Does this particular piece of dishonest argumentation piss you off as much as it does me?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

Step 1: People who are, in some capacity, government officials do something wrong that unjustly hurts somebody in some manner.

Step 2: Aforementioned somebody seeks redress in court, wins (because they were clearly right, and officials were clearly wrong). Gets moolah as compensation, either in a settlement or as a sentence.

Step 3: Disingenuous idiot criticizes aforementioned somebody for seeking legal action and therefore hurting innocent taxpayers because "it is them who'll end up footing the bill".

Doesn't that make you want to hit the idiot with a crowbar?

(DISCLAIMER: the above does not reflect any recent exchange in DU. It's just something I remembered for no particular reason.)

[PDJane]

1. Yes.

I've had that argument several times about Maher Arar.

[Canuckistanian]

2. You have?

In Canada? I thought he was overwhelmingly supported in Canada.

Pretty hard NOT to blame those in government who were responsible for the kidnapping, illegal rendering and torture of a Canadian citizen.

[PDJane]

3. He is overwhelmingly supported.

There are a few idiots even here. And yes, you are quite right.

[MrModerate]

4. It's seldom black and white . . .

Once someone's loss becomes a court case, it often diverges from pure justice.

Is it right that a whole school district be bankupted because a handful of administrators engaged in stupid/criminal conduct? Is it right that someone whose life has been permanently blighted as a result of official mis-, mal-, or nonfeasance be given a token payment, or none?

Probably not.

On the other hand, the idea that government entities should be unaccountable because of the risk of payout to injured parties is just stupid. Crowbar-whacking stupid? I'm not sure.