Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano says Bush and Cheney ‘should have been indicted.’

[democracy1st]

Run time: 02:27 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TosF6Ope53E   Posted on YouTube: July 12, 2010 By YouTube Member: ThinkProgress2 Views on YouTube: 307   Posted on DU: July 13, 2010 By DU Member: democracy1st Views on DU: 4933

 
Although Fox News legal analyst and former New Jersey district judge Andrew Napolitano is usually a reliable right-wing voice for the network, he has often criticized President Bush and his national security policies. When the law authorizing Bush’s wiretapping program expired in 2008, Napolitano railed against the program as an affront to the Constitution. He has also blasted Bush last year for authorizing the use of torture, saying that he had “committed a felony for each act of torture.” In an interview with Ralph Nader on C-Span this weekend, Napolitano said Bush and Vice President Cheney “should have been indicted” for torture:

NADER: What’s the sanction for President Bush and Vice President Cheney? <...>

NAPOLITANO: They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrants. I’d like to say they should be indicted for lying but believe it or not, unless you’re under oath, lying is not a crime. At least not an indictable crime. It’s a moral crime.

NADER: So you think George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should even though they’ve left office, they haven’t escaped the criminal laws, they should be indicted and prosecuted?

NAPOLITANO: The evidence in this book and in others, our colleague the great Vincent Bugliosi has amassed an incredible amount of evidence. The purpose of this book was not to amass that evidence but I do discuss it, is overwhelming when you compare it to the level of evidence required for a normal indictment that George W. Bush as President and Dick Cheney as Vice President participated in criminal conspiracies to violate the federal law and the guaranteed civil liberties of hundreds, maybe thousands of human beings.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/12/napolitano-bush-indict/

[elleng]

1. Its a must see, imo.

Recommended elsewhere.

[old mark]

2. Also for starting 2 wars for no reason based on lies they KNEW were lies...

close enough to murder for me.


mark

[lark]

26. Not close to murder - they are malicious murderers

Murdering for self enrichment is malicious and that was exactly their purpose.

[DuaneBidoux]

50. I am going to be hated here but I have to point out the truth...

The first war (Afghanistan) was not illegal by international law. It was approved by UN and there were initially and still are troops from many countries.

We should have gone in there, found Bin Laden, and got the shit out. But it was a legal war.

[bjobotts]

52. They offered to turn OBL over to a third party nation for trial but Bush ignored the offer and lied

[bjobotts]

53. So yes Bush lied about the justification for war making that war illegal to begin with.

[DuaneBidoux]

55. It may well have been illegally national, but it was not illegal internationally,

at least not by international law. That is not to say it was a moral war, I think that is something else.

In any case, although I am now very conflicted because of the prosecution of the war, we had the right to get BL and Al Qaieda according to any international law.

I am also conflicted because of the Taliban--there has never been a group closer to what the Nazis were like on the face of the Earth since the Nazis. I can hardly stand to think about what will happen to the girls, women, and people generally once we are gone.

If you really believe that the Afghan war is still illegal then Obama has become just as guilty as Bush as an accessory after the fact and for a continuation of the crime. He should be pursued in a criminal court.

The Left has been very hypocritical on this issue in my opinion (and very quiet about it).

[SDuderstadt]

57. Can you offer a non-CT source for this?

You're leaving out quite a lot.

[aquart]

3. Hell, yes, they should have been. WHY WEREN'T THEY?

[snake in the grass]

4. It wouldn't be very forward-thinking to...

...actually go after the murderous bastards, not to mention impolite. We don't want to upset those dear representatives on the other side of the aisle. do we?

Maybe, when the articles of impeachment have been served, President Obama will finally realize that these people just aren't into him.

Maybe.

[SusanaMontana41]

6. +100,000

n/t

[wordpix]

38. i think because Pelosi made a deal with the repukes...

:shrug:

[cartach]

7. We shouldn't even have to ask that question.

Government on both sides of the aisle are so far from representing the people that whole idea of calling the form of government that exists in the US a democracy is at best a cruel joke and at worst a despicable lie. All parties are full of felons and those who aren't just haven't learned the ropes yet. And all at the expense of the common voter.

[marions ghost]

28. I agree

"calling...the US a democracy is at best a cruel joke and at worst a despicable lie."

[DutchLiberal]

42. "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal"...

George W. Bush walked away scott-free for the very same reason Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush walked away scott-free: American presidents are above the law.

[20score]

5. Posted this on FB. Pretty damn sad that a Fox News analyst is better than our Congress with regard

this issue.

[howmad1]

30. So where the fuck was this guy while bush was breaking the law?

Would not surprise me in the least if the bush crime family has a standing contract out on Obama. If Obama even thinks of prosecuting bush/cheney, he's a goner. Maybe his wife and daughters as well. I can think of no other reason for not prosecuting these rethuglican bastards. "Let's look forward" my ass.

[ihavenobias]

39. True.

Sure it's after the fact, but still.

