Omar F*****G Khadr is getting $10.5 milion

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

So it doesn't strike you odd that the press finds out on or around the 3rd of July and the Liberals don't have a press conference until the 7th of July. That's 4 days where everybody is left to speculate with their un answered questions.

You also had Trudeau dodging questions on the 4th about the settlement.

It's not partisan politics when you have a gap between when the news came out and the official press conference.

Maybe i'm waisting my time talking to you

No it doesn't strike me as odd. The news was leaked, that's a pretty logical explanation as to why it came out when it did. The complaints about that are what I consider to be the politics at play. This may surprise you but decisions government's make behind closed doors probably aren't always announced right away. Frankly I'd prefer whomever the prime minister is to not be live tweeting things like that anyways.

As for the avoiding questions, I'm not sure when you are specifically referring to or what those questions were, however if the questions related to specific details of the settlement or under what basis the government lawyers determined the offer was sensible, then I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there are potentially some non-disclosure clauses in this, and it's legally a poor choice to publicly announce what factors put you in a position to pay someone a large settlement.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by Makarov

The problem with this comparison is that in one case, the injury is caused by the wrongdoing (either negligent or intentional), whereas the other is not (there is no wrongdoing on the part of the government). Therefore, an award of damages in Khadr's case is intended to fully compensate him for all of the injuries suffered (and indeed, could potentially even attract punitive damages). In the case of compensation for a war widow,the purpose of any payment is not to attempt to compensate him or her for the death of a partner. It's simply a contractual payment (like life insurance benefits). They're two completely different things.

I get the difference and they are two different things, but the optics of it is terrible. This is a tricky case, but I don't think he deserves that amount of compensation.

[White Out 403]

Politics would be a lot easier if people stopped arguing over optics and just the facts.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

No it doesn't strike me as odd. The news was leaked, that's a pretty logical explanation as to why it came out when it did. The complaints about that are what I consider to be the politics at play. This may surprise you but decisions government's make behind closed doors probably aren't always announced right away. Frankly I'd prefer whomever the prime minister is to not be live tweeting things like that anyways.

As for the avoiding questions, I'm not sure when you are specifically referring to or what those questions were, however if the questions related to specific details of the settlement or under what basis the government lawyers determined the offer was sensible, then I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there are potentially some non-disclosure clauses in this, and it's legally a poor choice to publicly announce what factors put you in a position to pay someone a large settlement.

Okay, then i'm waisting my time and i'll leave it at that.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Oh look, this terrible settlement is making the rounds on international news media yet again. WSJ with a piece, Fox has it as its headline.

Once again, we're a joke. Ask me how much military widows in Canada whose spouses gave the ultimate sacrifice in the name of this country are given, versus how much Khadr was paid for so much less suffering.

Its an absolute atrocity. Had we killed him, the Khadr family would have received approximately 0 dollars and 0 cents.

the last thing in the world that the WSJ or Fox should be doing is wagging their finger at other countries based on "higher moral ground"

You know what the real joke is?

the the US has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and that the total "condolence payments" made to these victims will still be less that THE SINGLE JUDGEMENT awarded to Speer's widow.

That's what is really GD outrageous.

As of July 13, more than 2,200 additional civilians appear to have been killed by Coalition raids since Trump was inaugurated—upwards of 360 per month, or 12 or more civilians killed for every single day of his administration.

That's right 2300 civilians and all we hear about is how Speer's wife isn't getting fair compensation.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/preside...ilians-per-day

Care to guess how much money an Afghan civilian life is worth? About 3000 US dollars


http://www.newsweek.com/2016/04/22/afghanistan-condolence-payments-kunduz-doctors-without-borders-airstrike-us-446017.html

The US should stop lecturing other countries on how to run their internal affairs when they have zero moral high ground to stand upon

And yes, that includes Obama, as he had the chance to rectify that pittance but he didn't.

[Dion]

Ralph Goodale our own 'Comical Ali'

Goodale — let’s call him “Roaring Ralph” — with an assist from Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, approached Baghdad Bob levels of disinformation last week as they executed the Trudeau government’s strategy of blaming Harper for the Khadr mess the Liberals created.

“The Harper government refused to repatriate Mr. Khadr or otherwise resolve the matter. They could have, but they didn’t,” Goodale declared.

Except Goodale omitted that in so doing, Harper was merely continuing the policy of the Jean Chretien/Paul Martin Liberal governments from 2002 until they lost power in 2006.

The Liberals made no effort to repatriate Khadr.

They merely asked the Americans that he not be sent to Guantanamo, and happily dropped the issue when the Americans said no.

The Liberals just wanted the Khadr story to go away because they were embarrassed Chretien had intervened on behalf of Khadr’s terrorist father, Ahmed Said Khadr, in 1996, when he was being held on suspicion of terrorism in Pakistan.

Following Chretien’s request that Ahmed Khadr be treated fairly, Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto released him, whereupon he returned to Canada and soon after moved his family to Pakistan, where Omar began his terrorist training under the Taliban and the elder Khadr’s confidante, Osama bin Laden.

