I would not describe people coming out against the Khadr sentiment as "torture friendly".
That ascribes far far too much coherence, thought and information to people's views on these kind of issues. It's not really how people work.
The confession is the only real evidence given that Khadr was an active participant in the fight in which Speer was killed, and no one denies that confession was given under torture, torture in which the Canadian government was complicit. Saying the settlement is wrong is saying that the Canadian government was right to help the US torture Khadr.
I can pretty much guarantee that such facts given in such a reasonable manner has not been presented to those who just see "10 million? WTF, I wish I had 10 million - so did he win the lottery or something? No? He was captured and treated badly? WTF!" They just don't see the connecting tissues of the issues and how it impacts themselves in very real ways, some with willful ignorance because it supports their bigotry, others through apathetic ignorance because they don't look past the first editorialized headline presented to them to raise their ire.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited July 2017
That's probably true, but the end result is that the Liberal party will be punished for this, which will make it harder to hold the government to account in the future. This is eroding the government's obligation to Canadian citizens, and I don't think ignoring the implications is going to do any good.
Personally, I kind of find the general idea of a payout to be a bit skeevy. "We're sorry we fucked you up for life, here's a fiver and a double double on us". Saying you're sorry by simply giving a lump sum of money and hope to disprove the adage "money doesn't buy happiness".
On the other hand, there's not much else governments and major corporations can do. An apology only goes so far before it's simply words. They have to do something, and a settlement is it.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
A settlement is less compensation and more punishment. The idea behind civil suits is that the cost to the defendant discourages repeat behavior, not that money makes everything okay.
That's probably true, but the end result is that the Liberal party will be punished for this, which will make it harder to hold the government to account in the future. This is eroding the government's obligation to Canadian citizens, and I don't think ignoring the implications is going to do any good.
I don't think it's eroding anything simply on the grounds that this is the result I'd expect at any time, past or future.
Sadly the Liberals will be punished for it because, well, that's the public for ya.
I would not describe people coming out against the Khadr sentiment as "torture friendly".
That ascribes far far too much coherence, thought and information to people's views on these kind of issues. It's not really how people work.
The ones coming out about it who know anything about the torture allegations sure as hell are.
A lot of the people upset about the settlement are pretty explicit about minimizing the torture ("I wish I got millions of dollars for being tired!") or outright okay with it because 24 was a documentary or something.
Certainly not all of them, but as close to everyone as makes no difference who's actually had something to say about it instead of just passing along angry memes or National Post articles? I haven't exactly heard from many people in the last few days who are angry that a settlement exists who aren't at the very least completely indifferent to the idea of a citizen being tortured by a foreign power.
That, to me, is morally identical to favoring it.
(Granted, I might be just a little cranky because there's a huge overlap between those and people who are still upset about C-6, from what I've been seeing.)
sounding off on location. Brad fucking Trost is my MP from Saskatoon, that miserable shit. Can't wait to leave in another few years. Bloody conservative Christians everywhere, this province has gone to shit from the glory days of Tommy Douglas.
I would not describe people coming out against the Khadr sentiment as "torture friendly".
That ascribes far far too much coherence, thought and information to people's views on these kind of issues. It's not really how people work.
The ones coming out about it who know anything about the torture allegations sure as hell are.
A lot of the people upset about the settlement are pretty explicit about minimizing the torture ("I wish I got millions of dollars for being tired!") or outright okay with it because 24 was a documentary or something.
Certainly not all of them, but as close to everyone as makes no difference who's actually had something to say about it instead of just passing along angry memes or National Post articles? I haven't exactly heard from many people in the last few days who are angry that a settlement exists who aren't at the very least completely indifferent to the idea of a citizen being tortured by a foreign power.
That, to me, is morally identical to favoring it.
(Granted, I might be just a little cranky because there's a huge overlap between those and people who are still upset about C-6, from what I've been seeing.)
I don't think it's "as close to everyone as makes no difference" at all. I don't think the survey linked above bears that idea out either. They don't ask directly about the torture but they do ask whether he should have been treated as a child soldier (74% say yes) and whether he was treated fairly (the plurality at 42% say they don't even know).
