9/11 remains to be placed below ground in museum, families upset

[Nova]

I know they are unidentified. I've seen cremated remains before and I'm going to assume that is kinda what is being dealt with.
As someone above pointed out.. this is not a normal situation... Seems like an exception could be made to appease all the families. The 50 that want a say over where their relatives are, and the rest who are ok with the museum/monument idea.

What compromise would that be?

As I've said, I believe this IS the compromise. That just isn't good enough for a few people.

 

[Nova]

Well on a documentary on the History channel I saw quite a while back on Pearl Harbor they said the remains were not recovered due to logistics at that time.
Here in this situation we actually DO have remains. So i don't think they should be compared.

Actually, the logistics are different, but it's still a question of logistics. In 1942, the problem was getting to the dead victims; at the WTC, the problem is with untangling and identifying the remains. Not so different.

 

[Nova]

In my opinion, when I read "In the basement", I see it as being dumped like when I toss in my basement the stuff I don't need, but it's a good place to store it. Spiderwebs, dust, and the occasional "Where the heck did that come from?".

It will not be the case regarding these victims remains. I have absolutely no doubt.

imvho

The basement crypt at the new cathedral in Los Angeles is beautiful. Although it lies beneath the sanctuary, it isn't dirty or cramped or what anyone thinks of as the "basement" of a house. It is open at certain hours when there are guards to make sure the graves are not disturbed in any way.

 

[strach304]

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/uni...911-remains-in-below-ground-museum-54084.html


Families Oppose Placing 9/11 Remains in Below-Ground Museum

NEW YORK—About 50 family members of firefighters and other victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks gathered outside the World Trade Center on Sunday to protest placing the remains of their loved ones 70 feet below ground, in the basement of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum.

“Families here today say, ‘No.’ They believe that the remains should be placed in a respectful, accessible location above ground and separate from the museum,” said Norman Siegel, attorney representing the families.


According to Siegel, 41 percent of the victims’ families have not received any of their loved ones’ remains to date. Hence, “wherever the city places these remains will be the only place family members can pay their respects,” he said.

***much more at link***

That's good enough for me.

 

[Nova]

That's good enough for me.

What's good enough for you?

There are tens of thousands of surviving relatives of 9/11 victims. There are hundreds of thousands of surviving friends.

Are 50 survivors (less than 1%) the number who get to dictate what is done with remains? Or is just one objector enough?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

You're right that my question is partly facetious, but the underlying principle is not. And you're right, the problem with the analogy is that I as an individual can be easily identified and retrieved.

So let's refine the question: what about people who were killed by a tsunami at a Thai resort? Many of them were never recovered. Do their relatives get to dictate what is done on that property or does the resort get a pass because the bodies most likely ended up at sea?

Fifty-some people were killed in one apartment building in the Northridge earthquake of 1994. I think most of the remains were recovered, but no doubt some DNA ended up in the rubble. Should the relative of those victims be allowed to dictate how that land is used in the future?

Differences in analogies notwithstanding, you and the 50 people of the article are still arguing a new principle in law: that somehow dying on a property conveys ownership of that property to your survivors. I'm sure you can see why that is an unworkable principle.

And while you love to make pronouncements such as the one above about how one grieving mother trumps my personal opinion, that's a gross oversimplification of the issue. Your posts are as fallacious as the article, which wants to stir up hysteria (mission accomplished!) by implying the issue is grieving survivors v. heartless bureaucrats.

But that's not the case. This is a tiny minority of survivors trying to keep outrage alive v. the vast majority who recognize the need to reach a compromise and move on. It isn't possible to compromise when every proposed solution is denounced by someone as "insensitive" and "disrespectful."

This has nothing to do with the property. It has to do with unidentified human remains.

Are the remains the property of the state?

I've been saying the word compromise since this thread started! You say ignore the families and rebuild. Now you are saying people like me want to keep the outrage alive instead of finding a compromise! :waitasec:


What I do find insensitive and disrespectful is how you keep saying stuff about the victims family members like:
Yammering to the press
Ignore them and rebuild
Trying to keep outrage alive
And countless others

To me, that DOES sound heartless.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

What's good enough for you?

