The good people at PLUS afforded me the opportunity to blog about the 2009 PLUS International Conference on this website in mid-November. I had fun doing it, and I hope that some of you enjoyed reading my postings. This may be hard to believe, but not only did PLUS not pull the plug on my blogging before the conference was over (despite 7-2 Vegas odds that it would), but I was actually offered continued use of this forum to post my opinions, updates on industry happenings, etc. For this, I thank the senior managers of PLUS once again. Hopefully I will not disappoint (I don't want to know the Vegas line on that one.)
I probably won’t post very frequently, but the issue of conducting the September 11th terrorist trial in downtown Manhattan has raised my ire and moved me to write. I should note that if you’ll look around this blog site, you’ll see disclaimers stating that the opinions expressed by the bloggers are their own and not those of PLUS. I’d like to reaffirm – and emphasize – that point. If you disagree with my thoughts, I’d invite you to post a reply, but please don’t attribute my views to the PLUS organization or any of its managers. In fact, I believe PLUS strengthened their disclaimers once they gave me the keys to the blog kingdom (well, not really, but I won’t be surprised if it happens…)
You may question the relevance of the 9-11 trial to the insurance industry and the appropriateness of this topic appearing on the PLUS blog site. But, then again, you may realize that the connections are deep.
Our industry had the second-highest number of 9-11 fatalities of any business sector (Marsh and Aon alone accounted for almost 500 deaths.) The human toll of September 11, 2001 on the insurance world was incalculable. In my opinion, it dwarfed, in comparison, even that day’s catastrophic financial consequences. And, of course, our industry is tethered to this issue because many insurance companies are headquartered in Manhattan and/or have a significant presence here, so their employees will be in close proximity to the proceedings, like it or not.
I strongly believe that this trial does not belong in New York City. My reasons are manifold but, in the interest of (relative) brevity, I will lay out only a few.
First, there is no logical basis to give these despicable defendants such a high-profile forum as New York City to spew their anti-American views. This city is the world’s biggest and brightest media stage. The terrorists didn’t elect to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago or the Transamerica Building in San Francisco for a reason: they are not in the world’s media and financial capital. The cowards behind the 9-11 attacks may have been able to decide the high-profile location of their atrocities, but we shouldn’t allow those choices to dictate the venue of their prosecutions. Reporters will turn out in droves no matter where this trial occurs, but it will greatly reduce the public relations value of the proceedings to the terrorists’ cause (whatever that may be) if they are forced to defend themselves in Topeka or Cheyenne or, better yet, Guantanamo Bay. It’s plainly evident that these defendants much prefer to conduct their rants on the big stage of New York City. What attention seeker wouldn’t?
My second reason is more emotional, but no less compelling.
I don’t know much about U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, but minimal research shows that he grew up in East Elmhurst, Queens and attended Columbia University and Columbia Law School. So he certainly has a flavor of New York City and, most likely, still has roots here. Whether he was in Manhattan on September 11, 2001 I don’t know, but, of course, it’s irrelevant; the pain and devastation of that day was, and still is, felt nationwide, and I’m sure he experienced it like all other Americans.
I was downtown working for AIG on September 11th and for about 30 minutes I feared that I might lose my life from inhaling the mammoth cloud of smoke that mushroomed from the North Tower’s collapse. Someone near me yelled in the bedlam that the smoke “might be poison.” In the year that followed I cried frequently when thinking of lost friends and colleagues and our shattered American way of life. I’m sure many of you did too. And, I’m certain, people who lost close relatives broke down much more frequently, and intensely, than I did. It’s a horrible emotional scar for every American, but particularly so for the people who inhabit Manhattan island for all or part of every day. Why do we need to rip open those never-to-heal scabs by conducting such a high-profile, in-your-face trial in this city? Do the survivors deserve to have this bright-light reminder of that worst of all days directed squarely into their eyes eight years later? It will be a long, drawn out torture session. The Band-Aid will be pulled back slowly and painfully, but it will never fully come away.
Below is an excerpt from a book I wrote last year about professional lines insurance. This, I assure you, is not a thinly-veiled commercial for the book (I’m not good with the thin veil, I’m more of a club-over-the-head type of guy….) In fact, I’m not even going to mention its name or how to order it. But I would like to share this:
* * *
My friend Dennis and I met twenty five years ago, when we were both in college. He came to live for a summer with the Campaniles, close family friends of ours who live down the block from my childhood home at the Jersey Shore. A Virginia native, Dennis was interning for the summer with Kidder, Peabody on Wall Street. He is now Father Dennis, a Catholic priest in the New York Archdiocese. One of Father Dennis’s good friends, Father George, was an auxiliary chaplain with the New York City Fire Department in September of 2001. He was summoned to the World Trade Center shortly after the first plane hit on the morning of September 11th. That day, I was told, marked the first time in the history of the New York City Fire Department that all 30 auxiliary chaplains were summoned to a single fire. They gathered at St. Peter’s Church on Barclay Street, about two blocks north of the burning towers.