Frankly, my experience is like what the poll suggests, which is that the overwhelming issue for many is stupid crankiness that the guy got $10 million dollars from the government and little to no consideration or thought is put in to what actually happened to the guy, if they even know.
You guys are lucky. My brother refuses to believe Khadr was tortured, based on the fact a ctrl-f of the SC ruling for the word torture doesn't find anything (when I pointed out their description of cruel and inhuman treatment his answer is "they didn't say torture, nothing prevents them from saying torture if they wanted to, therefore this is different from torture, doesn't count") and the US have a "professional and serious" Army that would never do that. He also believes Khadr's torture-induced confession that he killed that soldier (who he re-classified from special-ops to unarmed medic on a whim for extra drama) and denies he's a child soldier (the definition says under 15, and he was 15, therefore doesn't apply). He defends the Harper government's decision to sue to prevent repatriation ("it's the right thing to do to go to court, after all how can you know what rights he has before the ruling? they're not clairvoyant!") and condemns Trudeau's settlement because "it aborts the proper carrying out of justice - we should have had a trial and see what happens".
I just don't know how to argue with so much irrationality.
You guys are lucky. My brother refuses to believe Khadr was tortured, based on the fact a ctrl-f of the SC ruling for the word torture doesn't find anything (when I pointed out their description of cruel and inhuman treatment his answer is "they didn't say torture, nothing prevents them from saying torture if they wanted to, therefore this is different from torture, doesn't count") and the US have a "professional and serious" Army that would never do that. He also believes Khadr's torture-induced confession that he killed that soldier (who he re-classified from special-ops to unarmed medic on a whim for extra drama) and denies he's a child soldier (the definition says under 15, and he was 15, therefore doesn't apply). He defends the Harper government's decision to sue to prevent repatriation ("it's the right thing to do to go to court, after all how can you know what rights he has before the ruling? they're not clairvoyant!") and condemns Trudeau's settlement because "it aborts the proper carrying out of justice - we should have had a trial and see what happens".
I just don't know how to argue with so much irrationality.
You don't, its one you aren't going to win. I'm even a little miffed about the settlement, like my lizard brain is like .. DURRRP FUNDING TERRORISM, when the rational side is saying, shut the fuck up.
It sounds like Julie Payette may be the next Governor General
Good pick, in my opinion
Sounds like a waste of her skills and intelligence, IMO. Could we make Lynn Beyak Governor General and give Payette her seat in the Senate and some real power?
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
It sounds like Julie Payette may be the next Governor General
Good pick, in my opinion
Where is this coming from? There doesn't seem to be a single news article anywhere even remotely close to this topic.
Edit: Globe & Mail pre-announcement from Daniel Leblanc apparently. Weird that there's literally no news run up to this. No background comments or musings from political officials or journalists, nothing. I guess technically the previous Governor General is a few years over his traditional appointment period, but there really isn't a hard deadline on when to replace them anyway, unless he's only recently indicated he wants to retire.
I think (and this is my own personal opinion) is that they went about the Khadr announcement in the wrong way. In all the media that I have read, its always been, "Terrorist receives 10 million dollars". If I was running this announcement, I would have had a professional press release detailing Khadr's "crimes", his lack of fair trial, torture, and the previous two trials that have taken places, and explained it in language that everybody would understand. Have a clear message detailing why they reached this result, and I think there would be a lot less pissed off people. Now, I know that there are people out there that would still hate it regardless, but i think not having a clear timeline and message really hurt the Liberals.
That being said, I personally believe that 10 million is way too much. I would have been happy if the settlement was in the 1 - 5 million range.
I just hope that no money is found to be going to terrorist affiliated groups in the future, because its a sure bet the Khadr's life is going to be under a magnifying glass from here on out.
