"Alleged" Equivocation

It seems to be media perfidity day here at Ten Fingers, 6 Strings. Here is a report in the Boston Globe about a town coming to terms with Saddam's upcoming trial. It starts off with a horrible account of murder and oppression by a woman at the hands of Saddam and his regime:

When Hussein's long-awaited trial opens tomorrow, Iraqi prosecutors plan to charge him first with ordering the killing of more than 140 men from Dujail and exiling their families to a desert camp in 1982 after a band of gunmen tried to assassinate him on a visit to the town. To the families of the alleged victims, and hundreds of thousands more across Iraq, the trial offers tantalizing hope that they will see Hussein punished at last.

''We want to eat him alive," said Salimah Majeed Al-Haidari, 60, who spent more than four years in detention, then waited 17 more to learn that her husband and two sons, hauled off by security officers, had been executed. ''We wish they would cut him to pieces and hand them out to us and families like us."

Don't fear Salimah, the Boston Globe has found some other Iraqis that are agonizing over this trial as well:

Hussein's trial opens at a precarious time for Iraq. The former president, still a symbol of national pride and identity to some of the disaffected Sunni minority, goes on trial four days after a referendum in which voters appear to have approved a new constitution over strong Sunni objections.

...And international human rights advocates want the trial to build a precedent for holding rulers responsible for crimes against humanity, both by thoroughly documenting abuses and by adhering to high standards of defendants' rights -- goals that specialists have said the trial may not achieve because of confusing rules, politicization, and time pressure.

Ah, I see. One side is affected by having all their families murdered, while the other is disaffected by having their source of pride taken down a notch. A clear case of equivocation of which the international "specialists" apparently agree.

I think history should clearly point out now that Hilter was a fool for killing himself. Under these standards, he could have remained a source of national pride and identity to some disaffected, minority Nazis after the War in Europe ended. Then he could gain his "defendant's rights" to protect him from all the politically charged defamation coming from those disaffected Jews. I mean, how could one possibly expect them to not "confuse the rules" and be objective?