Fox legal analyst: Bush should have been indicted

I don't know this man as I don't have cable or watch "news" online as I prefer to read, but I did watch the video and he makes many points I came across when I did research a few years back on the Patriot Act.

Following his logic, the last administration, and the present should be held accountable. I would agree. Read, listen, I'd love to know what others think about this. And this is not a request to argue the same "keepin us safe" line.

Is it acceptable to disregard the Constitution? Yes or no? Why?

Fox News' senior judicial analyst made some surprising remarks Saturday that may go against the grain at his conservative network.
In a interview with Ralph Nader on C-SPAN's Book TV to promote his book Lies the Government Told You, Judge Andrew Napolitano said that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should have been indicted for "torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrant."

The video is here of the 11 minutes he talks about Obama and Bush and the Constitution.
Andrew Napolitano: Bush and Cheney Should Have Been Indicted for Torturing, for Spying and Arresting Without Warrants | Video Cafe

The entire interview can be found here.
After Words with Andrew Napolitano - C-SPAN Video Library

The Libertarian commentator debated politics, history, and what he considers to be the unconstitutional behavior of both the Bush and Obama administrations, with consumer advocate and four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader.


"So what President Bush did with the suspension of habeas corpus, with the whole concept of Guantanamo Bay, with the whole idea that he could avoid and evade federal laws, treaties, federal judges and the Constitution was blatantly unconstitutional and is some cases criminal," he continued.


"What should be the sanctions [for Bush and Cheney]?" asked Nader.


"They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrant," said Napolitano.

Vincent Bugliosi wrote a book two years ago with a much more damning take on George Bush. He was the lawyer who prosecuted the Manson murderers.

From my research and reading, many of the most reputable constitutional lawyers and scholars agree with him.

I agree, but it was his job title that made me sit up and take notice.

Fox News' senior judicial analyst.

Dogs lying down with cats....anything goes. Let's see how long he lasts there.

We keep telling ya'll "fair and balanced."

The judge is on target, both Obama and Bush disregard the Constitution and should be sanctioned. So did Clinton, Bush I, and every other President in recent memory.

We keep telling ya'll "fair and balanced."

This is an exception and he wasn't on that network when he said it;-)

The judge is on target, both Obama and Bush disregard the Constitution and should be sanctioned. So did Clinton, Bush I, and every other President in recent memory.

It's pretty certain that they all have.

The really difficult question arises when the DOJ has advised the President that the actions are legal. Who do you indict then?

As we saw last year, a few minor heads rolled and a few rebukes were issued to lower level attorneys at the DOJ, but even they suffered no real consequence.

On a personal level, if your lawyer advised you that an action you were undertaking was legal and it turned out that he/she was wrong, I suspect you'd be pretty upset about being prosecuted and imprisoned for it.

Now, it would seem that in a case where the President was a lawyer (Nixon, Ford, Clinton, Obama) that having DOJ advice might not offset their culpability the way it would for a non-lawyer President. After all a lawyer is expected to know the law.

This is an exception and he wasn't on that network when he said it;-)

Oh, come on! Judge Napolitano is a strict Constitutionalist and every one that whatches him with any regularity knows it. He is also one of the most astute legal analysts on TV. The only "exception" is the fact that many cannot accept what is happening in this country because it is only reported on Fox. Sorry, but if you are going to tell me and others about "exceptions", at least watch enough of the other side to know of what you speak. (Yes, its only my opinion but it is bearing itself out as fact more and more every day). The fact that most reporters are writing opinion and are ignoring "facts" or accepting leftist propaganda as "fact" is finally dawning on the American public, IMO. It is about time and maybe, just maybe, the 4th estate will finally wake up and once again become believeable. I am not talking about columnists or commentators here, I am talking about reporters.

Dogs lying down with cats....anything goes. Let's see how long he lasts there.

He'll last a long, long time. He has his own program on Fox Business Network which, UNFORTUNATELY WE DO NOT GET ON MEDIACOM! Medicom please take notice!!!

The fact that most reporters are writing opinion and are ignoring "facts" or accepting leftist propaganda as "fact" is finally dawning on the American public, IMO.

