All are getting filthy rich so it's a tough call. - Cape Breton Bruins
Yeah the Clinton's left the White House "Dead Broke", but are far from that now.
Now that Obama is out of office,he needed to find a source of income, and what better way than to follow Bill Clinton’s example by making a speech for senior people at Cantor, a financial services firm, to the tune of about $400,000, just a few months back.
Yeah the Clinton's left the White House "Dead Broke", but are far from that now.
Now that Obama is out of office,he needed to find a source of income, and what better way than to follow Bill Clinton’s example by making a speech for senior people at Cantor, a financial services firm, to the tune of about $400,000, just a few months back. - D0PPELGANGER
And Donald Trump has only declared bankruptcy 4-6 times!
“The measure of a just society is not whether we stand up for people’s rights when it’s easy or popular to do so, it’s whether we recognize rights when it’s difficult, when it’s unpopular.” That was Justin Trudeau’s initial public response last week in Ireland. The settlement was primarily a matter of national honour.
Well, if the settlement — amount and apology — is really a case of doing the honourable and virtuous thing, regardless of public sentiment, why has the Prime Minister not highlighted the decision, boldly stood up and clearly stated the thinking behind the government’s actions?
Instead, the Khadr settlement reached Canadian ears, as I wrote earlier, by a leak between our Canada Day celebrations and Trudeau’s trip out of the country. A time chosen for least impact and greatest distraction.
Honour doesn’t hide or speak from behind a curtain. If our “just society” is proud of doing the right thing when “it’s difficult,” why hasn’t the Prime Minister, on so central a subject, dedicated one specific appearance to explaining it?
This week, back on Canadian soil, the rationale has shifted. Trudeau, again:
“If we had continued to fight this, not only would we have inevitably lost, but estimates range from $30-40 million that it would have ended up costing the government.”
Last week, it was national honour at stake. This week, it’s expediency. We settled not for virtue’s sake but for the money. Honour and expediency are not twins, however much the latter likes to dress as the former.
This week, the decision is presented as an inevitability. “Had we continued to fight” we would have “inevitably lost.” A very strange statement for a civil action, any court action.
No court case has an inevitable outcome. Inevitable outcomes would obviate the need for courts in the first place. God forbid, and let the heavens fall, we wouldn’t need lawyers either.
That which is “inevitable” invites no considerations of either the Charter or honour. Fate rules all. This week’s comments explode last week’s rationale.
Trudeau’s performance to date suggests a politician auditioning his responses, trying to find the one to match the country’s mood, rather more than a person convinced of his own choices.
It also suggests he doesn’t know why the public is angry. There are three “actors” in the Khadr story. In order of influence and importance, they are: (a) his family, (b) the Americans, and (c) the Canadian government.
By far the main reason Khadr was in Afghanistan, in the firefight, and for that matter in Guantanamo, was (a) his own family, father, mother and sister. It was his father, Osama bin Laden’s friend, that made him the child soldier. He wasn’t kidnapped in some civil war as are the majority of these unfortunates. He was designed by his own parent to be such. That’s a distinguishing feature of this case.
The Americans, our allies, had him in Guantanamo, and by their lights very rightly. He killed one of their soldiers, a medic; they saved him and fixed his eyes. And, however long he was there, they consented to his repatriation.
Then there’s us, the Canadians, last on the scale. So people are wondering, of this trinity of causes, why is the Canadian government, the least responsible of the three, the one making the huge cash settlement and public apologies? They are further enflamed when they ask, very legitimately: was release from Guantanamo, repatriation, full return of citizenship and escape from all penalty, and a cleansing apology, not “reparation” enough?
And finally, not to avoid a matter that should not be avoided, Canadian soldiers, especially those wounded in Afghanistan from IEDs, must be asking which of them has been so distinguished with a cash bonanza for doing the right thing by their country? Why someone, who at the very least, regardless of his “child soldier” status, killed an allied solider, and possibly was complicit in the wounding of Canadian soldiers, receives Prime Ministerial absolution and a vast cash reward.
They sense a drastic incompatibility between the treatment many of them have received and Khadr’s situation. This is the greatest gap in the government’s explanation so far.
These are some of the reasons why people are angry. The Prime Minister has not addressed these questions. If it’s all about honour and how a just society acts, he will.