[Ross K]

8. I see a pink slip in his future

You can't be saying sane things on Fox!

[TheEuclideanOne]

9. Let's flip that one around

If even the propaganda mouthpieces from Fox are agreeing that Bush and Cheney should have been indicted, what does that say about Obama's failure to do this?

[hulka38]

11. Right.

Let's remember that Obama was a constitutional law professor. And what does that say about the rest of the leadership of the party?

[TheEuclideanOne]

12. Very true.

In fact, that is one of the big reasons that I voted for him. I thought for sure that a constitutional law profession would take these issues to heart.

[90-percent]

18. Obama

Our Constitutional Law Professor President enthusiastically embraces the power to assassinate American citizens anywhere in the world. Gotta protect us from those evil terrorists, doncha know!

-90% Jimmy

[lark]

27. It says he's a politician

who says one thing to get elected, but folds like a cheap chair when pressured or bribed by the real powers that be. He's better than the Repugs, but way too much like them in many important ways, not the least in defending Bushco illegal action.

[TheEuclideanOne]

29. Bribed by the real powers that be?

This is something that has always puzzled me. What do you bribe a president with? Power, fame and fortune are already part of the package, and for the rest of your life, not just while you are the POTUS. So what exactly is it that would make a President go against what he thinks is right?

[DutchLiberal]

43. Bill Hicks had a theory about that:

He said that, whenever a new president set foot into the Oval Office, some top executives from America's largest corporations would meet with him in a closed session. They would turn off the light, show the new president footage of the Kennedy assassination from an angle nobody has ever seen before, turn the light on again and say: "Got any questions?"

[FraDon]

44. Not BRIBERY, Hicks was on point: • THREAT is the bullies' preference.

SO quick, so clean, so unambiguous. Hardball, baby.

My guess is a photo, one would do, a mere glance, on Inauguration Day, of one of his daughters, sleeping peacefully in her new White House bed, with a silencer against her sweet head.

"You'll do as WE say, 'Mr. President'; you 'Presidents' ALL do as we say."

[TheEuclideanOne]

45. That is interesting. Who knows,

The question has puzzled me since Obama was elected. At risk of sounding biased, I assumed that Bush and Cheney were just born evil or just trying to sell out to the country and reward their oil buddies, for example. I had a completely different impression for Obama, with very high hopes, but this is not the first time I heard a suggestion that he must be taking bribes, selling out, etc. So, I am still curious as to what the reason could be. So you think it is by threat?

[DutchLiberal]

56. Not necessarily, but it is an option.

The 'powers that be' have never shied away from using violence as a means to influence American politics. 'They' had John Kennedy murdered, and also his brother Robert, who ran for president and who would most likely have won. Jimmy Carter was a pain to 'them', but it was enough to just sidetrack him: with a little help from 'their' Iranian friends at the American embassy in Teheran, 'they' effectively ended Carter's presidency.

'They' didn't have to do anything about Clinton. He played by 'their' rules. Forget the impeachment procedure and the blowjobs. That was just a Republican sideshow; a performance to make the people think there was still a difference between the parties. Clinton "reformed" welfare; heralded in NAFTA; ended Glass-Steegal and continued with the deregulation and privatization that Reagan/Bush started. He played on 'their' team. For 'their' scheming with Afghanistan/Iraq, 'they' couldn't do with the Clinton-clone Al Gore. He was corporatist and DLC enough, but not extreme enough. He could have pushed a lot of 'their' agenda, but the unprecedented scam about Afghanistan/Iraq (and 'they' hoped Iran, as well) needed somebody more extreme. That's why 'they' staged the 2000 coup in Florida.

The public was too outraged with the Republicans after 8 years of Bush. Even though all the media had always played along with Bush and covered for him, even *this* magnitude of failure wouldn't go unnoticed with the public. So 'they' couldn't trust McCain to win. The difference between him and Obama would be too big to steal another election. So 'they' went back to the Clinton-scenario: buy him off. I don't think Obama is doing anything under threat. He simply accepted a shitload of corporate donations during his campaign (despite all the rhetoric of 'small donations', which only accounted for a quarter of the total sum), and now 'they' own him --like they owned Clinton before.

This is only my way of looking at it. Basically, there's no left and right party anymore in the US. There's a center-right party and there's a crazy party. Over the last 30-odd years, Democrats have moved to the right (under 'their' influence, I'm sure) and the right has moved into a mental hospital.

[Amonester]

51. These Al-CIAda traitors add the pictures of his beautiful family too.

Just to make sure he will never say one single word about that closed session meeting to anyone ever.

[Golden Raisin]

10. He'll be summoned

soon to Rupert Murdoch's office to be gagged or gotten rid of.

[Enthusiast]

14. More than likely. nt

[Enthusiast]

13. K&R

I agree wholeheartedly!