There are tens of thousands of surviving relatives of 9/11 victims. There are hundreds of thousands of surviving friends.

Are 50 survivors (less than 1%) the number who get to dictate what is done with remains? Or is just one objector enough?

Nobody is dictating anything NOVA!
They are protesting. It's what we have the right to do in this country if we disagree with what is happening.

Everyone who protests is a dictator????
GMAB

 

[OrdinaryLife]

The basement crypt at the new cathedral in Los Angeles is beautiful. Although it lies beneath the sanctuary, it isn't dirty or cramped or what anyone thinks of as the "basement" of a house. It is open at certain hours when there are guards to make sure the graves are not disturbed in any way.

One of the most beautiful/amazing experiences I was given was the gift of was going to Westminster Abbey. I had no idea, as I walked in, that I was walking on those buried within the floors of the Abbey. It touched me more than I can share. I had to stop at each slate marker, read, and take into my heart that this person was real. Made such an impact on me. It was humbling.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I hope this doesn't come off as too disrespectful, but I do not understand why they want their family members to be put in a museum at all? Where are the remains of these people? Sitting somewhere waiting? That is, imo, disrespectful! It's been almost ten years and they are still fighting about what they want done with their loved ones remains? I don't understand this at all! Let these poor people rest peacefully and respectfully!

Yes, the family has a right to decide how they want their families remains to be "buried" but this whole thing about having them at the place where there lives were ruthlessly taken? I don't know? I'm backing away!

 

[i.b.nora]

A more thorough, more intelligent, more food for thought article on the remains dilemma:

For 9/11 Museum, Dispute Over Victims’ Remains

The New York Times
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Published: April 1, 2011

 

[Kimberlyd125]

A more thorough, more intelligent, more food for thought article on the remains dilemma:

For 9/11 Museum, Dispute Over Victims’ Remains

The New York Times
By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Published: April 1, 2011

That link won't work for me. It's asking for a login.

 

[Nova]

This has nothing to do with the property. It has to do with unidentified human remains.

Are the remains the property of the state?

I've been saying the word compromise since this thread started! You say ignore the families and rebuild. Now you are saying people like me want to keep the outrage alive instead of finding a compromise! :waitasec:


What I do find insensitive and disrespectful is how you keep saying stuff about the victims family members like:
Yammering to the press
Ignore them and rebuild
Trying to keep outrage alive
And countless others

To me, that DOES sound heartless.

Once again, this IS the compromise. It isn't compromise when each time a compromise is reached, some tiny minority screams and then the bar is moved yet again. That's Tea Party logic and, frankly, it's just another form of bullying.

Honestly, I don't care whether you or others think I'm heartless. I'd rather be thought heartless and exercise a little common sense than be known for my sensitivity, when I'm really just being sentimental.

It's time some of us spoke up and said "enough."

 

[Nova]

Nobody is dictating anything NOVA!
They are protesting. It's what we have the right to do in this country if we disagree with what is happening.

Everyone who protests is a dictator????
GMAB

And nobody has said they don't have a right to protest and express those views.

But by the same token, I have a right to my opinion that it's time for them to shut up. (That's NOT to say the government should make them shut up, which is a different issue altogether.)

 

[Nova]

That link won't work for me. It's asking for a login.

Same here. I don't want to subscribe to the NYT on-line, but I'd love to hear a summary of the salient points of the article.

I have been discussing this issue based on the link we were given. I certainly open to the possibility that there may be more info that would change my view.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I'll take caring and sympathetic thank you! And common sense to me would include caring about a family's wishes. Whether it's 50 or 1.

It really doesn't matter. They are doing what they feel they need to do for their loved ones.

Protest is great and legal! Freedom is a wonderful thing.

 

[Nova]

A quote I discovered today that seems appropriate:

"Just because you're offended doesn't mean you are in the right"

--Ricky Gervais