It's hard for anyone seeking the real facts to separate the wheat from the chaff.
The "news" is reported by all sorts of entities w/ various axes to grind.
Neither the left nor the right has a monopoly on propaganda.
It's not clear what the term "mainstream media" means any more.

Oh, come on! Judge Napolitano is a strict Constitutionalist and evey one that whatches him with any regularity knows it. He is also one of the most astute legal analysts on TV. The only "exception" is the fact that many cannot accept what is happening in this country because it is only reported on Fox. Sorry, but if you are going to tell me and others about "exceptions", at least watch enough of the other side to know of what you speak. (Yes, its only my opinion but it is bearing itself out as fact more and more every day). The fact that most reporters are citing opinion and are ignoring "facts" or accepting leftist propaganda as "fact" is finally dawning on the American public, IMO.

I DON'T watch T.V Andy. I said that in my opening sentence, so you come on. I read from a variety of sources and did not deserve this type of response from you. I have a right to a personal opinion as well and did not represent myself as my profession when I tried to open this civil dialogue on the Constitution. I said I had come across his legal points doing research.

I believe both sides pander to their viewers., ie. me calling this an exception. Most don't go rouge or off the reservation. That was what was surprising to me about his comments. You can have either side's "propaganda" spoon fed to you while you sit in your recliner and drink your beer. I don't remember being called a liberal by you when I wrote a seven part series that took a hard look at illegal immigration in Walton County. I write from the center, unless it's an editorial and even then, you are way off to label me left or right. And you can take what YOU think as facts and put them where the sun doesn't shine in my PERSONAL OPINION for treating me like this.:roll:

I may not have always agreed with your opinion, but, I at least respected you, until now.

Maybe you should start watching a little TV. Despite what you think, it might broaden your horizons. Your "exception" to me came across as a dig, as so many make, against Fox News. If you found it personally offensive, it was not meant to be, and to you, I apologize.
And I do sit in my recliner and I do drink my beer but that doesn't change the fact that I can still analyze, evaluate and accept or reject what is presented to me by the news media. I realize it sounds cavalier, but many in our present society cannot. While I was not referring to our local reporters, many of those reporting for the major and cable news networks as well as major publications stink.
The seven part piece you did on immigration was, IMO, a superb series and journalism at its finest, and yes, it was done from the center. As you know, I no longer read your newspaper and you are well aware why, so I have no idea what you are now writing. Once again, I meant no personal offense but even you will, I am sure, admit that your positions on the forun, which as you said are personal, are definitely more left than right or center. Just my interpretation, I admit. As for your professional writing, if you, and from what I have noted before I stopped taking your paper, do write without a bias from one point of view or another, you are to be highly commended, and once again, IMO one of a very few.
I do not look for respect and I realize that in many cases I am a voice in the wilderness but as long as I'm allowed to freely and openly express what I have learned, feel and observed I shall do so with pleasure.

I apparently missed something.

I think it's a hoot when Napolitano is on Fox - because he isn't drinking the kool-aid and often the captions and the talking head/segment he is opining on are saying something COMPLETELY different.

Obviously I am not a huge Bush or Cheney fan, but I guess I don't see the value in indicting them. Media circus, tons of tax dollars spent, lots of trees killed, lots of legislation derailed, and IMO nothing to show for it in the end.

:Obviously I am not a huge Bush or Cheney fan, but I guess I don't see the value in indicting them. Media circus, tons of tax dollars spent, lots of trees killed, lots of legislation derailed, and IMO nothing to show for it in the end.

The Obama administration will not bring charges against Bush, Cheney or any of their minions.

Such actions would further polarize an already polarized nation.

While the Obama administration has stopped waterboarding (as far as we know), they still support "The Patriot Act", rendition, military tribunals, holding prisoners in Guantanamo indefinitely with out telling them what they are charged with, without giving them lawyers...etc.

I don't know if we're still possible being wiretapped without warrants.

Alecia, I think Andy was trying to say how do you know this is an exception to his regular views when you don't watch the network?