“The measure of a just society is not whether we stand up for people’s rights when it’s easy or popular to do so, it’s whether we recognize rights when it’s difficult, when it’s unpopular.” That was Justin Trudeau’s initial public response last week in Ireland. The settlement was primarily a matter of national honour.
Well, if the settlement — amount and apology — is really a case of doing the honourable and virtuous thing, regardless of public sentiment, why has the Prime Minister not highlighted the decision, boldly stood up and clearly stated the thinking behind the government’s actions?
Instead, the Khadr settlement reached Canadian ears, as I wrote earlier, by a leak between our Canada Day celebrations and Trudeau’s trip out of the country. A time chosen for least impact and greatest distraction.
Honour doesn’t hide or speak from behind a curtain. If our “just society” is proud of doing the right thing when “it’s difficult,” why hasn’t the Prime Minister, on so central a subject, dedicated one specific appearance to explaining it?
This week, back on Canadian soil, the rationale has shifted. Trudeau, again:
“If we had continued to fight this, not only would we have inevitably lost, but estimates range from $30-40 million that it would have ended up costing the government.”
Last week, it was national honour at stake. This week, it’s expediency. We settled not for virtue’s sake but for the money. Honour and expediency are not twins, however much the latter likes to dress as the former.
This week, the decision is presented as an inevitability. “Had we continued to fight” we would have “inevitably lost.” A very strange statement for a civil action, any court action.
No court case has an inevitable outcome. Inevitable outcomes would obviate the need for courts in the first place. God forbid, and let the heavens fall, we wouldn’t need lawyers either.
That which is “inevitable” invites no considerations of either the Charter or honour. Fate rules all. This week’s comments explode last week’s rationale.
Trudeau’s performance to date suggests a politician auditioning his responses, trying to find the one to match the country’s mood, rather more than a person convinced of his own choices.
It also suggests he doesn’t know why the public is angry. There are three “actors” in the Khadr story. In order of influence and importance, they are: (a) his family, (b) the Americans, and (c) the Canadian government.
By far the main reason Khadr was in Afghanistan, in the firefight, and for that matter in Guantanamo, was (a) his own family, father, mother and sister. It was his father, Osama bin Laden’s friend, that made him the child soldier. He wasn’t kidnapped in some civil war as are the majority of these unfortunates. He was designed by his own parent to be such. That’s a distinguishing feature of this case.
The Americans, our allies, had him in Guantanamo, and by their lights very rightly. He killed one of their soldiers, a medic; they saved him and fixed his eyes. And, however long he was there, they consented to his repatriation.
Then there’s us, the Canadians, last on the scale. So people are wondering, of this trinity of causes, why is the Canadian government, the least responsible of the three, the one making the huge cash settlement and public apologies? They are further enflamed when they ask, very legitimately: was release from Guantanamo, repatriation, full return of citizenship and escape from all penalty, and a cleansing apology, not “reparation” enough?
And finally, not to avoid a matter that should not be avoided, Canadian soldiers, especially those wounded in Afghanistan from IEDs, must be asking which of them has been so distinguished with a cash bonanza for doing the right thing by their country? Why someone, who at the very least, regardless of his “child soldier” status, killed an allied solider, and possibly was complicit in the wounding of Canadian soldiers, receives Prime Ministerial absolution and a vast cash reward.
They sense a drastic incompatibility between the treatment many of them have received and Khadr’s situation. This is the greatest gap in the government’s explanation so far.
These are some of the reasons why people are angry. The Prime Minister has not addressed these questions. If it’s all about honour and how a just society acts, he will. - D0PPELGANGER
Canada’s prime minister hands millions to Omar Khadr, whose victims may not be able to collect.
Omar Khadr pulled the pin from a grenade and tossed it at Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, a U.S. Army Delta Force medic, on July 27, 2002. Those are the facts to which Mr. Khadr, a Canadian citizen, confessed when he pleaded guilty before a Guantanamo Bay war-crimes commission.
For several years Mr. Khadr had been living and training with al Qaeda in Afghanistan under the tutelage of his father, Ahmed. The Khadrs reportedly lived in Osama bin Laden’s Kandahar-area compound.
Speer died of his wounds 1½ weeks after the attack, which left another soldier, Sgt. First Class Layne Morris, partly blind. Mr. Khadr, badly wounded, was treated and transferred to the Cuba base. In 2012 the U.S. returned him to Canada to serve the remainder of his eight-year sentence.
