The Economist: Biased and confusing about Brazil´s Military Regime

British The Economist comitted this article about Brazil´s way to handle the end of exception regime and transition to democracy, in the late seventies.
The fake claim about photos of a decesead journalist (Herzog), supposedly taken right before a torture session that caused his dead, created a turmoil between human-rights-left-movements and the army on opening the secret files from military regime time.
Read a particle:
Economist.com | Brazil's armed forces: "This curious episode has its origins in the way Brazil eased away from military rule without a final settling of accounts. The process began in 1979 when the presiding general of the time declared a reciprocal amnesty, absolving both the regime and its opponents of their crimes. The armed forces never apologised, as the army did in Chile, nor did the government investigate their crimes and imprison generals, as Argentina's did. Brazil's dictatorship produced victims, but no culprits."

The economist is totally biased about the episode.
1) The faked photos shown a left-priest caught during a sexual intecourse with a nun (it remembers me the old song "who fuck nuns now enters the church") not Vladimir Herzog.

2) Herzog could not even be killed or tortured but just committed suicide. The investigstion process carried out that time has many credible elements, Herzog was not a kind of key element of the guerrilla, he was just a member of an outer level that didn't know much about the future plans. He didn't even the first of his kind to be interrogated. Two journalists were interrogated before him and revealed all that supposed to be revealed. And were treated very kindly by the army men. Herzog hearing was supposed to be useless. The only feasible explanation was suicide.

3) There were hundreds of innocent victims of left-terror. These left-terrorists wanted to transform Brazil into a new Cuban-like regime. Our army acted to protect innocent people from being killed by these extremist-terrorists. They did it because was their duty. The real thing is that was a WAR going on. The 1964's army move tried -and accomplished - to keep comunist fingers off the country. They succeeded deeply and almost harmlessly.

4) From the perspective of the amnesty, both sides were released from any crime accusation, even people that killed innocent people were forgiven. Some of them are in charge of some government ministry right now! Aren´t they supposed to pay for their crimes too?

5) It´s all about money: as I wrote yesterday if even landless people call for money - not land - these bygots want to raise false accusations to earn money - a lot of money. Brazil is the only country where former-wannabes-revolutinaries are not rotting in prison,they are part of the government team and got a big money reward for the "torture" and "stress" they had under army's foot. It would be funny how marxists are looking for money - big money for a reward to their craziest and deadly adventures... If they weren't laughing at us.

It´s sad that The Economist has chosen just one side of the story.