Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Razgovory]

This whole gun obsession is so sad. Don't they think if you can't feel safe going to a store without sporting a gun, then you live in a fucked up shitty place?

St. Louis is a pretty fucked up shitty place, it might be justified there.  This year a woman was shot at the Cardinals baseball game.  A stray bullet from outside the stadium somehow reached her way up in the bleachers.  In May, at my uncles funeral, the priest got beaten up and car jacked. 

[CountDeMoney]

*The Show Me The Money State*

Funny if he actually makes the connection of how "cutting taxes" will directly impact "good public pension."  And why is a GOPer even mentioning pensions?

[derspiess]

*The Show Me The Money State*

Funny if he actually makes the connection of how "cutting taxes" will directly impact "good public pension."  And why is a GOPer even mentioning pensions?

Depends on what he means by "good public pension".  Given that he's taking shots at Illinois's public pension debacle, he probably means a well-managed public pension.

[Tamas]

This whole gun obsession is so sad. Don't they think if you can't feel safe going to a store without sporting a gun, then you live in a fucked up shitty place?

St. Louis is a pretty fucked up shitty place, it might be justified there.  This year a woman was shot at the Cardinals baseball game.  A stray bullet from outside the stadium somehow reached her way up in the bleachers.  In May, at my uncles funeral, the priest got beaten up and car jacked.

Never mind then, I also would want to be able to carry a gun to everywhere, there!

Here in London you only get sprayed in the face with acid when robbed.

[DGuller]

*The Show Me The Money State*

Funny if he actually makes the connection of how "cutting taxes" will directly impact "good public pension."  And why is a GOPer even mentioning pensions?

Cutting taxes should not directly impact the quality of public pension.  It may impact it indirectly, by giving more incentives to steal from pension plans.  The problem with Illinois is that they now have to catch up on all the past years of dipping into pension funds.

[Zanza]

[Syt]

https://politicalcowboy.com/it-pays-to-be-a-terrorist/

It Pays to be a Terrorist

On July 27, 2002 Omar Khadr engaged in a firefight against a US military Special Forces unit. That's an undisputed fact. He was injured and found by US soldiers under a pile of rubble. That's an undisputed fact. He was taken to Guantanamo Bay and imprisoned with other terrorists who committed acts of violence against the US and our allies. That's an undisputed fact. After a confession, he was found guilty of throwing the hand-grenade that killed Sergeant Christopher Speer and left Sergeant Layne Morris blind in his right eye. Those are undisputed facts. This convicted terrorist and Canadian citizen is now a wealthy man courtesy of Justin Trudeau and the Canadian taxpayers. That's an undisputed fact.

Now a free man, Khadr sued the Canadian government for violation his rights. Trudeau and his leftist cronies defend the decision to not just apologize to the terrorist Khadr but back their words up with an $8 million settlement by saying it would be irresponsible to subject taxpayers to the cost of a lengthy trial. Also, Trudeau claims that the terrorist's rights were, indeed, violated under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I haven't read that august document, but I'd bet a major body part or even a vital organ that I wouldn't be able to find a clause that outlines the right of a Canadian citizen to leave the country, take part in military operations against coalition forces that include Canadian troops, then return home to a hero's welcome and millions of dollars. I might be wrong here, but I'm not.

Leftists claim that Khadr was only a child at the time, following instructions from his father. He was old enough to fight against the best equipped and trained soldiers in the world. He was old enough to effectively throw a hand-grenade. He was old enough to kill and maim. If he's old enough to play, this terrorist is old enough to pay. That seems like a pretty simple concept, but it's the simple things that elude the left. As far as the excuse that he was just acting on his father's instructions, anybody who has told their teenager to do something knows that's a bunch of bologna. Most kids won't even clean their room or empty the trash without a fight, but this one jumped up and saluted when his dad told him to go take on the US Special Forces? He's either the bravest son on the planet or the stupidest. Taryn and Tanner Speer probably wish like hell they had the opportunity to defy their father.

The reasoning behind Trudeau's actions make him almost as reprehensible as Khadr. Barack Obama's favorite protégé seemed to care little for the man Khadr killed or the one he injured. He was, however, outraged that a Canadian citizen's rights might have been violated. He says those rights must be protected, "...even when it's uncomfortable." What Barry Obama, Jr. is saying here is that all Canadians will be afforded the full protection of the law, no matter what. That sounds pretty good, a noble and worthy goal. I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is treating a convicted terrorist who actively fought against his own country the same as a dumb kid who wasn't questioned properly after he was arrested for robbing the liquor store. Khadr didn't snatch a purse, beat up some jerk in a bar, or pass bad checks. He didn't rob a bank, steal someone's identity, or even kidnap a child. He carried out an act of war on an active battlefield.

He could easily have been killed or left for dead. The people he was defending and fighting for kill without mercy or even thought. They behead innocent victims on live TV and broadcast the carnage to the world. Mr. Khadr was taken to a hospital, given life-saving medical care, afforded religious privileges while detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison, and given a chance to defend himself and his actions in court. Every right he was given was something he fought to keep others from having.

When you take up arms against the men and women who have sworn to protect you with their lives, when you carry out violence against the hard-working people who pay exorbitant taxes for your education and healthcare, when you renounce the very laws being used to protect you and make you wealthy, you no longer deserve to be a citizen of that nation, and you don't deserve its protections. The $8 million is a nice bonus.

