Saddam on trial

From the Times:

Saddam Hussein defiantly faced a panel of Iraqi judges today in a heavily guarded courthouse in central Baghdad, as he was asked to answer charges for a 1982 massacre and begin the long process of public reckoning for the decades of brutal repression that Mr. Hussein brought to Iraq...

The first case being brought against the former Iraqi leader centers around the execution of more than 140 men and teenage boys from the mostly Shiite market town of Dujail, 35 miles north of Baghdad. The victims were seized by secret police after a failed assassination attempt on Mr. Hussein there in 1982.

It's about time. (May justice prevail.)

**********

Update: Dennis Sanders at The Moderate Republican (the kind of Republican I like) has a good post on Saddam's trial: "If this trial is nothing more than a show trial or a way of getting back at Saddam or the Sunni minority, then there will be resentment among Sunnis and no chance for reconcilation and healing. Saddam may not deserve a fair trial, but if we want Iraq to a nation established under the rule of law, it has to be fair and impartial. If it follows the rule of established international law, then it will rob Sunnis of any chance to claim victimhood and hopefully move forward. Do it wrong, and it will only exacerbate ethnic tensions."

Well put. And I agree.

Otherwise, I'm surprised this story isn't getting a bit more attention today, especially in the blogosphere. Yes, I realize that most of us are glued to Plamegate, Miers, and other such sexy, partisanship-enhancing issues, but we're talking about a recently liberated country preparing to deal with its brutal past, facing its oppressor in a court of law, even as it continues its own struggle to establish viable self-governance and a sustainable sense of self-identity.

Shouldn't we be paying attention?