While it is certainly problematic to charge only one side of a corrupt transaction, it is not necessarily good to allege crimes in a public document when the person (or organization) has no means to fight the allegation. A conviction in the court of public opinion is tough to overcome.I responded in the comments:
Since 92% of y'all agreed corporate bribe-givers should be named, I'm pretty sure I'm on safe ground with that assertion in this crowd!
I don't understand why these companies aren't being charged. Where are the prosecutions of Corporations A-Z? Surely that's more than just "problematic." It's tantamount in my eyes to tolerating corruption.
And why shouldn't the court of public opinion reflect a company's alleged bribery of government officials? The soldiers' names are plastered all over every newspaper. If the US Attorney charges a soldier with receiving a bribe, by definition somebody must have bribed them. That person (or corporation) played an equal role in the transaction - without both, there would be no crime.If there's enough evidence to charge the soldier, there should be enough evidence to hold bribe-giving companies accountable too, IMO, in both the courts of justice and of public opinion.
For my part, I don't want the corporations named "in a public document when the person (or organization) has no means to fight the allegation." The professor and I agree on that. I want them named in indictments and in newspaper headlines, just like the soldiers they bribed.