Human Rights Allegations Worth Hearing
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith argued that "it is crass retroactivity" to say that General Motors, Ford and IBM are "legally responsible for actions of the South African government" during the apartheid era ["Rights Case Gone Wrong," op-ed, April 19]. But certainly these firms should be legally responsible for their own actions. The plaintiffs in one case, Ntsebeza v. Daimler Chrysler, allege that security personnel at the German carmaker, as well as at GM and Ford, "provided information about anti-apartheid activists to the South African Security Forces, facilitated arrests, provided information to be used in interrogations, and even participated in interrogations."
Moreover, the plaintiffs allege that IBM employees customized their software so that South African officials could use the programs to segregate blacks into Bantustans. Mr. Bradley and Mr. Goldsmith believe the Ntsebeza case should be dismissed without hearing the factual arguments. But there is nothing "crass" about saying that Daimler, GM, Ford and IBM should at least have to answer these serious allegations in open court.
DANIEL HEMEL
Oxford, England