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
You guys are lucky. My brother refuses to believe Khadr was tortured, based on the fact a ctrl-f of the SC ruling for the word torture doesn't find anything (when I pointed out their description of cruel and inhuman treatment his answer is "they didn't say torture, nothing prevents them from saying torture if they wanted to, therefore this is different from torture, doesn't count") and the US have a "professional and serious" Army that would never do that. He also believes Khadr's torture-induced confession that he killed that soldier (who he re-classified from special-ops to unarmed medic on a whim for extra drama) and denies he's a child soldier (the definition says under 15, and he was 15, therefore doesn't apply). He defends the Harper government's decision to sue to prevent repatriation ("it's the right thing to do to go to court, after all how can you know what rights he has before the ruling? they're not clairvoyant!") and condemns Trudeau's settlement because "it aborts the proper carrying out of justice - we should have had a trial and see what happens".
I just don't know how to argue with so much irrationality.
I think (and this is my own personal opinion) is that they went about the Khadr announcement in the wrong way. In all the media that I have read, its always been, "Terrorist receives 10 million dollars". If I was running this announcement, I would have had a professional press release detailing Khadr's "crimes", his lack of fair trial, torture, and the previous two trials that have taken places, and explained it in language that everybody would understand. Have a clear message detailing why they reached this result, and I think there would be a lot less pissed off people. Now, I know that there are people out there that would still hate it regardless, but i think not having a clear timeline and message really hurt the Liberals.
That being said, I personally believe that 10 million is way too much. I would have been happy if the settlement was in the 1 - 5 million range.
I just hope that no money is found to be going to terrorist affiliated groups in the future, because its a sure bet the Khadr's life is going to be under a magnifying glass from here on out.
'Feds punished for child soldier mistreatment' is the correct headline. Everything that has the words 'awarded' or 'terrorist' even 'suspected' are bullshit attempts to soft serve the racism.
The $10million is meant to act as a discouragement to the Federal government, it should be a politically unpalatable amount, because if its any less, then its not doing its job.
I think (and this is my own personal opinion) is that they went about the Khadr announcement in the wrong way. In all the media that I have read, its always been, "Terrorist receives 10 million dollars". If I was running this announcement, I would have had a professional press release detailing Khadr's "crimes", his lack of fair trial, torture, and the previous two trials that have taken places, and explained it in language that everybody would understand. Have a clear message detailing why they reached this result, and I think there would be a lot less pissed off people. Now, I know that there are people out there that would still hate it regardless, but i think not having a clear timeline and message really hurt the Liberals.
That being said, I personally believe that 10 million is way too much. I would have been happy if the settlement was in the 1 - 5 million range.
I just hope that no money is found to be going to terrorist affiliated groups in the future, because its a sure bet the Khadr's life is going to be under a magnifying glass from here on out.
'Feds punished for child soldier mistreatment' is the correct headline. Everything that has the words 'awarded' or 'terrorist' even 'suspected' are bullshit attempts to soft serve the racism.
The $10million is meant to act as a discouragement to the Federal government, it should be a politically unpalatable amount, because if its any less, then its not doing its job.
IIRC, the feds didn't try to announce this at all. They were trying to bury it, and someone leaked it and it blew up. Something something someone told the American's widow's lawyer, they came up and tried to get an injunction something something?
I still don't understand it. Apparently when in a war, killing a soldier/medic is usually not a criminal offense, unless it goes against the Geneva Convention. And while medics have some special protections, a grenade not good for targeting a specific individual.
But of course, Kadhr and many of the others weren't 'soldiers ' they were 'Enemy Combatants'. Which conveniently sidesteps the pesky Geneva Convention business.
When I first heard about the new designation, I think that was the moment I began questioning Bush's motives.
I think (and this is my own personal opinion) is that they went about the Khadr announcement in the wrong way. In all the media that I have read, its always been, "Terrorist receives 10 million dollars". If I was running this announcement, I would have had a professional press release detailing Khadr's "crimes", his lack of fair trial, torture, and the previous two trials that have taken places, and explained it in language that everybody would understand. Have a clear message detailing why they reached this result, and I think there would be a lot less pissed off people. Now, I know that there are people out there that would still hate it regardless, but i think not having a clear timeline and message really hurt the Liberals.
That being said, I personally believe that 10 million is way too much. I would have been happy if the settlement was in the 1 - 5 million range.
I just hope that no money is found to be going to terrorist affiliated groups in the future, because its a sure bet the Khadr's life is going to be under a magnifying glass from here on out.
