Comments on: Pricing Civilian Casualties

By: Tlaloc

Tlaloc — Thu, 17 May 2007 17:02:17 +0000

Their deaths were no more tragic and no more the responsibility of the federal government than any other murder victims.

That's a tough sell. Afterall these civilians died in what was manifestly an attack on the United States itself, rather than as the victims of conventional crime. Now that may very well still not entitle them to compensation but I think we do have to consider that they are in some respects more akin to civilians killed in a war than conventional murder victims.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 17 May 2007 16:17:20 +0000

But you've gotta admire Ann Friedman's grasp of the appropriate snark: An American soldier's life: $250,000. An Iraqi civilian's life: $500. Crushing terrorism and building democracy: Priceless.

By: jimT

jimT — Thu, 17 May 2007 15:05:15 +0000

Culturally, the people of the middle east expect compensation in return for an error done to their family. The amount is not as important as the gesture.

By: LaurenceB

LaurenceB — Thu, 17 May 2007 14:39:08 +0000

We should not forget that it’s an act of remarkable generosity that we compensate innocent victims of war at all. It is not, after all, a common practice.

A trivial point perhaps, but in many aspects the operations in Iraq are more of an "occupation" than a "war". In such cases, I believe there is indeed precedence for compensating innocent bystanders. Not to say we aren't being generous - I agree that we are.