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

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The second most popular article on the globe today is your daily horoscope.

Yes, the average person is a moron and half of them are even stupider. That does't change the fact that in a democracy the role of our elected officials is to represent the interests of the average person.

[Flash Walken]

Direct quote from the interview:

Rempel: "This is a very serious situation all around. Our Supreme Court has said his rights have been violated. To me as a legislator, I want the judiciary to make a decision on this."

Downright Stupefying.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Direct quote from the interview:

Rempel: "This is a very serious situation all around. Our Supreme Court has said his rights have been violated. To me as a legislator, I want the judiciary to make a decision on this."

Downright Stupefying.

Wow.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Zarley

You should really be more informed about something before you jump to these wild conclusions - I guess this is what happens when you get your information from the Buzzfeed of Canadian news. She did specifically mention the court ruling regarding the rights violation and indeed stated that her preference as a legislator would be for the judiciary to rule on the matter rather than settlement. In no way did she misrepresent the facts of the situation.

Sorry, I missed the very brief point she mentioned that, inbetween all the spots she said that the courts hadn't ruled on it.

And are you calling the CBC equivalent to Buzzfeed?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Direct quote from the interview:

Rempel: "This is a very serious situation all around. Our Supreme Court has said his rights have been violated. To me as a legislator, I want the judiciary to make a decision on this."

Downright Stupefying.

Really?

For me I think people would be less upset about this if it actually went to trial and he won money. I think the optics of the Government settling is what has a lot of people upset.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Really? For me I think people would be less upset about this if it actually went to trial and he won money. I think the optics of the Government settling is what has a lot of people upset.

That's the point. She just said the Supreme Court ruled, and now she wants the judiciary to make a decision. Well what the hell do you think the Supreme Court is?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Really?

For me I think people would be less upset about this if it actually went to trial and he won money. I think the optics of the Government settling is what has a lot of people upset.

~95% of civil actions settle (for all sorts of good reasons)? What are the compelling reason here not to settle? Pandering to a (perhaps dubious) sentiment among some of the public who just don't like Omar Khadr? Does not seem like a justifiable use of judicial or public resources to me. Does not seem like good government to me.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's the point. She just said the Supreme Court ruled, and now she wants the judiciary to make a decision. Well what the hell do you think the Supreme Court is?

But wasn't the settlement supposed to be secret and got leaked out? I mean whenever I hear people complain its people complaining about the government settlement being secretive and not letting a court decide - even if he would get more money.

Me personally I am in between a rock and a hard place. Guy went through some ####, does he deserve money? I don't know. Feds got lots of money so I don't really care either way to be honest.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Makarov

~95% of civil actions settle (for all sorts of good reasons)? What are the compelling reason here not to settle? Pandering to a (perhaps dubious) sentiment among some of the public who just don't like Omar Khadr? Does not seem like a justifiable use of judicial or public resources to me. Does not seem like good government to me.

I just think going to court would have calmed a lot of the outrage. Maybe thats a price to pay and maybe people would more understand what is actually happening. I don't think "most things settle" is a good enough reason - this isn't "most" things.

Maybe I am wrong though, just sort of floating some thoughts.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Weitz

But wasn't the settlement supposed to be secret and got leaked out? I mean whenever I hear people complain its people complaining about the government settlement being secretive and not letting a court decide - even if he would get more money.

I'm not sure. Obviously the fact of the settlement couldn't be kept a secret, because the whole "a minute ago he was suing the government and now he's not and they're issuing an apology to him" would have made it kind of obvious... but perhaps the dollar amount was supposed to be confidential? I may have missed something there. To me, that doesn't seem like the central issue, though.

Me personally I am in between a rock and a hard place. Guy went through some ####, does he deserve money? I don't know. Feds got lots of money so I don't really care either way to be honest.

As for whether he deserves money, that's not the issue either. I am totally fine with the intuitive reaction that he doesn't deserve a dime. You can reasonably defend that view. To me that's beside the point: the law is the law, and the government wasting millions of dollars on a losing cause is, as Makarov says, bad governing.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not sure. Obviously the fact of the settlement couldn't be kept a secret, because the whole "a minute ago he was suing the government and now he's not and they're issuing an apology to him" would have made it kind of obvious... but perhaps the dollar amount was supposed to be confidential? I may have missed something there. To me, that doesn't seem like the central issue, though.

