Here we go again. The Bush administration are spinning again. A secret 50-page memo shows that Bush had authorised use of interrogation tactics now widely condemned as "torture". Then the Bush administriation floods out a mass of documentation and starts its usual word play to spin the fact that Bush never "ordered torture". Well maybe there's no evidence yet that he ordered torture against any specific person, but there is black and white evidence in the memo to indicate he authorized methods of interrogation that are torture.
I mean, say, for instance, that a secret memo signed by the CEO of WalMart turned up that said it was okay to promote male staff ahead of female staff, and it was okay to pay them less or require them to work longer or more inconvenient hours etc. etc. How would you feel if that CEO then said "well I never condoned discrimination against women, and I never ordered discrimination against Jane Doe". It just wouldn't fly would it? In a court of law they would just say "A + B + C = discrimination and you authorized A, B and C therefore you authorized a policy of discriminatory practices and therefore you hold final responsibility for your subordinates carrying out discrmination". Which basically means the buck doesn't stop with bad apples because you legitimized the existance of bad apples in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment