One of the things that burns me up about the coverage of Saddam’s trial is that it focuses on the wrong two things and ignores it’s only point. It focuses on what he or his lawyers did in court, but not the testimony. Witnesses come in and describe the horrors he perpetrated – hardly a mention of the contents of their testimony. Saddam stands up and blusters – full coverage. And the other question that consumes the press is Saddam getting a fair trial. Personally, the fact that he’s getting a trial at all is all the fairness he deserves (yes, I’m aware of the proceedural arguments for the need for a “fair” trial) and the whole point of the trial is for the fullness of his crimes to come out and that he be given a chance to answer for them.
But that isn’t what we get. Is this how the truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa was covered?
