Conservative Fox News Commentator and former district judge Andrew Napolitano said President George W. Bush is likely a felon in a May 8 broadcast over the Fox News Network. The criticism comes as the first nationally televised criminal accusation from both a prominent conservative as well as from a veteran judge.

Napolitano cited a May 4 New York Times report that President Bush personally authorized nine torture techniques to be used on detainees after both the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that detainees are entitled to Prisoner of War status and Bush himself signed into law a bill authored by Republican Senator John McCain that banned all nine torture techniques by name. Napolitano said he had independent confirmation from a “neutral” source that the New York Times report was accurate.

“If the New York Times article is accurate,” Napolitano said, “that would mean that the President of the United States of America committed a felony for each act of torture he authorized and which was carried out after the Supreme Court ruling or after he signed the McCain bill into law.”

A media furor ensued after the April release of Justice Department legal memoranda (i.e., the “torture memos”). The memoranda excused waterboarding (which the United States government judged a “war crime” when Japanese soldiers conducted it against Americans during the Second World War) and nine other torture techniques. The theme of the memoranda can be summed up as follows: it is okay for U.S. interrogators to inflict as excruciating pain as possible upon those they are questioning, so long as they don’t leave a permanent mark.

Napolitano is non-plussed about the 60 percent of Americans who now believe the Bush administration engaged in torture even though less than a majority of Americans support criminal charges. It's not about the numbers, Napolitano argues:

Is it right, is it proper, for the Obama Administration to prosecute someone in the Bush administration for doing what they thought was right. My answer is: Yes! We are a nation of laws and not of men. And when people break the law, no matter what their motivation is, they should be prosecuted… Is the motivation a defense to law-breaking? It is not.

Napolitano is simply ahead of the curve. While many self-professed conservatives backed the Bush administration's use against torture, it's only a matter of time before the more unsavory use of torture against innocent detainees becomes more widely known (click here, here, and here for a few of the many examples). Even if their hearts are not rendered by the price innocent men have paid for torture under the Bush administration, their heads will eventually be swayed by the recent efforts by the Obama administration's Department of Homeland Security to label all conservatives and military veterans as terrorist suspects. The power to torture terrorism suspects without trial is simply too dangerous a power to be left in the hands of the Obama administration or any other government official, which explains why the Founding Fathers banned "cruel and unusual punishments" in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (15)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Flu-Bird said:

Him and others Lets face it practicly every politician in the DISTRICT of CRINIMALS is guilty of some crime including BILL CLINTON who sold americas top secrets to the chicoms for cash for his crinimal party and campaign

May 09, 2009

Thistle said:

... The issue isn't Bill Clinton; the issue is the scofflaws George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney. They (Bush and Cheney) are criminal felons and Bush apologists should QUIT MAKING ESCUSES FOR THEM! They broke numerous laws and they should be prosecuted, not by the Obama Administration, but by the Department of Justice.

May 09, 2009

thomas jefferson said:

... I am a constitutionalist and I voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. But I agree with Napolitano....if these charges are true, then he must face the law. Having said that, all those who attempted to subvert our constitution by voting for a bill of atainder against AIG bonuses and trying to nullify contract law, should also be indicted. The problem is not the law, it is the politicized nature of the US attorney and his brown shirts, commonly referred to as Asst US attornies across this land. If just one single AUSA had balls, and followed the law to the letter, all of these men would have been indicted, charged, and given their day in court. Because 100% of the United States AUSA's are3 cowards, and worse, criminals, for violating their oath to uphold, protect and defend the constitution, they have also commited crimes and also should be indicted. U&ntil we use the very law we have at hand to put politicians and AUSA's into prison for their violations, we will never get our country back. The AUSA's are too concerned with either enhancing their political careers, enhancing their future resumes, or simply ignorant of the remedies we have to charge those who would abuse us by unconstitutional acts.

