The Economist has an excellent commentary on the killing of Charles Menezes. While it's subscription only, the final paragraph is worth noting:
It is wrong that the facts leading to an innocent man's death at the hands of the police remain obscure a year on. It does not serve the public's interests: until those facts are known, it is unlikely that the police will improve substantially the procedures that led them to kill Mr de Menezes. It does not serve the police's interests: while people are left in the dark, they will remain suspicious that there is a cover-up. And it does not serve Sir Ian either: the longer the episode remains unexplained, the less tenable his position becomes. It may be that the facts of the case exonerate him. It may be that they do not. But until they are known, he will be held responsible. [my emphasis]
Well said.
"while people are left in the dark, they will remain suspicious that there is a cover-up. ...the longer the episode remains unexplained, the less tenable his position becomes. It may be that the facts of the case exonerate him. It may be that they do not. But until they are known, he will be held responsible."
Hmm, a boilerplate letter-to-the-editor.
Posted by: Darryl Pearce | August 22, 2006 at 06:46 PM
It's actually an opinion article and I really see nothing to disagree with.
Posted by: Randinho | August 22, 2006 at 08:36 PM
I did not mean any criticism. Indeed, I also agree with the sentiment... which is a boilerplace that can be applied to a whole host of secretive power-grabbers and covert situations from the fantastic to the mundane.
Posted by: Darryl Pearce | August 23, 2006 at 02:14 PM