Mr. Khadr was just shy of his 16th birthday at the time of the attack. In 2010 Canada’s Supreme Court held that the interrogation of Mr. Khadr at Guantanamo Bay by Canadians in 2003-04 violated Canadian standards for the treatment of detained youths. These violations occurred during the mandates of Liberal Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. The Supreme Court left it to the government, then headed by Conservative Stephen Harper, to determine an appropriate remedy, and to the civil courts to rule on any damages.
A few months later Mr. Khadr entered his guilty plea on five war-crimes charges. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison, reduced by pretrial agreement to eight years. The Harper government determined that returning Mr. Khadr to Canada would be the appropriate remedy. In 2012 he was repatriated to serve the remaining years of his sentence. He was released on bail in 2015.
Mr. Khadr wasn’t satisfied. He sued the Canadian government for 20 million Canadian dollars (about US$16 million at current exchange rates).
Meanwhile in Utah, Sgt. Speer’s widow, Tabitha, his two young children and Mr. Morris sued Mr. Khadr and received a judgment for $134.1 million in damages. Their goal was to preserve possible future action against Mr. Khadr’s assets—at the time a remote possibility.
But last week Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a formal apology to Mr. Khadr and a massive cash settlement, though no court had ordered him to do so. Mr. Trudeau refuses to disclose the amount of the settlement, but leaked reports peg it at C$10.5 million. That’s an extravagant sum in the Canadian justice system, which is much more restrained in awarding damages than U.S. courts.
Mr. Trudeau knew there was an outstanding judgment against Mr. Khadr in Utah. An insider told the Canadian Press wire service that Ottawa rushed the payment to Mr. Khadr to dodge compliance with the Utah judgment. The Speer family and Mr. Morris had filed for an injunction June 8 to enforce the Utah judgment in Canada. The Trudeau government had the money out the door before their petition could be heard in court.
Last week the Speer family filed an emergency injunction to freeze Mr. Khadr’s assets. On Thursday an Ontario judge denied the request, describing it as “extraordinary.” Had Mr. Trudeau waited for a court ruling, the Speers’ claims could have been adjudicated without extraordinary measures. The prime minister’s choice thus undermined the Speer family’s legal options.
Mr. Trudeau’s actions are an affront to the memory of Christopher Speer, to Tabitha Speer and her children, to Layne Morris, to our U.S. allies, and to all men and women in uniform. This payout was a cynical subversion of Canadian principles. Mr. Trudeau made Omar Khadr a millionaire, and he didn’t have to.
Tru-D'Oh! has always been a mile wide and an inch deep.
Nov 15, 2013
Tru-D'Oh! on the Boston Marathon Bombing ....... blaming the "Western World" and claiming the bombers are the victims, in a rambling gobbledygook way.
Rex makes some solid points here. It was sneaky as (frank) how everything played out regardless of how you feel about the situation overall. - Cape Breton Bruins
It was 100% politics. The right thing to do, would to have it play out courts........ but Tru-D'Oh!'s puppet master, Gerald Butts, knew the court case would have taken well over a year to complete ........... and would have been fresh in the minds of Canadians, leading into the next federal election.
It would not have mattered how the court case ended, as the two opposition parties would have an easy lay up issue to use vs the Liberals.
This was done, to get it over and done with, when the HOC was on summer break, so that there would be no question period sound bites strung out over a month or more......... with fingers crossed that low information voters will forget all about it by October 2019 ......... which most will.
Location: it's an excellent product, easier, quicker, and even better than real mashed potatoes. Joined: 04.19.2013
Jul 18 @ 9:42 AM ET
It was 100% politics. The right thing to do, would to have it play out courts........ but Tru-D'Oh!'s puppet master, Gerald Butts, knew the court case would have taken well over a year to complete ........... and would have been fresh in the minds of Canadians, leading into the next federal election.
It would not have mattered how the court case ended, as the two opposition parties would have an easy lay up issue to use vs the Liberals.
This was done, to get it over and done with, when the HOC was on summer break, so that there would be no question period sound bites strung out over a month or more......... with fingers crossed that low information voters will forget all about it by October 2019 ......... which most will. - D0PPELGANGER
