help' them in some way."

The legislation to help "them" was put through the action of their representatives in the House.

"I see the role of the federal government as being strictly limited."

I know that. We all know that. You have made that clear.

There is nothing in the constitution about the EPA, OSHA, or the Federal Department of Labor and a whole lot of other things. But there is language that permits the congress to act on behalf of the people and that is what the representatives of Guam and others have done.

Okay so, "I see it as the role of the INDIVIDUAL to help our fellow citizens - not the role of the federal government.", how do you suggest that we help the people of Guam that cannot file claims against Japan because of the actions of our government.

And would me or you help another that needed a, oh I dunno know, a home blown away in Katrina?

Ms. Thurber I can openly say to you that there are many many items and acts that are not in the constitution and as duly elected representative of the people at one time I would have thought you would have understood the concept of intent in documents. It seems clear that the founders and framers thought that the people would elect people to office that would represent their needs and wishes and is that not what the representatives of Guam, a U.S. territory are doing, whether or not you or me agree with it, the reps are acting with the interest of the people they represent.

Heck, while we are at it where is the authorization in the constitution for NASA?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

...this from the biography of David Crockett...

http://www.cnsnews.com/Library/crockett.htm

Simply because we elect people to represent us, we do not give them the authority to violate the Constitution which they are sworn to uphold.

And just because the government has created agencies and entities that it shouldn't have doesn't justify the fact that they had no authority to do so in the first place.

And since we agree that that are many agencies which exist that are not authorized by the Constitution, we can begin the discussion of how to start closing them down. Which agency/department would you start with?

Well, I do agree that in plain words there are no authorizations for many of the agencies but as I mentioned before the world is not black and white.

While there is no direct wording to support the agencies creation and there is no movement in the way of an amendment to undo over 200 years of executive interpretation of the constitution nor is there any movement to abolish or control both houses of congress ability to create laws and rules governing of the country nor has the courts seen fit to declare the actions of the government unconstitutional any authority in cases such as the creation of agencies and bureaus.

"Article I

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. "

Therein lies the right of the houses of the congress to act as they do.

Further therein lies some specific doe's and don'ts and the rest is silent. With silent passages the intent of the document is examined and any resulting legislation can be challenged as unconstitutional by the courts whom are, should remain independent and not unswayed by public opinion and interference from the other branches of the government.

So, it would appear that the founders planned for actions that some would claim are not called for by establishing two houses of congress and an independent judiciary to oversee and guide the houses of congress in a constitutional question.

What I see with regards to comments is that people want something done some way or did not agree with a decision rendered and are unhappy about it and therefor the constitution needs to be interpreted strictly to suit the thoughts and wants of the person coming forward with a complaint.

Is that what the founders and framers of the constitution wanted?

A country so swayed by opinions or was it that the framers wanted checks and balances of the houses of congress by informed citizens that speak out to their representatives in both houses and the citizens voices may be heard but the matter may not go in the way that the citizen wanted.

The underlying concept of intent is the key.

And there is no where in the constitution that it says that either house of congress or executive cannot create an agency that some may choose to disagree with, does it?

Ah, so therefor if it is silent it is not allowed or is it?

Interestingly enough, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/avalon.htm this I found along the way and it offers a boat load of background to the framing of the constitution and also this;

And from the link you provided; "One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer."

Sure he does have a point. An appropriation to a widow as compared to the present day death benefits given to war widows.

Seeing that there is nothing in the constitution about war widows, should we then not grant them compensation for the loss of their husbands when the husband is killed in the duty for the country?

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

But

I don't understand, the government told everybody in new york that that stuff was harmless. The EPA even said so.

----------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Think of it as compensation for "failing to connect the dots". Or compensation for lying about the air quality.

http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/

Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act - Recognizes the suffering and the loyalty of the people of Guam during the Japanese occupation of Guam in World War II."

And further;

"The United States took control of the island in the 1898 Spanish-American War. Guam came to serve as a station for American ships traveling to and from the Philippines, while the northern Mariana islands passed to Germany then Japan.