'Feds punished for child soldier mistreatment' is the correct headline. Everything that has the words 'awarded' or 'terrorist' even 'suspected' are bullshit attempts to soft serve the racism.
The $10million is meant to act as a discouragement to the Federal government, it should be a politically unpalatable amount, because if its any less, then its not doing its job.
IIRC, the feds didn't try to announce this at all. They were trying to bury it, and someone leaked it and it blew up. Something something someone told the American's widow's lawyer, they came up and tried to get an injunction something something?
In this day and age where everything is leaked or hacked, it would be nice for once, that someone would just come out and say things plainly. Stop trying to hide behind anonymity and other cowardly acts and stand up and speak the truth.
Like I said before, list the history of the case, of the trials and why you came to this decision and stand behind your words. But no, we get some secretive payout with no formal explanation until it's too late and now the message is too muddled to correct.
Admit you fucked up, make the appropriate actions to resolve the situation, apologize and move on.
I think (and this is my own personal opinion) is that they went about the Khadr announcement in the wrong way. In all the media that I have read, its always been, "Terrorist receives 10 million dollars". If I was running this announcement, I would have had a professional press release detailing Khadr's "crimes", his lack of fair trial, torture, and the previous two trials that have taken places, and explained it in language that everybody would understand. Have a clear message detailing why they reached this result, and I think there would be a lot less pissed off people. Now, I know that there are people out there that would still hate it regardless, but i think not having a clear timeline and message really hurt the Liberals.
That being said, I personally believe that 10 million is way too much. I would have been happy if the settlement was in the 1 - 5 million range.
I just hope that no money is found to be going to terrorist affiliated groups in the future, because its a sure bet the Khadr's life is going to be under a magnifying glass from here on out.
'Feds punished for child soldier mistreatment' is the correct headline. Everything that has the words 'awarded' or 'terrorist' even 'suspected' are bullshit attempts to soft serve the racism.
The $10million is meant to act as a discouragement to the Federal government, it should be a politically unpalatable amount, because if its any less, then its not doing its job.
IIRC, the feds didn't try to announce this at all. They were trying to bury it, and someone leaked it and it blew up. Something something someone told the American's widow's lawyer, they came up and tried to get an injunction something something?
In this day and age where everything is leaked or hacked, it would be nice for once, that someone would just come out and say things plainly. Stop trying to hide behind anonymity and other cowardly acts and stand up and speak the truth.
Like I said before, list the history of the case, of the trials and why you came to this decision and stand behind your words. But no, we get some secretive payout with no formal explanation until it's too late and now the message is too muddled to correct.
Admit you fucked up, make the appropriate actions to resolve the situation, apologize and move on.
/rant
1. Its the press (Sun media et all) and CPC that are making hay out of this, not the government.
2. Making a press release out of this politicizes the situation and Khadr even further, which isnt really fair to him, and I think the Federal Government has been unfair enough to him for more than a lifetimes worth.
I still don't understand it. Apparently when in a war, killing a soldier/medic is usually not a criminal offense, unless it goes against the Geneva Convention. And while medics have some special protections, a grenade not good for targeting a specific individual.
But of course, Kadhr and many of the others weren't 'soldiers ' they were 'Enemy Combatants'. Which conveniently sidesteps the pesky Geneva Convention business.
When I first heard about the new designation, I think that was the moment I began questioning Bush's motives.
Khadr was a child soldier.
All other possible interpretations of his status are a distant second to that.
I still don't understand it. Apparently when in a war, killing a soldier/medic is usually not a criminal offense, unless it goes against the Geneva Convention. And while medics have some special protections, a grenade not good for targeting a specific individual.
But of course, Kadhr and many of the others weren't 'soldiers ' they were 'Enemy Combatants'. Which conveniently sidesteps the pesky Geneva Convention business.
When I first heard about the new designation, I think that was the moment I began questioning Bush's motives.
Killing medics is against the Geneva Convention, but Speer was not "a medic". Medics are unarmed, or only lightly armed for self-defense, and on the field to tend to injuries only. Speer was a Delta Force operator. He was the "medic" for his Delta Force squad. That is to say, after they were done shooting the shit out of everyone, he was the guy with the medkit.