Canadians, any comments on this, uhm, "news" story?

[CountDeMoney]

The term "undisputed fact" is used too often. That's an undisputed fact.

When you take up arms against the men and women who have sworn to protect you with their lives, when you carry out violence against the hard-working people who pay exorbitant taxes for your education and healthcare, when you renounce the very laws being used to protect you and make you wealthy, you no longer deserve to be a citizen of that nation, and you don't deserve its protections.

Lulz

[Camerus]

 News of the payout was leaked to the media a couple weeks ago. It's been extremely controversial in Canada as well, with just over 70% of Canadians opposing the payout. The news story gained traction in the United States when a Canadian conservative MP recently wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal criticizing Trudeau for the payout.

Trudeau has justified the payment as having saved money for the Canadian taxpayer vs the costs of continued litigation and possibility of losing and also due to the fact that Khadr's Charter rights were violated according to a Supreme Court ruling. However, most Canadians don't seem to buy those explanations and believe the government should have fought the lawsuit.

[viper37]

Canadians, any comments on this, uhm, "news" story?

Trudeau refused to defend Canada against this unjust lawsuit.  The Canadian lawyers can evaluate better than me the chances of losing on this one.  He pleaded guilty in a US court, so I don't know if that counts for double jeopardy or if he could have been tried for high treason in Canada.

[Malthus]

Canadians, any comments on this, uhm, "news" story?

Trudeau refused to defend Canada against this unjust lawsuit.  The Canadian lawyers can evaluate better than me the chances of losing on this one.  He pleaded guilty in a US court, so I don't know if that counts for double jeopardy or if he could have been tried for high treason in Canada.

The concern is an allegation that a confession was basically beaten out of him, that he was underage at the time, and a Canadian citizen. Unfortunately for the government, the Supreme Court found that his rights were indeed violated, with Canadian government collusion.

I have no idea whether his case has merit, not having read the SC decision. It is certainly possible that it does, and that the Lib. position (better to save cash by settling) makes financial sense, even if it doesn't make political sense.

[Barrister]

Canadians, any comments on this, uhm, "news" story?

Why the scare quotes?  It's been a major story in  the news here.

As a lawyer I feel like I should have all the facts before commenting, and I don't.  But I know instinctively I don't like this payment one bit.

[viper37]

The concern is an allegation that a confession was basically beaten out of him,

It has been proven he was deprived of sleep, it was never proven he was beated by guards or US military/intelligence personnel.
Between the alleged torture and the guilty plea, there were 8-9 years.  He fired his lawyers and pleaded guilty, conditional on being allowed to return to Canada to serve his sentence, and he was almost immediatly freed.

that he was underage at the time,

There have been cases of minors tried as an adult for serious crimes.

and a Canadian citizen. Unfortunately for the government, the Supreme Court found that his rights were indeed violated, with Canadian government collusion.

That is a seperate issue, imho.
If, say, a Hell's Angels from Quebec was arrested in the US and beated by cops while in jail, for suspicion of killing a police officer over there, could he claim his rights were denied and be immediatly freed?  Could he claim compensation from the Canadian government because the embassy did not immediatly send him someone?

I have no idea whether his case has merit, not having read the SC decision. It is certainly possible that it does, and that the Lib. position (better to save cash by settling) makes financial sense, even if it doesn't make political sense.

Personally, I would have preferred to lose money in a trial than pay him out.

[The Minsky Moment]

Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations and contributed to K's ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7  of the Charter , not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice . . . the Charter  applies to the participation of Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law.  There is a sufficient connection between the government's participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K's liberty and security of the person.  While the U.S. is the primary source of the deprivation, it is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to K's continued detention.  The deprivation of K's right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 

That's from the unanimous ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court.

Given that ruling, is there any legal defense the government would have to the civil law suit?

[Malthus]

Canada actively participated in a process contrary to its international human rights obligations and contributed to K's ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person, guaranteed by s. 7  of the Charter , not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice . . . the Charter  applies to the participation of Canadian officials in a regime later found to be in violation of fundamental rights protected by international law.  There is a sufficient connection between the government's participation in the illegal process and the deprivation of K's liberty and security of the person.  While the U.S. is the primary source of the deprivation, it is reasonable to infer from the uncontradicted evidence before the Court that the statements taken by Canadian officials are contributing to K's continued detention.  The deprivation of K's right to liberty and security of the person is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. 

That's from the unanimous ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court.

Given that ruling, is there any legal defense the government would have to the civil law suit?

Probably not (not that I know all the facts mind).

Put that context together with this:

Personally, I would have preferred to lose money in a trial than pay him out.

Well, that's exactly why I say the settlement may have made financial sense, but not political sense. The Libs have (and will) take a beating over this, even though looked at strictly as a case, settlement always makes more sense than fighting a hopeless fight.

Part of that beating will be because of how this unfolded - over the summer, with the PM out of the country, and in a confidential settlement whose details were instantly leaked to the press. The impression given was that the Libs wanted to rush this through without anyone noticing ... feeds into the right-wing attack on them (that they care about Muslim terrorists and not about ordinary Canadians).

In the bigger picture, one sad part of this whole sorry affair is just how used we in Canada have gotten to the notion that the US routinely deprives people of their fundamental rights. That sort of thing used to be controversial.