Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagor
All the intelligence gathered suggests there is no evidential reason to not continue UNRWA funding. Everyone that made the decision based on this intelligence is correct.
Reasonable enough?
|
From the CBC article I posted earlier;
Quote:
|
The government says the money will be accompanied by "enhanced due diligence," including a "very robust oversight and reporting framework" that includes regular site visits and anti-terrorism provisions.
|
Why would there need to be “enhanced due diligence” and “very robust oversight” if there was nothing wrong in the past? Why would they suddenly introduce those measures?