Fox regularly presents other points of view. If you think Lamont Hill is not a liberal along with Beckel, Colmes, etc. then you have never watched them. That said, the network is obviously leaning conservative and most of us watch it for this reason.

I really don't think Andy meant to offend you, but sometimes what we mean does not come out in what we write. Blame it on a poor education.:roll:

Alecia, I think Andy was trying to say how do you know this is an exception to his regular views when you don't watch the network?

Fox regularly presents other points of view. If you think Lamont Hill is not a liberal along with Beckel, Colmes, etc. then you have never watched them. That said, the network is obviously leaning conservative and most of us watch it for this reason.

I really don't think Andy meant to offend you, but sometimes what we mean does not come out in what we write. Blame it on a poor education.:roll:

I appreciate your sentiments. I think Andy explained his feeling well and so did I.

I have had to watch to MSN, FOX and Jerry Springer before in waiting rooms and the like. I never felt one bit more enriched by the process.

In fact, just the fact realty T.V exist ( not talking Iron Chef , but the Hills)says that we are getting dumber, imho.

They all have target audiences. That is what the cater to, and I agree the majority of that station is about right leaning viewers. I believe I was correct to call this man an exception to their party line toting and why are we arguing about Fox and my use of "exception" instead of answering the original question? Why was that what gets responded to?? You know?

Is it now ok for both parties to pee all over the Constitution?

And if it is, why do so many people keep giving me the little pocket ones? Souvenirs, I guess.

That's really all I wanted people to tell me when I started this thread. I hear so much about violation of the Constitution.

This thread was about Dems and Reps violating it.

But even when it's blatant, I guess it's not important or it's just which part gets violated.

I don't think we can have an intelligent conversation anymore about politics, without someone trying to argue the news provider more than the news itself.

I appreciate your sentiments. I think Andy explained his feeling well and so did I.

I have had to watch to MSN, FOX and Jerry Springer before in waiting rooms and the like. I never felt one bit more enriched by the process.

In fact, just the fact realty T.V exist ( not talking Iron Chef , but the Hills)says that we are getting dumber, imho.

They all have target audiences. That is what the cater to, and I agree the majority of that station is about right leaning viewers. I believe I was correct to call this man an exception to their party line toting and why are we arguing about Fox and my use of "exception" instead of answering the original question? Why was that what gets responded to?? You know?

Is it now ok for both parties to pee all over the Constitution?

And if it is, why do so many people keep giving me the little pocket ones? Souvenirs, I guess.

That's really all I wanted people to tell me when I started this thread. I hear so much about violation of the Constitution.

This thread was about Dems and Reps violating it.

But even when it's blatant, I guess it's not important or it's just which part gets violated.

I don't think we can have an intelligent conversation anymore about politics, without someone trying to argue the news provider more than the news itself.

IMHO both parties regularly trample on the Constitution. The patriot act is blantantly unconstitutional as is Obama's health care bill. Both parties need to forget the ends justify the means. State and even local governments violate the Constitution regularly these days. The sad thing is most people don't even care as long as they get what they want.

I really do not want Bush indicted and I do not want impeachment proceedings against Obama. I want ALL of them to remember their oath of office.

IMHO both parties regularly trample on the Constitution. The patriot act is blantantly unconstitutional as is Obama's health care bill.

I agree with you about the Patriot Act.

However, if the Health Insurance Reform Act is unconstitutional, wouldn't Social Security & Medicare be unconstitutional also? (Since I'm assuming you're focusing on the "can't opt out" clause).

I agree with you about the Patriot Act.

However, if the Health Insurance Reform Act is unconstitutional, wouldn't Social Security & Medicare be unconstitutional also? (Since I'm assuming you're focusing on the "can't opt out" clause).

IMHO both are unconstitutional

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I agree with you about the Patriot Act.

However, if the Health Insurance Reform Act is unconstitutional, wouldn't Social Security & Medicare be unconstitutional also? (Since I'm assuming you're focusing on the "can't opt out" clause).

They are, IMO.

Both of you would be wrong.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that SS was constitutional.

Social Security Online