The Paper of Record continues to marginalize itself, now issuing whining complaints about the order of charges against a mass murderer. What difference does it make which crimes get tried first? Shouldn't the easiest charges to present get the first airing, or does the New York Times suddenly endorse the notion that Saddam and his henchmen sit in prison indefinitely without ever facing any kind of trial?Other media outlets are similiarly focused on why the massacre of Dujail was the first of the multitude of cases to be brought against Saddam and his henchmen. Does anyone in the media recall that when there are multiple crimes committed by a single individual that it is often the most serious and easiest charges that are brought first, in order to secure the conviction.
The Times fails to grasp the historical and cultural impact of Saddam's trial, bitching about the details while missing the big picture. At least they're consistent.
If the facts and evidence are particularly strong on the Dujail massacre, then putting this case forward is a good way for the prosecutors to cut their teeth on the process.
And for those media hounds carping that this may somehow expose the court to claims of incompetence or bullying from the accused, consider that it was the same kind of claim made during the Nuremberg war crimes trials - the Nazi defendants claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction and imposed laws ex post facto. Here, Saddam is likely to claim that he broke no laws and that he was acting in the best interests of his country. Never mind all the dead bodies in the killing fields, but that's where this is likely to head.
Saddam has already tried to undermine the court by refusing to identify himself for the charges. The court wouldn't sit idly by and were prepared for that. He eventually declared himself the President of Iraq.
Sorry to break the news to Saddam, but you're standing accused of committing crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes. You're not the President of Iraq anymore, and the entire Arab world is watching you be tried for your crimes. Don't think that you aren't having an effect on world events, but not in the way you hoped you would.
Don Surber notes that this is really an important step and thinks that people should really step back from all the talk domestically to see a real important piece of history taking place. A nation putting a tyrant on trial for committing real crimes against humanity.
Michelle Malkin has rolling updates.