May 10, 2009

thomas jefferson said:

... Therefore, we must resolve as a people to declare our individual state sovereignty, and charge these men under state law for these crimes against the people. The AUSA's are the power behind tyrany because they enforce laws they KNOW are unconstitutional, and ignore politicians commiting crimes against the Constitution and the people, for selfish reasons , in order to gain favor and power within the political system they serve. If just one AUSA grew a pair, the people would get behind them, propel them above their peers politically, and view them as a fighter for the people. Alas,they have forgotten who they serve. They believe they serve the AG or the president, Congress, or the FBI, or treasury, or ICE. They do not! They are to serve the Constitution and the people! Long ago they forgot this role. And now, they have become nothing more than the ss stormtroopers of the Reich and have sold their souls to the god of expediency. They should be pitied. Some day, the people will remember how these men treated them, and if there is any justice, dealt with in the very system they have rejected. A system of fairness and individual rights and a respect for the laws and rights of the people that so many in our history have fought and bled. Shame on these charlatans using the law for personal gain. Apparently they have never considered this possibility which is becoming more probable with each passing day. To continue to ignore this will be perilous and they must be totally out of touch with those in America who love their country, their Constitution, and the founders who gave it to us.

May 10, 2009

RLA said:

Lets Get Real I'm as conservative as the judge, but lets face it, the constitution has been tossed out the window in nearly every way possible. So what now, we should spend time worring about some camel jockey scumbags who got caught trying to kill us? Give me a break!

May 10, 2009

EricTheRed said:

Looking (but not expecting) consistency First, why is our Constitution covering the rights of foreign unlawful enemy combatants? Doesn't that set a dangerous precedent for our national security? FDR interned U.S. citizens of Japanese descent; Bush did no such thing. Second, what exactly are the charges here, violating an amendment of the Constitution? If so, then the DOJ better be prepared to haul every living president - that includes Obama - into court for overriding his executive authority. What about the activist judiciary? Let's throw the book at judges who have thrown the Constitution out the window in favor of legislating from the bench. What about members of Congress, who overstep their constitutional limitations practically every time they pass a bill. I'm not saying Bush admin. are guilty or not. But what I am saying is that the *only* reason this torture thing is even an issue is because the left has been chomping at the bit to get back at him. But let's be consistent. Get *every* elected official who has ever violated the constitution and put them *all* in orange jump suits. That's the only way I'll be convinced this whole thing is nothing but a leftist witch hunt. http://VocalMinority.typepad.com The Jewish Republican's Web Sanctuary

May 10, 2009 | url

Phil said:

Equal Justice for interrogation techniques?? In addition to all of the reports implicating that many congressional members (including Pelosi) were briefed on the terrorist interrogations, the Select Senate Intelligence Committee was also privy to this kind of information. If our AG (Eric Holder) is really fair and equal about prosecuting those who were aware and didn't do anything to stop this, then all of these congress and senate members need to share the wealth on this one. 2001-2002 Senate Select Intelligence Committee Bob Graham,Florida Richard C. Shelby,Alabama Carl Levin, Michigan Jon Kyl, Arizona John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia James M.Inhofe, Oklahoma Dianne Feinstein, California Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Ron Wyden, Oregon Pat Roberts, Kansas Richard Durbin, Illinois Mike DeWine, Ohio Evan Bayh, Indiana Fred Thompson, Tennessee John Edwards,North Carolina Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland Thomas A. Daschle, South Dakota Trent Lott, Mississippi

May 10, 2009

Thomas Paine said:

Jail the Crooks! It's time we realize we are living under a Fascist Government. We must begin bringing these crooks to trial and justice to piece back the freedoms we have already lost. If we don't start now, we will be living under total Nazi Regime soon. And quick thinking the arabs did 911, it was totally an inside job. Start acknowledging that. Time is running out on freedom!

May 11, 2009

KS said:

All this nonsense of torturing without trials will be turned on the patriots I think that the latest DHS memo is proof enough that we need to have trials for the so called terror suspect detainees and the rest of the folks who are being tortured by the US. How do we know any of their arrests are even justified? They could all be witnesses of some crime that the Bush administration committed and tortured to bend their minds and close their mouths. And we could be next in line if we trust government to only catch the bad guys who deserve torture. What if we are considered the bad guys now because we mention the authority of the US Constitution VS the UN policies?

