Well that $10.5 million sure got the apathites stirred up. I propose that nearly everybody has a strong opinion on this thing, but that the vast majority have gotten to their fiercely held belief based either:
... solely on their first gut-reaction or, more rarely,
... by a blinkered search for every argument that might support their first gut-reaction. (no offence, folks, the first one was my initial response)
A recent poll suggested about 20% of people figured the Feds should have or had to come up with the money. I suggest that group is heavily loaded with people who think government is an incompetent bunch of idiots who lie, cheat and generally screw over the little and medium-sized people, especially brown ones.
The other 70 odd percent is likely filled with folk who see their government as an incompetent bunch of idiots with bleeding hearts for everybody but the hard-working hard-fighting folk who build and defend this fine nation from riffraff, terrorists, and pretty much anything different.
So, you don't have to agree with me -- I'm not quite emperor yet -- but would it be so hard to take a small pill, set aside your undoubtedly-correct opinion and give my thoughts an open consideration? Here goes.
He was a kid. He is a Canadian citizen. He got dragooned by his parents, off to Afghanistan (ever been to Afghanistan? we have; loved it, but we had a plane ticket home and there wasn't a war on). They undoubtedly explained to him repeatedly, and in detail who the bad guys were, why they are bad, and what hell was like.
There's a firefight. Let's agree his family are bad guys, but let's also stay aware of the difference between going all ululate-y with a knife and a suicide vest in London, vs fighting in your ancestral homeland against foreign military for a cause, however-misguided. You end up wounded seriously. Everybody else on your team is dead. Some of the other guys are also dead and/or wounded.
According to first reports the other guys' fatalities and injuries were caused by a grenade chucked by a middle aged guy who was promptly snipered into heaven/virgins/etc.
The kid gets tossed into Guantanamo.
Perhaps because there is no one else alive to punish for their fallen heroes, the reports get changed to say the kid tossed the grenade.
Torture ensues. (You ever been tortured? Ever in jail? Ever in jail with no prospect of ever getting out? Me neither. Scares the crap out of me.)
The Canadian government basically doesn't care. They send people to join in the interrogation and share what they get with the 'murricans. After a few years, Obama shows up and would really like countries to take back their nationals who are parked in Guantanamo with no prospect of proper treatment (ignore that if you wish) or a trial (hard to ignore that one). Canada says "nope, not interested, your problem, do what you want". Whether or not you think that attitude is appropriate in the situation, it doesn't jibe well with things like our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Exasperated, the people trying to empty Guantanamo and the people who think our kid is maybe not getting a square deal have an idea: plead guilty and you can go to Canada. Deal. (Remember, you are trying to be objective here: your choice is back to Guantanamo with no sign of ending torture, trial, release, life, etc. ... or ... a few years in a regular Canadian slammer -- not much freedom, probably bad food, but then out.) Kid takes the deal, presumably on the advice of his lawyers, who seem to have taken on a life-altering project to defend him in the absence of any help from his government.
In hind sight, this was the decision that had the downside of allowing the 70% to use "convicted terrorist" as an adjective by his name.
Fast forward, lawyers who haven't been paid for a decade of work and who seem to actually believe in the Constitution and their client sue for $20 million. Their point(s), I believe, are that it doesn't really matter whether he "did it" or not, good chance he didn't, but what matters is that he was denied his rights in a fairly egregious manner. Everybody with a vote in the justice system agrees, up to and including the Supreme Court multiple times.
New government. They settle and say "sorry" (for the rights violation). Shitstorm ensues.
Not convinced? Before you start yelling at me, one more thing. Let's try an analogy:
Kid is born in a crap 'hood in Toronto to a family of gang-related drug dealers and generally bad people, though they call themselves a family or a brotherhood or, whatever. At some point the kid is told to off one of the very bad guys from the other gang. Even if he doesn't think that's a morally correct action and even though he isn't in a desert in the middle of Afghanistan, refusal appears to have serious consequences. A firefight ensues. The kid is wounded and arrested. Pretty sure he doesn't get dumped in an adult hell-hole, tortured, without representation, for a decade or so.
Which only leaves the amount. It's a lot of money. But a whole pile is going to go to lawyers who I believe mortgaged their house to keep representing him for nada for years. But why that number? Why any number when it comes to personal loss and rights violation? And what does the actual number have to with the basics of the case. To those who have said "ok, maybe, $50k" I just ask you to put yourself in the situation. But, rather than keep prattling on, I suggest: precedent and probably cost-minimization weighed against litigation.
OK, 70%, anybody think I made a point or two? Want to tell me what I got wrong? I'm listening, and really trying to be objective.
Is there some sort of Grand Canyon/Niagara Falls/Rocky Mountains/Pebble Beach type of stunning vista attached to aisles of sugared cereals extending to distant horizons?
