The nitpicking about Saddam’s trial is too much for the Washington Post’s editorialists, who tell the human-rights groups to stop whining about procedural details:

…there is something unreal about the cries of foul from human rights groups demanding perfect procedural justice from a country struggling with civil war, daily bombings and death-squad killings. The reality is that by the trial’s end, there was no significant factual dispute between prosecution and defense: Saddam Hussein acknowledged on national television that he had signed the death warrants after only the most cursory look at the evidence against his victims. That, he testified proudly, “is the right of the head of state.” Exactly what would a perfect trial be capable of discovering?

Even though they oppose the death penalty, they’re pretty sanguine about Saddam’s necktie party:

it’s hard to imagine the death penalty existing anywhere for any crime and not for Saddam Hussein — a man who, with the possible exception of Kim Jong Il, has more blood on his hands than anyone else alive.