Now I get that the library's hands may have been legally tied with regards to denying the request. But I'm tired of the painting of allowing the commemoration of the defense of hate as upholding free speech, especially with how euphemisms are always used to soften the context of what is actually being defended. It is not something "objectionable", "distasteful", or "unpopular" (and that one rankles because many times, the issue is in part because it is popular.) It's bigotry and hate, and many times, it pushes the voices of the marginalized and dispossessed out. I'd imagine that there are people who will now think twice about going to the library there because of this, and that they don't feel safe there now.
Now I get that the library's hands may have been legally tied with regards to denying the request. But I'm tired of the painting of allowing the commemoration of the defense of hate as upholding free speech, especially with how euphemisms are always used to soften the context of what is actually being defended. It is not something "objectionable", "distasteful", or "unpopular" (and that one rankles because many times, the issue is in part because it is popular.) It's bigotry and hate, and many times, it pushes the voices of the marginalized and dispossessed out. I'd imagine that there are people who will now think twice about going to the library there because of this, and that they don't feel safe there now.
While it's quite shitty that this sort of thing took place there, I feel like it will be quickly forgotten, whereas if they had refused the event, it may have become a thing, and only would have drawn attention.
It's a situation where, assuming probable outcomes, there's no good course of action. In wanting to minimize attention for a bigoted group, the library may have actually made the right decision. It's obviously distressing that anyone would want to hold a memorial for this kind of idiot in the first place, but as reprehensible as it may have been, it may have been their best choice. If the library had refused, I can only imagine that the response of these assholes would have led to more headlines and attention.
So it's a shit situation that it even happened in the first place, and we should be vigilant about it, but it was probably minimized fairly well.
Edit: I'm also fully willing to be wrong about this. It's certainly not an easy issue to resolve.
Now I get that the library's hands may have been legally tied with regards to denying the request. But I'm tired of the painting of allowing the commemoration of the defense of hate as upholding free speech, especially with how euphemisms are always used to soften the context of what is actually being defended. It is not something "objectionable", "distasteful", or "unpopular" (and that one rankles because many times, the issue is in part because it is popular.) It's bigotry and hate, and many times, it pushes the voices of the marginalized and dispossessed out. I'd imagine that there are people who will now think twice about going to the library there because of this, and that they don't feel safe there now.
They were absolutely tied. The library should not discriminate among who wants to book their rooms; and I don't think we should discriminate against a lawyer who represented what is generally accepted as hate groups. They deserve equal representation before the law and if they want to honour the person defending them, so long as the event wasn't independently objectionable and promoting hate directly, let them do so
You guys are lucky. My brother refuses to believe Khadr was tortured, based on the fact a ctrl-f of the SC ruling for the word torture doesn't find anything (when I pointed out their description of cruel and inhuman treatment his answer is "they didn't say torture, nothing prevents them from saying torture if they wanted to, therefore this is different from torture, doesn't count") and the US have a "professional and serious" Army that would never do that. He also believes Khadr's torture-induced confession that he killed that soldier (who he re-classified from special-ops to unarmed medic on a whim for extra drama) and denies he's a child soldier (the definition says under 15, and he was 15, therefore doesn't apply). He defends the Harper government's decision to sue to prevent repatriation ("it's the right thing to do to go to court, after all how can you know what rights he has before the ruling? they're not clairvoyant!") and condemns Trudeau's settlement because "it aborts the proper carrying out of justice - we should have had a trial and see what happens".
I just don't know how to argue with so much irrationality.
So he didn't believe the Guantanamo Bay scandal?
0
Options
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
You know, as dumb as I personally think the event is, I really don't have a problem with politicians doing cowboy cosplay and serving pancakes to attendees.
+10
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
You know, as dumb as I personally think the event is, I really don't have a problem with politicians doing cowboy cosplay and serving pancakes to attendees.
Yeah, embracing the local culture at a world famous major Canadian yearly event.
And if he didn't, the Albertan media would be all "Elitist Trudeau thinks he's too good for Alberta! Just like dad!"
