Scott Horton Interviews Sheldon Richman

Scott Horton, February 23, 2011

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Sheldon Richman, senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, discusses the opportunity to try George W. Bush for his war crimes; the equally solid case against Condi Rice and the Office of Legal Council lawyers; the Obama administration’s blindness to government crimes committed in the past; the heartening sight of tyrannical governments under pressure all over the Middle East; protesters in Libya daring to face down their military’s overwhelming firepower; and why MSNBC’s Chris Matthews is a bad journalist.

MP3 here. (20:42)

Sheldon Richman is editor of The Freeman, published by The Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York, and serves as senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is the author of FFF’s award-winning book Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families; Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax; and FFF’s newest book Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State.

Calling for the abolition, not the reform, of public schooling. Separating School & State has become a landmark book in both libertarian and educational circles. In his column in the Financial Times, Michael Prowse wrote: “I recommend a subversive tract, Separating School & State by Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank… . I also think that Mr. Richman is right to fear that state education undermines personal responsibility…”

Mr. Richman’s articles on population, federal disaster assistance, international trade, education, the environment, American history, foreign policy, privacy, computers, and the Middle East have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Scholar, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, The Freeman, The World & I, Reason, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is a contributor to the Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics.

A former newspaper reporter and former senior editor at the Cato Institute, Mr. Richman is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia.

3 Responses to “Sheldon Richman”

  1. "It's different when it's America."

    Yup, Sheldon pegged it.

    Most Americans are hypocritical idiots without the ability to think rationally.

  2. Should Dubya–the former Chickenhawk-in-Chief, Torturer-in-Chief, and Wiretapper-in-Chief–be tried for war crimes? Sure. Not that he will be, though. You see, his successor, Saint Barack O-Bomb-a The Blessed, put the kibosh on any investigation or prosecution of his predecessor. Saint Barack believes in "looking forward" and stuff like that. Besides, Saint Barack doesn't want his administrations's crimes investigated in the future by, say, President Sarah Palin.

    No, the U.S. Government can't be bothered to try its war criminals. . . .

  3. The Swiss [in]justice minister has recently concluded that ex-leaders "such as Bush" have diplomatic immunity. However, it is apparent that Mr. Bush and his cohorts in the u.s. regime (both parties included) do not completely trust the Europeans to overlook his war crimes.

    Furthermore, diplomatic immunity is not automatic. You can't set it up on your end and simply proceed. It must be agreed to by the receiving country. While such agreement is normally extended as a courtesy, it is certainly not guaranteed. The Swiss have every right to refuse such a request. In the case of Mr. Bush, an admitted war criminal, the Swiss are risking plenty by considering entertaining a request to grant Bush immunity from prosecution for admitted war crimes.

    The political cowardice of the Swiss government knows no limits. As a permanent puppet of the u.s. and israel, CH continually fails to apply law equally. CH is in lockstep with the aforementioned rogue regimes regardless of any feigned disagreement the [in]justice ministry might proffer. As always, the u.s. and israel will decide for CH who has immunity and who does not.

    The Swiss supported and approved of the Nuremberg trials and the promulgation of the Nuremberg Principals. Why does the Swiss minister of [in]justice now conclude that those principals cannot apply to Mr. Bush? CH was firm in its support for the application of the Nuremberg Principals when it came to Slobodan Milošević and members of his government. Likewise, CH was entirely in lockstep with the u.s. and israel when those countries sought to kill Saddam Hussein and to destroy Iraq. These former leaders deserved no such immunity in the view of CH. There are many other examples of CH's blind support for whatever war crimes the americans and the israelis commit around the world. Any clear thinking person is aware of the litany of Swiss support for and capitulation to american and israeli war crimes. Of course, there are just as many instances of selective recognition of war crimes by the Swiss government.

    It is clear that the Swiss government is not guided by domestic law, international law, or any treaty to which it is a signatory. Rather, CH is guided by the leaders of the two most militarily belligerent and criminal regimes currently on the planet. The Swiss people deserve better than this. Neutrality indeed.

    Switzerland has been reduced to little more than a stamp of approval that is willingly misused by tyrants and murderers to lend a false look of civility and fairness to their criminal acts. History is unlikely to forget or overlook Switzerland's complicity.

Leave a Reply