Civil trial's verdict is based on greed

Remember the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center? That terrorist attack was a prelude to the Sept. 11 attack that downed the twin towers. Six were killed and a thousand injured in that 1993 attack when a truck loaded with a half-ton of explosives was parked in the basement garage of the World Trade Center. Muslim extremists were found guilty of planting that fatal bomb.

But this week the civil trial ended to determine who exactly was at fault. This trial was about money - who was going to pay the families of the victims and those injured.

Here's what I find amazing. The jury found the Port Authority twice as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Now someone will have to explain that one to me - other than the fact that the Port Authority has insurance and big pockets and the terrorists are hopefully rotting in prison somewhere.

I recognize that civil litigation is far different from a criminal trial. And I assume the Port Authority could have erected barriers or screened vehicles more closely as they entered the parking garage. But hindsight is an easy way to look back and second guess all decisions.

A spokesman for the Port Authority hit the nail on the head. He said that despite virtually all precautions, a terrorist bent on destruction can be successful. The jury was not allowed to consider the Sept. 11 tragedy as proof that terrorists are resourceful and could have bombed the Trade Center in 1993 regardless of the precautions.

I just find this both amazing and wrong that a jury would find the Port Authority primarily responsible for the attack and destruction. I know you can't get compensation from the terrorists but to penalize the Trade Center seems wrong and greedy.