Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Op-ed: When Will George W. Bush Be Tried for His War Crimes?

We should take a small measure of satisfaction in former President George W. Bush’s cancellation of his trip to Switzerland after human-rights groups threatened to bring legal action against him for authorizing torture.
See the full op-ed here.


AGSCalabrese said...

I am interested in stopping torture in the future. I could care less if GWB is brought to trial.... I just want to see him and every other posturing "world leader" de-fanged. Those world leaders can stop torturing me at the same time... by shutting their mouths. I am sick of their smarmy pronouncements.

Tom said...

The 12th. The 12th of never.

Anonymous said...

Sheldon, you're a pathetic idiot!

Sheldon Richman said...

Anon, you're articulate and logical argument sure has me stumped. I would really like to know the name of someone so well informed and well spoken.

Jack Poole said...

Hello, Sheldon! I'm back. My name is Jack Poole, and I'm 74 years old. I really don't have any bone to pick with you other than your criticism of President Bush, and I apologize for not leaving my name before. I was in a hurry and I saw the place to click on for anon and it appeared to be quickest thing to do. Since I don't know you and I have never read anything else you have written, perhaps I did over do my description of you. My problem with you is that I am an admirer of George W. Bush and I think you are completely wrong in your accusations. I believe you said in your article that one million Iraquis were killed in our fight to liberate Iraq. That is not a correct number. Saddam was a bloody killer as well as were his sons. I'm glad they are dead. No one on earth should have to endue things like watching your wife and/or daughters being mass raped in order to punish you. I won't go on anymore, but I would like to ask if you meant "your" instead of "you're in your comment back to mine.

N. Joseph Potts said...

Prosecuting and punishing (hard time) Bush for war crimes would work wonders for the incentives and forethought of the many would-be war criminals who today inhabit presidential palaces from Washington to Beijing and hundreds of other capitals around the world.

Much torturing is done to "send a message" (see: Bradley Manning) to others who might consider doing what Manning is accused of doing.

It's time we got this dynamic going against torture, instead of, as it has been up to now, only in favor of torture.

Anonymous said...

Jack, I agree. The US war in Iraq did not kill 1,000,000 Iraqis. It killed less than 1,000,000 Iraqis. As long as you kill less than a million people, everything's kosher.

Here's why it's important to prosecute Bush, or at least attempt to do so. Because if formal action is not taken, in 50 years George W. Bush will go down in history as a hero. Just like every single other US president not named Nixon. What makes Nixon special? Because he was impeached and (effectively) removed from office. Bush will be like all of the other war mongers before him -- Wilson, the Roosevelts, Monroe, Lincoln, LBJ, and whoever else -- exalted and revered. A GWB fan like Jack may be ok with that, but it makes me a little sick.