[Raoul]

15. You people kill me!!

Most of you seem like this is brand new when people like me have been calling them fucking war criminals for years going back to the criminal's FIRST term in office! The lies he used, for example, to invade Iraq were IDENTICAL to those used by the nazis to invade Poland. And if history is correct, they hanged some of the nazis for that invasion - crimes against humanity was the charge.

Now wake the fuck up and start spreading the word to the rest of the sleeping populace.

[boobooday]

16. Most of us have been calling them war criminals for years too

Don't lash out at people who agree with you.

It is notable that this person is a right wing mouthpiece.

[vanbean]

19. Bullshit. Most of us have been yelling it from the rooftops!

And I don't think you can say they were identical. And the Nazis weren't hanged for the invasion of Poland.

[provis99]

35. The German Generals were hanged for waging aggressive war.

The Chief of Staff Alfred Jodl and Field Marshal Keitel were hanged for this specific charge, and Admiral Doenitz was sentenced to life.

[kenfrequed]

22. Uhm

No, I wore an 'Impeach Bush' button for around five years. So no, none of this is terribly new to me.

What surprises me were the people that argued against impeachment repeatedly on this damned website again and again and again.

[TheEuclideanOne]

23. Get off your high horse

This is one of the few places that you will find that essentially EVERYBODY has been calling them war criminals. I hate to ruin your little fantasy where your keen levels of observation allowed you to qualify them as a War criminals since Day 1 and not a single person here on DU figured that out until just now. In a sense, you are making this claim in a room full of people that have all been making the same complaint. What's next, are you going out to the Gulf Coast today to claim you are the first guy to complain that the oil spill is harming the environment? :) I can see it now...."You people kill me!!! Can't you see that oil is bad for Sea Life?!?!?!?!!?"

The one significant difference in this video is not WHAT is being said, but WHO the person is that is saying this. So, it is not a matter that just anybody has made a public claim that they were war criminals, it is important because ther person making this statement is a regular "expert" on the Fox Propaganda network.

[wordpix]

40. geesh, we've only been signing petitions, blogging, screaming this to anyone who'll listen

since DU first started ( didn't discover it until BushCo's 2nd term). People at this site aren't the problem

[spiritual_gunfighter]

17. If Fox News stooges are saying that Bush and Cheney should be indicted

Why doesn't our Democratic President think so?

[laylah]

20. A MUST SEE...k&r nt

[florida08]

21. well he says this in front of Nader

but has he said it on Fake News? Why isn't he repeating it on that nationwide broadcast?

[TheEuclideanOne]

24. Baby steps... baby steps....

Another good question..... Why isn't the guy we elected repeating is on a nationwide broadcase? (rhetorical)

[florida08]

25. wish I could answer that one

[spicegal]

31. Well, many of us were saying that all along, and found it truly

astonishing that they were indeed above the law. That they still be indicted?

[Ticonderoga]

32. So this dickweed is just now getting around to this realization?

[blueknight]

34. once i found out

that obama and company were going to do NOTHING about bush and company war crimes i lost faith in obama forever. he is full of shit forever in my eyes

[krabigirl]

54. He's been saying stuff like this for years.

[boycottfaux]

33. Faux Interviews???

So I wonder when Judge Napolitano will be hawking his book on
Bildo and Hannity shows???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .

Not Happening!!

[choie]

37. isn't this guy married

to that bitch Victoria Toensing? a rapid rightwing wacko? I don't get it...I am almost positive he never said this on FauxNews.

[wordpix]

41. no I don't think V. Toensing is married to this guy but to

another lawyer who's just as wacked out as she is

[SDuderstadt]

58. She's married to that idiot....

Joe DiGenova.

[RagAss]

36. In other news...3 pigs just flew over my house !

[colsohlibgal]

46. How Soon Till They Boot This Guy?

I forget what, but he challenged the Faux line on another issue very recently. He can't be making the Faux brass happy.

[Vasmosn]

47. Ok, but let's be serious....

....I was expecting more from Obama as far as prosecuting those war crimes too but let's be realistic. There are politics involved. The man could barely get a Health Care bill passed, which was one of his stated highest priorities. Do you REALLY think he could indict Bush and Cheney without SERIOUS repercussions? I don't. I still hold out hope that something will be done, not for the sake of seeing Bush and Cheney get their just rewards but to preserve the rule of law and the Constitution. I don't think anyone could seriously think that even if indicted they would get any kind of prison time. I'd like to see the charges brought even if they just get a slap on the wrist so that future presidents won't be as tempted to do such things. Unfortunately there will be political fallout from any attempt. Those of you who are too disillusioned by the administration's failure to act are being unrealistic, I feel. Now, if at the midterms, we kept the House and gained 5 or 6 in the Senate......!

[Faryn Balyncd]

48. It sounds like Fox's Napolitano nailed it, while the Obama Dept of Justice BLEW IT!

Should we laugh or cry?

[DuaneBidoux]

49. Has he been on Fox (as analyst) saying this since?

He is a Fox analyst. But will they let him on to talk now? Have they? (I don't know)