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

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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.

This is the thing people can't seem to process... there were human rights violations that the SCC ruled for Khadr on...its not like something you can take to different auto repair shops and get an estimate on; its very subjective.

the second aspect that people seem to be forgetting is that Khadr and his legal team were suing the gov't, so its not like they could have offered say 2 million and it would have been settled.

Khadr's legal team would have to recommend that settlement number as well, since this is a negotiation just like any kind of civil suit...

there is no evidence to suggest that the government didn't try to settle for a lower amount but were rebuffed.

As distasteful as 10 million sounds, that might have been the only number where Khadr's legal team felt to be a 'fair' settlement...and the min amount where they would have recommended settling rather than proceeding with the lawsuit.

[Looch City]

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.

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?

There is no such thing as "so Canadian" or "not very Canadian". He has a Canadian citizenship, therefore he is Canadian and protected by our laws and rights. That's it.

I don't understand why that's so hard to grasp for some people.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

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..

I'm obviously pointing out the flaw in this.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

To clarify one thing though, the number of grenades Khadr may or may not have thrown has absolutely nothing to do with this settlement.

I never said it was. Just food for thought.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

As distasteful as 10 million sounds, that might have been the only number where Khadr's legal team felt to be a 'fair' settlement...and the min amount where they would have recommended settling rather than proceeding with the lawsuit.

Right, but unless there was a good legal basis for saying that Court would award damages in that range, there was no good reason for the government to accept it. You can't just sue for whatever amount you want and expect that amount to be awarded if you win on the merits. A judge could very well have said, "I find that Mr. Khadr's rights were violated and he is entitled to damages. However, his damages sought are inflated, and he is entitled to a lesser sum, which I fix at $2 million."

Now, presumably, the government's lawyers went through a process of analysis that led them to the conclusion that it was more likely that the judge would award a higher figure, and that was enough to justify paying $10.5M to avoid taking the risk. What Fighting Banana Slug wants to see is that analysis - why they thought that. That analysis would be privileged, however, and I'm not sure it's a good idea for the government to go waiving privilege over things like that for reasons of political expediency.

Originally Posted by Iggy City

There is no such thing as "so Canadian" or "not very Canadian". He has a Canadian citizenship, therefore he is Canadian and protected by our laws and rights. That's it.

It's even broader than that. Charter rights are not restricted to Canadian citizens. The Charter states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Doesn't matter if you're a Canadian citizen or not.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

There is no such thing as "so Canadian" or "not very Canadian". He has a Canadian citizenship, therefore he is Canadian and protected by our laws and rights. That's it.

I don't understand why that's so hard to grasp for some people.

Interesting that when people leave the country to fight for terrorists that we still consider them Canadian citizens.

[Amethyst]

I think people would have been just as upset if this had gone to court. The argument would just have changed from:

"Trudeau gives terrorists $10.5 million"

to:
"Our justice system is a joke. It gives terrorists $xxx (whatever the amount decided in court was)."

[Zarley]

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.

I know these things are difficult for you to comprehend, but she clearly means she would have preferred the civil proceedings brought to their ultimate conclusion rather than settling - in line with the Conservative position on this issue. This is an entirely different judicial process than the SCC decision rendered in 2010.

Obviously the SCC decision serves as a precedent, which is why I agree with the decision to settle.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's not an entirely different process. The outcome of one is clearly dependent on the other.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by StickMan

I'm obviously pointing out the flaw in this.

The flaw in doing it any other way is you would never get anyone to run for public office if they were going to held financially liable for all of their decisions, that or we'd be electing officials who would do absolutely nothing due to the potential financial reprocussions.

I never said it was. Just food for thought.

I'd consider it to be best described as food for a guessing game but that's just my opinion.

[StickMan]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

The flaw in doing it any other way is you would never get anyone to run for public office if they were going to held financially liable for all of their decisions, that or we'd be electing officials who would do absolutely nothing due to the potential financial reprocussions.

Or maybe elected officials would think twice before they make decisions. So instead we give them a license to do what ever they want and not be held accountable.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I'd consider it to be best described as food for a guessing game but that's just my opinion.

This whole thing is a guessing game, that is part of the problem.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I know these things are difficult for you to comprehend, but she clearly means she would have preferred the civil proceedings brought to their ultimate conclusion rather than settling - in line with the Conservative position on this issue. This is an entirely different judicial process than the SCC decision rendered in 2010.

There's no need for that.

This IS the judicial process. The government's lawyers negotiated a settlement with Khadr's lawyers. Civil Justice in action. Continuing to fight a losing civil suit because of political motivation would not be the civil justice system in action, it would be ideological litigation at the cost of taxpayer money and tying up the court system as well as the government's own lawyers.

You're suggesting that in this instance the government's lawyers are either incompetent or have questionable ethics to settle a suit that in the best interest of the government of Canada.

