Fox legal analyst: Bush should have been indicted

[Alicia Leonard]

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.

 

[LuciferSam]

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.

 

[GoodWitch58]

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

 

[Alicia Leonard]

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

Fox News' senior judicial analyst.

 

[Here4Good]

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

 

[idlewind]

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

 

[idlewind]

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.

 

[Alicia Leonard]

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

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

 

[futurebeachbum]

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.

 

[Andy A]

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.