Father George said that virtually every fire truck racing to the World Trade Center stopped at St. Peter’s so that the crews could confess their sins (the majority of NYC firefighters are Roman Catholic) before charging into the flaming buildings. The commanders admonished their subordinates to skip confession because of the magnitude and urgency of the situation, but the rank-and-file firefighters paid no heed. These men forced almost every truck to stop at the St. Peter’s on what would be the final fire call for most of them. Father George sensed that these brave men did not necessarily foresee the Twin Towers collapsing, but they knew that they would very likely lose their lives saving others and they wanted to square up with God first. So many firefighters stopped for this final holy sacrament – despite the unprecedented importance of their mission – that the priests had to absolve them of their sins en masse as they jumped off the trucks. There was no time for individual confessions. These courageous public servants knew that they were going to die, and yet they pressed onward to discharge their duties. In the face of the fiercest fires anyone had ever seen, they had no thoughts of their own safety, only of saving others. Ironically, St. Peter is believed to usher the deceased through the Gates of Heaven. Perhaps on September 11, 2001 his work began for 343 firefighters at a church bearing his name.
* * *
The majority of those 343 courageous firefighters lived in, or near, New York City (note: the same is true, of course, of the law enforcement officers, emergency medical technicians and many civilian heroes who died at the World Trade Center.) If it were possible to poll those 343 brave souls on whether they’d like the architects of their murders to be tried in New York City, in plain sight of their still-grieving loved ones, my guess is that the vote would be 343 – 0 against creating such an emotional ordeal for the survivors. Don’t we owe those heroes and their memory something?
Third, no matter how much the government assures us to the contrary, conducting the trial in Manhattan will pose an increased security risk to a local population that has already suffered enough terrorist mayhem. People who live and/or work in Manhattan are, visibly or not, continually on edge to some extent with respect to the prospect of additional terrorist attacks. Why does our federal government choose to needlessly exacerbate that anxiety? The trial is currently projected to last at least a year. That's quite a while for this ordeal to drag on -- and it may very well go longer.
The rationale for holding this trial in New York City really escapes me. These cowards were not here when their crimes occurred. And their evil also wrought destruction in Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania, although, admittedly, not as much. The planes that did this destruction took off from Boston, Virginia (Dulles Airport) and Newark. The so-called “Shoe Bomber’s” flight took off from Boston and the Justice Department decided to hold his trial in that city. Where is the logical consistency with the current decision? Mr. Holder has publicly stated that the proper venue for a trial of the terrorists behind the USS Cole attack would be a military tribunal because they attacked a U.S. military target. Was not the Pentagon a U.S. military target?
Is there a political agenda behind this decision to conduct the trial in New York City? It seems to be the ineluctable conclusion. The 9-11 atrocities were acts of war against our government; the victims were not known to, or specifically intended targets of, their killers. Since when are war criminals, particularly those who committed their acts (i.e. the planning) overseas, tried in the civilian courts of Manhattan? This, it seems to me, is an unprecedented act of stupidity and political grandstanding.
Many would say that the American justice system is the fairest on earth (I agree) and that these defendants deserve an even-handed and open trial, such as would, theoretically, be conducted in New York. But is that really possible? Any juror who was living or working in New York City at that time, and even in just more recent years, will have a difficult time being truly independent and fair. I can tell you that if I learned that any of these defendants so much as helped a conspirator find an outlet to plug in their laptop during the planning stages, I would be quick to hand down the severest punishment allowed.
The father of Todd Beamer, the civilian hero who helped force down United Airlines Flight 93 in a Pennsylvania field at the cost of his life, is fervently opposed to holding this trial in New York City. He recently attended a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that reviewed the issue of the trial’s location. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547681569546414.html), David Beamer said that it was disconcerting to see how the divergence of opinion was drawn squarely along party lines, with Democrats favoring the administration’s decision and Republicans opposing it, although not as vigorously as he’d have liked. The wishes of the victims’ families, he felt, were not sufficiently considered. Unfortunately, that is not surprising.
This administration poked an insensitive finger in the eyes of all New Yorkers when it orchestrated a boneheaded fly-over photo op for Air Force One earlier this year. Is there really a need to follow up on the callous stupidity of that act with this punch in the gut? Hasn’t New York suffered enough?
* * *
If you want to weigh in on this issue with the Department of Justice, its website says that you can send an e-mail to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov. In the “re” line you should make it clear that you’re writing to Attorney General Eric Holder about the 9-11 trial. If you’re so moved, please pass this information along to your friends as well.