Quote:
Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug
Fighting on the liability issue seems wasteful, but wanting a court to decide on the quantum of the damages award is a defensible position. Perhaps I am giving Rempel and "the 71%" too much credit, but unless there is a breakdown of what the $10.5 million represents, I think it reasonable for people to question the number.
|
It really is a matter of principle vs what's in the tax payers' best interest. I mean if at the end of the the courts would have ruled Khadr was only entitled to $5M but we spent and additional $5.5M on legal fees fighting the case, what would anyone who is complaining have gained? The people who thought he deserved nothing still wouldn't be happy, and the people who thought we could have saved money by taking him to court also wouldn't have been happy. In this scenario it makes absolutely no difference to the individual taxpayers how much money Khadr gets and how much the lawyers get, it costs us the same either way. In the event that the government somehow managed to win the case and Khadr got nothing, is the government not being held accountable for violating a person's charter rights really a win? In my opinion it isn't, and I'd personally be more upset with my tax dollars paying for that decision. If they managed to get it done for less money overall, of course in hindsight that would have made the most sense both financially and politically, however we don't have the luxury of a crystal ball so the government needs to rely on the legal advice which has been given. It had been mentioned earlier, this is just the way most lawsuits are usually settled, you come to an agreement that makes the most sense for both sides financially and punitively, people just need to learn to accept that.