So it's a pretty easy way to ingratiate him among the locals, whereas the potential downside is even more rancor when inroads are being made for Liberals in a traditional Conservative stronghold.
Doesn't sound dumb to me.
+2
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
I keep expecting hotdogs in that picture and am confused by the pancakes.
You know, as dumb as I personally think the event is, I really don't have a problem with politicians doing cowboy cosplay and serving pancakes to attendees.
Yeah, embracing the local culture at a world famous major Canadian yearly event.
Totes dumb.
I figure it's like Pride. Sure, many attendees roll their eyes at the politicians there for photo ops (I've done that a time or two at Pride myself), but the alternative is that they NOT show up, and that's even worse.
SwashbucklerXX on
Want to find me on a gaming service? I'm SwashbucklerXX everywhere.
You know what, fuck the haters. I'm glad he showed up. Still looks better than Harper in a cowboy hat, which is saying something seeing considering he claimed he was from here and of the people.
Posts
I can pretty much guarantee that such facts given in such a reasonable manner has not been presented to those who just see "10 million? WTF, I wish I had 10 million - so did he win the lottery or something? No? He was captured and treated badly? WTF!" They just don't see the connecting tissues of the issues and how it impacts themselves in very real ways, some with willful ignorance because it supports their bigotry, others through apathetic ignorance because they don't look past the first editorialized headline presented to them to raise their ire.
On the other hand, there's not much else governments and major corporations can do. An apology only goes so far before it's simply words. They have to do something, and a settlement is it.
I don't think it's eroding anything simply on the grounds that this is the result I'd expect at any time, past or future.
Sadly the Liberals will be punished for it because, well, that's the public for ya.
The ones coming out about it who know anything about the torture allegations sure as hell are.
A lot of the people upset about the settlement are pretty explicit about minimizing the torture ("I wish I got millions of dollars for being tired!") or outright okay with it because 24 was a documentary or something.
Certainly not all of them, but as close to everyone as makes no difference who's actually had something to say about it instead of just passing along angry memes or National Post articles? I haven't exactly heard from many people in the last few days who are angry that a settlement exists who aren't at the very least completely indifferent to the idea of a citizen being tortured by a foreign power.
That, to me, is morally identical to favoring it.
(Granted, I might be just a little cranky because there's a huge overlap between those and people who are still upset about C-6, from what I've been seeing.)
I don't think it's "as close to everyone as makes no difference" at all. I don't think the survey linked above bears that idea out either. They don't ask directly about the torture but they do ask whether he should have been treated as a child soldier (74% say yes) and whether he was treated fairly (the plurality at 42% say they don't even know).
Frankly, my experience is like what the poll suggests, which is that the overwhelming issue for many is stupid crankiness that the guy got $10 million dollars from the government and little to no consideration or thought is put in to what actually happened to the guy, if they even know.
I just don't know how to argue with so much irrationality.
You don't, its one you aren't going to win. I'm even a little miffed about the settlement, like my lizard brain is like .. DURRRP FUNDING TERRORISM, when the rational side is saying, shut the fuck up.
Good pick, in my opinion
Sounds like a waste of her skills and intelligence, IMO. Could we make Lynn Beyak Governor General and give Payette her seat in the Senate and some real power?
Where is this coming from? There doesn't seem to be a single news article anywhere even remotely close to this topic.
Edit: Globe & Mail pre-announcement from Daniel Leblanc apparently. Weird that there's literally no news run up to this. No background comments or musings from political officials or journalists, nothing. I guess technically the previous Governor General is a few years over his traditional appointment period, but there really isn't a hard deadline on when to replace them anyway, unless he's only recently indicated he wants to retire.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
That being said, I personally believe that 10 million is way too much. I would have been happy if the settlement was in the 1 - 5 million range.
I just hope that no money is found to be going to terrorist affiliated groups in the future, because its a sure bet the Khadr's life is going to be under a magnifying glass from here on out.
Your brother might need rebooting.
'Feds punished for child soldier mistreatment' is the correct headline. Everything that has the words 'awarded' or 'terrorist' even 'suspected' are bullshit attempts to soft serve the racism.