[calf]

If you lost the playoff series in 5 games, you don't play games 6 and 7 to see how the series will play out. You know how it's going to end. You don't keep playing when there's so much downside and limited upside.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by StickMan

Or maybe elected officials would think twice before they make decisions. So instead we give them a license to do what ever they want and not be held accountable.

You're really going in circles here, they are held accountable through elections, or by the courts if the offence is criminal. Is it perfect? Far from it. Do you have a better solution?

This whole thing is a guessing game, that is part of the problem.

Nope, there's no guessing, the Canadian government did not protect or advocate for Khadr's charter rights to be upheld. The facts back this up, the SCC did too with the ruling.

[belsarius]

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.

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?

Based on this outcome?? They dropped a 500lb bomb on him, straffed the building with A-10s and shot him twice in the back. Then as he begged for death they patched him up in order to ship him off to Gitmo to torture him for information. I really don't see how it will get worse than this?

[woob]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's almost as if this wasn't some kind of accident on her part but a component of a concerted effort to gain notoriety at the expense of the truth and reputation of Canadians. Almost as if representing Canadians in and out of her district was a secondary concern as compared to attention seeking and self-aggrandizement. Huh.

I'm sure it was probably just naivete on her part though, I mean, who's ever heard of Fox News or Tucker Carlson? Nobody in politics that I know has ever heard of them...

But but but she said this:

Michelle Rempel Retweeted
Mavericks Conference‏ @MavConference Jul 15
More
"Politics isn't about being a celebrity, it's about being a servant." -@MichelleRempel on internat'l panel #MavCon17

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

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

You clearly didn't watch the entire interview, or you've let your partisanship blind you to what was actually said. Nothing she says is factually incorrect. When she says the courts hadn't ruled on it, that is entirely true - the entire purpose of a settlement is to avoid a ruling! Perhaps you are confusing the 2010 SCC decision with the civil case. Although one hinges on the other, they are two distinct proceedings.

Let's go through your post again:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No mention of the Supreme court ruling - wrong, she mentioned the SCC ruling clearly
and framing it like the compensation was in some way related to the Spears she didn't frame anything, Carlson did to illustrate the moral issue that most people have with compensating Khadr but not the other victims in this mess
and not because his rights were violated - again, the rights violation ruling was mentioned explicitly
Yes, Michelle, there was a court ruling on this - there was a SCC ruling in 2010 regarding the complicity of CSIS in his treatment at Guantanamo, but there was no ruling on the topic of discussion: the civil litigation case

Originally Posted by Fuzz

And are you calling the CBC equivalent to Buzzfeed?

Yes, their online content is worthless garbage for the most part (I would except their radio news and television news coverage from this statement as it is still generally quite good). All of the articles are short form with no depth and limited context, with a few tweets from random plebs thrown in for good measure.

Lets look at the article you linked - it's 300 words long, only contains two sentences about the interview that is ostensibly the topic of the article, glosses over the background of Khadr's situation in 4 sentences, and includes a banal analysis by a guest expert. On top of this, it's peppered with 4 tweets with no explanation of why these tweeters deserve to have a platform in this sad attempt at an informational article.

CBC has adopted this click-bait article strategy with bite-size articles designed for easy consumption by the average idiot. It's not legitimate news; I feel sorry for people who read the website based on the reputation of CBC news and think they are being enlightened in any way.

[White Out 403]

jesus christ. ive never blocked anyone on CP before but zarley and his fake news bull#### is actually tempting me. can we not be the states? can we?

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

There's no need for that.

This IS the judicial process. The government's lawyers negotiated a settlement with Khadr's lawyers. Civil Justice in action. Continuing to fight a losing civil suit because of political motivation would not be the civil justice system in action, it would be ideological litigation at the cost of taxpayer money and tying up the court system as well as the government's own lawyers.

We are not discussing the merits of continuing with civil action (as I've said multiple times I agree with the decision to settle), we are discussing your willful misrepresentation of what Rempel said in the interview to paint her as being ill-informed on the case. From what I've seen, she is well aware of the particulars of the proceedings and simply has the preference that the court award damages rather than the government settling. It's not the fiscally responsible choice, but from a moral standpoint a lot of Canadians would have preferred this option, and that's an entirely reasonable position.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're suggesting that in this instance the government's lawyers are either incompetent or have questionable ethics to settle a suit that in the best interest of the government of Canada.

What in the heck are you talking about? I haven't questioned anything.

[Zarley]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

jesus christ. ive never blocked anyone on CP before but zarley and his fake news bull#### is actually tempting me. can we not be the states? can we?

Are you confusing me with someone else? I always try to post in an objective member and I'd be happy to recant anything I've got wrong.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Zarley

It's not the fiscally responsible choice, but from a moral standpoint a lot of Canadians would have preferred this option, and that's an entirely reasonable position.

Not really, no. In the latter case, the "moral standpoint" is that Khadr deserves no compensation at all. And most of the people who fit this mindset would be just as outraged at the courts if they awarded Khadr that money instead.

This isn't about due process. This is about the narrative being written that a terrorist was paid off rather than a victim of torture being compensated.