Bassem Sabry articulates what the criminal proceedings against Mubarak mean to the Arab world:
The moment Mubarak received his legal summons yesterday, officially accusing him of [corruption and complicity in the killing of protesters], the most important nail in the coffin of Middle-Eastern cult-of-personality and leader-worship was finally hammered, and would only be hammered further by the live telecast of the trial.
Leaders are human beings, just like the rest of us, and the same laws that apply to us apply to them as well. If they do break them, they will suffer like any of us would. And just because of that, almost regardless of how the trials proceed, many of us here feel more even empowered and more dignified as citizens than as we did even on February 11th as well. And it's a watershed moment for an entire region struggling with corrupt, bloodthirsty and oppressive regimes, many of which are starting to believe they managed their way out of the Arab Spring. As the leading figures of those regimes received the news that Mubarak, one of the most powerful, oldest reigning, and once untouchable among them, was officially served his legal summons, all those men knew that the end of life as they were used to it has finally come, forever.
Jackson Diehl worries that Mubarak will not receive a fair trial, while Elliot Abrams argues against executing the deposed leader. Juan Cole grumbles that Abrams' old boss, G.W., should also be on trial.
The Dish 