Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

9-11 first responders to be checked on FBI terror list

Posted by on Apr. 23, 2011 at 8:57 AM
  • 10 Replies

It's the sort of legislative provision that "Inception" director Christopher Nolan—or maybe paranoid sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick—might dream up: Under the terms of last year's health compensation law for first responders to the 9/11 terror attacks, would-be beneficiaries have to submit to FBI background checks to verify that they are not themselves terrorists. The provision places applicants' names and personal information in a file to be cross-checked with the FBI's Terror Watch list before they receive any medical compensation.

The Huffington Post's Michael McAuliff reports that a last-minute amendment to the James Zadroga 9/11 Health And Compensation Law mandates that the government must establish that no first responders and 9/11 survivors are terrorists prior to assessing their eligibility for federal benefits.

Rep Cliff Stearns (R-FL) added the amendment during the bitter debates over the bill, which provides $4.3 billion in compensation to help workers who fell ill after the attacks. The bill also provides compensation for people who lived or attended school near Ground Zero. Senate Republicans initially blocked the bill.

Workers will be informed by their medical providers before July that they need to be screened to ensure they are not terrorists.

"It's comical at best, and I think it's an insult to everyone who worked on The Pile and is sick and suffering from 9/11," John Feal, an advocate for 9/11 workers and a former construction worker who lost part of his foot at Ground Zero, told The Huffington Post. "When cops and firefighters get this at home, they're going to hit the roof," he said.

But one first responder told McAuliff he had no problem with being screened. "How do you know if there were any terrorists there?" Anthony Flammia, a former NYPD Highway Patrol officer, asked.

Stearns says because the bill applies to people working in the vicinity, he wants to ensure no terrorists benefit. You can read the whole story here.

(Wendy Flammia holds a photo of John McNamara, a New York City firefighter who died August 9, 2009, as Sen. Charles Schumer talked about the first responders' bill last December: AP.)

by on Apr. 23, 2011 at 8:57 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
cjsbmom
by Lois Lane on Apr. 23, 2011 at 8:59 AM

I doubt anyone who was risking their life to save those trapped and clean up after that disaster was a terrorist. Sorry, doesn't fit the bill. I think this is very disgusting and an added slap in the face to survivors and rescuers who are suffering real health affects.

LokisMama
by Bronze Member on Apr. 23, 2011 at 9:22 AM

Why does this seem to me like a really nasty way to pinch pennies?

It's terrible to target people who have been hurt or made ill because of trying to SAVE OTHER PEOPLE!  Jesus, what's next?  No burn units for injured fire fighters?

pvtjokerus
by Ruby Member on Apr. 23, 2011 at 9:49 AM

At first I shook my head at what I thought was bs.   Then after pulling the full article up and could see the rational IF it really is to check for certainty on who is getting the funds. It should take one day to process the checks so it should not delay the pay offs.  But my main question is why do these individuals get checks when we have first responders risking their lives everyday and coming into contact with materials that can also cause them illnesses?

LauraKW
by "Dude!" on Apr. 23, 2011 at 10:18 AM
I like that this is a Republican amendment.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Apr. 23, 2011 at 10:22 AM
Typical


Quoting LauraKW:

I like that this is a Republican amendment.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Della529
by on Apr. 23, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Isn't the FBI the organization which maintains the "list" for air travelers?

katzmeow726
by on Apr. 23, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Smh.....
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LauraKW
by "Dude!" on Apr. 23, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Are you a fan of the stipulations?


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Typical




Quoting LauraKW:

I like that this is a Republican amendment.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Apr. 23, 2011 at 10:40 AM
No, I think it is disgusting




Quoting LauraKW:

Are you a fan of the stipulations?




Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Typical






Quoting LauraKW:

I like that this is a Republican amendment.



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
LauraKW
by "Dude!" on Apr. 23, 2011 at 10:45 AM
Agreed. I would typically call such a move pandering, but I don't even know to whom this panders. Since the ire-raising requirements are now in place I am glad they did not come from the party that shares my ideologies.


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

No, I think it is disgusting








Quoting LauraKW:

Are you a fan of the stipulations?






Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Typical








Quoting LauraKW:

I like that this is a Republican amendment.




Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)