Wilson-Raybould said the Khadr settlement showed “rights are not subject to the whims of the government of the day.” Except she omitted “the government of the day,” which the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2010 had violated Khadr’s rights, was the Chretien-Martin government.

Why? Because it twice sent interrogators to question Khadr in Guantanamo in 2003 and 2004, and shared the information they obtained with his American captors, knowing they had used sleep deprivation to try and get Khadr to crack.

Someone should remind Goodale and Wilson-Raybould that Khadr was repatriated in 2012, under the Harper government, however reluctantly, while the Chretien/Martin government made no attempt to repatriate him from 2002 to 2006.

But the hypocritical Liberals, who only started caring about Khadr’s rights after Harper defeated them in 2006, have zero credibility on this issue. None.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/10...wn-comical-ali

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

I'm not a hundred percent on this but I read it was in the neighbourhood of $360,000 max depending on the severity of the injury. If that is in fact true, this settlement with a borderline terrorist for over 10 million dollars looks that much worse in comparison. But I'm sure he suffered more then our wounded service men do, so he deserved every penny of the payout.

It's also an entirely different set of circumstances, if it could be proven that the military that was responsible for the death due to some form of negligence or charter rights violation I'm fairly certain there would be some form of legal action the widow could take.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by snuffleupagus

was the video of him making ied bombs just an example of "fake news"?

Realistically, what could Khadr have done differently?

Originally Posted by transplant99

i just dont understand the need for anyone to defend this assclowns actions while he was in afghanistan and building bombs that were to be used against canada or its nato allies. It is a text book example of treason, regardless of his age or circumstances.

Realistically, what could Khadr have done differently?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Dion

Trudeau’s Khadr remarks don’t stand up to scrutiny

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/14...up-to-scrutiny

I would just like to congratulate you for making the worst contribution to this thread. It's sad enough that that op-ed even exists, it's freaking depressing that so many people believe it. Aren't you an attorney? The 'evidence' presented in that article didn't seem flimsier than the little pig's straw house to you?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Dion

Ralph Goodale our own 'Comical Ali'
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/10...wn-comical-ali

It's funny/sad that all the articles you post are written by people who write for the Rebel or deny things like climate change.

Really digging into the fantastic conservative intelligentsia of our time, Dion. Don't ever mistakenly read and share something unbiased or fact driven.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It's funny/sad that all the articles you post are written by people who write for the Rebel or deny things like climate change.

Really digging into the fantastic conservative intelligentsia of our time, Dion. Don't ever mistakenly read and share something unbiased or fact driven.

You mean like climate change? I thought it was global warming anyway.... Why did they change the name????? Sounds like goalpost moving.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I would just like to congratulate you for making the worst contribution to this thread. It's sad enough that that op-ed even exists, it's freaking depressing that so many people believe it. Aren't you an attorney? The 'evidence' presented in that article didn't seem flimsier than the little pig's straw house to you?

Dion is most certainly not an attorney.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

You mean like climate change? I thought it was global warming anyway.... Why did they change the name????? Sounds like goalpost moving.

Literally nobody is going to waste time debating climate change with you. Find a new hobby.

[calgaryblood]

Also, can you not post full articles on here dion. As badly written as the articles you share are, it's not fair to the author.

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Literally nobody is going to waste time debating climate change with you. Find a new hobby.

Why bother with debating when you can just declare it settled and ignore all the evidence that proves contrary.

[Makarov]

The Liberals just wanted the Khadr story to go away because they were embarrassed Chretien had intervened on behalf of Khadr’s terrorist father, Ahmed Said Khadr, in 1996, when he was being held on suspicion of terrorism in Pakistan.

Following Chretien’s request that Ahmed Khadr be treated fairly, Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto released him...

How embarrassing indeed.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Dion

Okay, then i'm waisting my time and i'll leave it at that.

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, you're choosing to ignore any logical and reasonable explanation as to why your complaints about the government's handling of this case may not be rational? If you would like for me to just agree with everything you're saying because don't wish to discuss it or you don't want to keep an open mind when reading my responses to the questions you've asked, well then I'm not sure why you would even bother to ask the questions in the first place or post your opinion at all.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Why bother with debating when you can just declare it settled and ignore all the evidence that proves contrary.

Irony much?

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, you're choosing to ignore any logical and reasonable explanation as to why your complaints about the government's handling of this case may not be rational? If you would like for me to just agree with everything you're saying because don't wish to discuss it or you don't want to keep an open mind when reading my responses to the questions you've asked, well then I'm not sure why you would even bother to ask the questions in the first place or post your opinion at all.

Here's the thing, why not trust in the justice system to do it's job and come to the right conclusion instead of just settling the case. I don't buy the "it would cost too much" and we would lose anyway excuse. When has a liberal government, especially TrueDopes ever cared about responsibly handling tax payers money. This whole situation was handled terribly.

[Looch City]

TrueDopes hahaha classic.