As for whether he deserves money, that's not the issue either. I am totally fine with the intuitive reaction that he doesn't deserve a dime. You can reasonably defend that view. To me that's beside the point: the law is the law, and the government wasting millions of dollars on a losing cause is, as Makarov says, bad governing.

You're telling me wasting millions of dollars of government (TAXPAYER~!_) dollars in a frivolous, unwinnable court battle is the conservative stance here?

Bizzaro world, i tells ya.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I just think going to court would have calmed a lot of the outrage. Maybe thats a price to pay and maybe people would more understand what is actually happening. I don't think "most things settle" is a good enough reason - this isn't "most" things.

Maybe I am wrong though, just sort of floating some thoughts.

It's funny that some people are claiming the payout was a political move when the payout was very impartial and fighting it would have been the political move.

These decisions are pretty simple to arrive at, calculating costs vs winning chances to see if it is worth it. That's why most things settle, the fact that most settle isn't the reason behind settling, the fact that it saves time and money is the good enough reason. The Harper government spent millions of dollars "fighting the good fight" against the courts and lost case after case. How many veterans could have been helped with the 100 million spent on frivolous court battles. I'll take a prudent informed decision over mob decision making any day, even if for the majority they are unpopular.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're telling me wasting millions of dollars of government (TAXPAYER~!_) dollars in a frivolous, unwinnable court battle is the conservative stance here?

Bizzaro world, i tells ya.

This is has been one of the more hilarious parts about watching people lose their minds over this. Also, the total cognitive dissonance surrounding wanting more money to veterans, the homeless, etc., but at the same time wanting the government to reduce its own resources on an unwinnable court battle. Fiscal conservatism indeed. The whole episode has just demonstrated that this is the same Conservative Party it was under Harper and why I don't even need to consider them in the next election.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is has been one of the more hilarious parts about watching people lose their minds over this. Also, the total cognitive dissonance surrounding wanting more money to veterans, the homeless, etc., but at the same time wanting the government to reduce its own resources on an unwinnable court battle. Fiscal conservatism indeed.

I've said it before, this type of scenario should be exposing how ridiculous some political motives are, instead it's actually causing people to further dig their heels within their political allegiances.

[jammies]

Ah, but it's different when it's *your* morals costing the taxpayers money. Can't spend money on contraception in the Third World, but can spend money on unwinnable court cases.

[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.

[iggy_oi]

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.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

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's not that it's unreasonable to wonder what the basis for the number is. It's that someone performed an analysis of the damages figures that are potentially available in the circumstances and came up with a range, and the decision to accept 10.5M was based on that. You'll never see that analysis, I assume, because it's privileged.

[StickMan]

I think the politicians responsible should have been held responsible instead of Canadian Tax Payers who had nothing to do with this. But instead they are enjoying their golden pensions on a beach somewhere while the innocent tax payers are paying for their mistakes...they sure learned their lesson.

A few more thoughts. Do you think this was the only grenade that Khadr ever threw? For all we know he killed hundreds of people before getting wounded and captured. At 15 aren't boys in that country considered men, he is only a child by Canadian standards? What age do women in that country become wives and start having children? Why do we still consider him a Canadian citizen if he is fighting for terrorists? Shouldn't his citizenship have been taken away long ago? Has Khadr ever paid taxes or contributed to Canada in a positive way, why do we consider him so Canadian? Based on the outcome of this, what do you think American soldiers are going to do next time they come across a wounded enemy soldier?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by StickMan

I think the politicians responsible should have been held responsible instead of Canadian Tax Payers who had nothing to do with this. But instead they are enjoying their golden pensions on a beach somewhere while the innocent tax payers are paying for their mistakes...they sure learned their lesson.

We elect officials to run the country. Our only recourse against their actions is to remove them from office. The same argument of why should we pay for this could be made when there is a deficit, it's just not how things work.

A few more thoughts. Do you think this was the only grenade that Khadr ever threw? For all we know he killed hundreds of people before getting wounded and captured. At 15 aren't boys in that country considered men, he is only a child by Canadian standards? What age do women in that country become wives and start having children? Why do we still consider him a Canadian citizen if he is fighting for terrorists? Shouldn't his citizenship have been taken away long ago? Has Khadr ever paid taxes or contributed to Canada in a positive way, why do we consider him so Canadian? Based on the outcome of this, what do you think American soldiers are going to do next time they come across a wounded enemy soldier?

You can find the answers to most of this in this thread, in some cases more than once. To clarify one thing though, the number of grenades Khadr may or may not have thrown has absolutely nothing to do with this settlement.