During World War II, Guam was attacked and invaded by the Japanese armed forces on December 8, 1941. Before the attack, all military dependents were transported from the island and away from imminent danger. The Northern Mariana Islands had become a Japanese protectorate before the war. It was the Chamorros from the Northern Marianas who were brought to Guam to serve as interpreters and in other capacities for the occupying Japanese force. The Guamanian Chamorros were treated as an occupied enemy by the Japanese military. After the war, this would cause some resentment by the Guamanian Chamorros towards the Chamorros in the Northern Marianas. Guam's occupation lasted for approximately thirty-one months. During this period, the indigenous people of Guam were subjected to forced labor, family separation, incarceration, execution, concentration camps and prostitution. Approximately a thousand people died during the occupation according to Congressional Testimony in 2004. The United States returned and fought the Battle of Guam on July 21, 1944, to recapture the island from Japanese military occupation. The U.S. also captured and occupied the Northern Marianas. After the war, The Guam Organic Act of 1950, which established Guam as an unincorporated organized territory of the United States, provided for the structure of the island's government, and granted the people United States citizenship."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam#History

The issue of compensating Guam is a bit more involved that appears on the surface.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

...on their official website:

"On December 10, 1941, Guam surrendered to the Japanese South Seas detachment forces after a valiant defensive struggle by the island's Insular Force Guard and a limited number of U.S. marines."

I'm sure that we have well-meaning people in Washington who think everything bad that happens in the world is the fault of America and that we should hand over money as a result.

I don't really care if, somehow, someone thinks the U.S. is to blame - the people who committed the acts causing the harm should be held responsible - the Japanese and Osama bin Laden. Let them pay!

...did Congress get the funds? Through the taxes that we pay...which means, that they've taken money from all of us for an unconstitutional expenditure - money they wouldn't have had to take from us if they weren't giving it away...that's confiscation, as I wasn't given the option to donate myself or opt out.

Government has nothing that it hasn't taken from you, me and everyone else...

...very hard to find a way to make this okay - without addressing the fact that the people who did the damage (the Japanese) are not being held responsible and that we - the American taxpayer - are taking care of it for them...and I believe 1950 is AFTER the war ended...

...a core philosophical difference in our perspectives as to the proper role of government.

You seem to think, if I understand correctly, this it is within the proper role of our government to pay money for compensation for harms inflicted by another nation during a time of war. You seem to think that we are somehow to blame for what happened (either in withdrawing our troops, because they were a protectorate, because we forgave the Japanese government...whatever reason may come up) and the proper thing to do is to "help" our fellow citizens, even though they weren't citizens at the time of the atrocities.

You seem to see the role of government to 'help' them in some way.

I see the role of the federal government as being strictly limited. I see nothing in the Constitution that gives our federal government the ability to "help" in such a way. I see it as the role of the INDIVIDUAL to help our fellow citizens - not the role of the federal government.

With this basic core philosophical difference, there is no "understanding" or "increased knowledge" that either of us will gain from further discussion.

But I note that you have not answered the question as to where the Constitution might be construed to allow such an expenditure...You seem to think that this is 'needed' or 'appropriate' or "right" but haven't yet presented where it is 'authorized.' If you're able to find such authority, I'd appreciate knowing about it. Otherwise, enjoy the Memorial Day Holiday...that's what I'm going to be doing.

:)

...is estimated by the Congressional budget office to cost $130 million between 2008 and 2012 to compensate those who were victims of the Japanese military - even if the 'victim' experienced malnutrition in addition to many other nasty things that go on during war.

I don't have a problem with recognizing Guam and the peoples of the land for the brave fight they put up during the war..but I ask this again - why are US tax dollars being used to compensate victims when the perpetrators are not being held accountable? And this applies to the original post...

...If Japan's military did such bad things, let Japan compensate these people. If inhaling the dust from the falling of the towers caused illnesses, go after the people who flew planes into the towers.

Just don't expect that the American people need to pay for someone else's errors.

I think it can be seen that compensate someone for some thing that has to be a valid claim.

Without digging real deep into the subject of the reason for the compensation it could be maybe that it was based on the fact that Guam is U.S. territory and some have made claims that the U.S. failed to protect the area as well as could have been.

http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog

...Guam still might have fallen even if we had made a stand there, as you suggest might be the reason for the compensation. So what? The people who did the harm are not the citizens of the U.S., so why should we have to fork over money for it?

Why shouldn't they go after the people who did the harm?

Under this concept, if the police don't protect me from someone who wants to do me harm, is it their fault that the person hurts me - or does the responsibility for my hurt belong to the individual who inflicted it?

Just because something bad happens to you doesn't mean that the 'nation' or its citizens needs to pay you.

Further, Congress has no legal or statutory authority to confiscate funds from U.S. citizens to pay for harm inflicted on individuals by another nation. And I'd challenge you to find anything remotely resembling such authority in the Constitution.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.