The $10million is meant to act as a discouragement to the Federal government, it should be a politically unpalatable amount, because if its any less, then its not doing its job.
MWO: Adamski
IIRC, the feds didn't try to announce this at all. They were trying to bury it, and someone leaked it and it blew up. Something something someone told the American's widow's lawyer, they came up and tried to get an injunction something something?
But of course, Kadhr and many of the others weren't 'soldiers ' they were 'Enemy Combatants'. Which conveniently sidesteps the pesky Geneva Convention business.
When I first heard about the new designation, I think that was the moment I began questioning Bush's motives.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
In this day and age where everything is leaked or hacked, it would be nice for once, that someone would just come out and say things plainly. Stop trying to hide behind anonymity and other cowardly acts and stand up and speak the truth.
Like I said before, list the history of the case, of the trials and why you came to this decision and stand behind your words. But no, we get some secretive payout with no formal explanation until it's too late and now the message is too muddled to correct.
Admit you fucked up, make the appropriate actions to resolve the situation, apologize and move on.
/rant
1. Its the press (Sun media et all) and CPC that are making hay out of this, not the government.
2. Making a press release out of this politicizes the situation and Khadr even further, which isnt really fair to him, and I think the Federal Government has been unfair enough to him for more than a lifetimes worth.
MWO: Adamski
"convicted terrorist receives 10M settlement from Trudeau goverment" is disingenuous but it is factually correct.
Khadr was a child soldier.
All other possible interpretations of his status are a distant second to that.
Killing medics is against the Geneva Convention, but Speer was not "a medic". Medics are unarmed, or only lightly armed for self-defense, and on the field to tend to injuries only. Speer was a Delta Force operator. He was the "medic" for his Delta Force squad. That is to say, after they were done shooting the shit out of everyone, he was the guy with the medkit.
Now I get that the library's hands may have been legally tied with regards to denying the request. But I'm tired of the painting of allowing the commemoration of the defense of hate as upholding free speech, especially with how euphemisms are always used to soften the context of what is actually being defended. It is not something "objectionable", "distasteful", or "unpopular" (and that one rankles because many times, the issue is in part because it is popular.) It's bigotry and hate, and many times, it pushes the voices of the marginalized and dispossessed out. I'd imagine that there are people who will now think twice about going to the library there because of this, and that they don't feel safe there now.
While it's quite shitty that this sort of thing took place there, I feel like it will be quickly forgotten, whereas if they had refused the event, it may have become a thing, and only would have drawn attention.
It's a situation where, assuming probable outcomes, there's no good course of action. In wanting to minimize attention for a bigoted group, the library may have actually made the right decision. It's obviously distressing that anyone would want to hold a memorial for this kind of idiot in the first place, but as reprehensible as it may have been, it may have been their best choice. If the library had refused, I can only imagine that the response of these assholes would have led to more headlines and attention.
So it's a shit situation that it even happened in the first place, and we should be vigilant about it, but it was probably minimized fairly well.
Edit: I'm also fully willing to be wrong about this. It's certainly not an easy issue to resolve.
They were absolutely tied. The library should not discriminate among who wants to book their rooms; and I don't think we should discriminate against a lawyer who represented what is generally accepted as hate groups. They deserve equal representation before the law and if they want to honour the person defending them, so long as the event wasn't independently objectionable and promoting hate directly, let them do so
So he didn't believe the Guantanamo Bay scandal?
You know, as dumb as I personally think the event is, I really don't have a problem with politicians doing cowboy cosplay and serving pancakes to attendees.
Yeah, embracing the local culture at a world famous major Canadian yearly event.
Totes dumb.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
So it's a pretty easy way to ingratiate him among the locals, whereas the potential downside is even more rancor when inroads are being made for Liberals in a traditional Conservative stronghold.
Doesn't sound dumb to me.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I figure it's like Pride. Sure, many attendees roll their eyes at the politicians there for photo ops (I've done that a time or two at Pride myself), but the alternative is that they NOT show up, and that's even worse.
Or to boil it down to a funny youtube clip:
I never finish anyth