May 11, 2009

CitizenX said:

The Constitution does not protect Citizens It is NOT an enumeration of our our rights. In fact, it is the opposite. It presents the sole powers of the Federal government. The government does not provide our rights, they are those belonging to all human beings, entitled to them by their existence, the life they live, the breath in their lungs. I don't care if you call them camel jockeys or rag heads, or terrorists. They cannot be simply tossed into a dark corner of nightmares on the whim of some politician who is not only not protecting you or me, but is, frankly, scoffing at the very thing that makes us "The Good Guys." Without our ability to be righteous, we cannot be right. Our country have become the boogey men. This will make us LESS safe, as those who come after will see us as the evil we have been accused of, and now for reason. For this, Bush and Cheney are not only felons, but traitors, for falsely agreeing to abide by the powers granted to them by the Constitution, and in their actions, aiding a foreign enemy.

May 11, 2009

theWalrus said:

... Andrew Napolitano's contract with FoxNoise cancelled in.. 3....2....1...

May 11, 2009

MinutemanCDC_SC said:

The Bill of Rights applies ONLY to U.S. legal residents. Torture is repugnant to any civilized people, and the abuse of power and authority restricts a nation from mutual associations with civilized nations. On the other hand, a nation which requires her soldiers to comply with the Marquess of Queensberry Rules when taking prisoners only guarantees that no prisoners will be taken alive. Please forgive me for explaining this one more time, but so many people WANT to not understand the truth and to misinterpret the law. To the remnant who still recognize national borders, I apologize for being so repeatedly redundant, over and over, again and again... but, one more time. In few words, the U.S. Constitution, as amended, DOES NOT APPLY to foreign countries. The U.S. Constitution applies to the U.S. armed forces; it DOES NOT APPLY to enemy combatants, in battle or in custody. With some limited and specific exceptions, the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT APPLY in the heat of combat, during martial law, and while waging war.

May 12, 2009 | url

MinutemanCDC_SC said:

The Bill of Rights applies ONLY to U.S. legal residents. Anyone who has lived through combat in a "kill-or-be-killed" firefight knows that not even the law of the jungle is a given. In answer to prayer, miracles and divine intervention occur on battlefields at least as often as on operating tables. All-out war is one of the two places on earth where there are NO RULES. All's fair in love and war. Rules are for boxing rings and gentlemen's duels. When a nation would rather submit to slavery and tyranny than descend into the abyss of uncivilized horrors from demon-possessed despots and barbarians drunk with bloodlust, then that nation has rejected waging war for its survival. It has no stomach for the price of liberty. It only engages in limited conflicts circumscribed by rules of engagement, and in police actions where there is no enemy, but only unruly lawbreakers who must be restrained and punished. Such were the British Regulars, who lined up for battle, only to be picked off one by one by the Continentals hiding in the woods. History records battle after battle where conventional armies with superior numbers and supplies have failed to conquer indigenous guerrillas who simply melt into the morning dew at first light.

May 12, 2009 | url

MinutemanCDC_SC said:

The Bill of Rights applies ONLY to U.S. legal residents. Five words limit the scope of the Bill of Rights: "CONGRESS shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the RIGHT of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the GOVERNMENT for a redress of grievances." CONGRESS: The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are only guaranteed to those under U.S. jurisdiction, those legal residents to whom the legislation passed by Congress applies. LAW: The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are only guaranteed according to LAW, not by force of might, not by mob rule, not by a respect for fairness, a heart of compassion, or a sense of outrage at injustice. RIGHT: The freedoms guaranteed to the American people by law are only those endowed by God and nature, in the absence of human regulation, as opposed to "rights" which do not exist in nature, such as redistribution of wealth or tolerance for offensive conduct.

May 12, 2009 | url

MinutemanCDC_SC said:

The Bill of Rights applies ONLY to U.S. legal residents. PEOPLE: The rights endowed by the Creator and guaranteed by law in the Amendments to the Constitution are only for "We the People," not for organizations, corporations, financial accounts, estates, charitable foundations, armies, political parties, churches, media, clubs, orders, family structures, or classes - EXCEPT as they apply on behalf of the individuals in such groups. GOVERNMENT: The rights endowed by the Creator and guaranteed to the people by law in the Amendments are only such as are within the power of the government, not those which require stretching the definition of government, jurisdiction, potency, or responsibility. E.g., no persons are guaranteed gunboat diplomacy by the government in order to recover private investments nationalized within a foreign country or seized by pirates on the high seas. It is a good thing that the government DOES use diplomacy in such cases, but there is no RIGHT to such government intervention, as western mothers who have lost custody of their children in Saudi Arabia have learned to their horror. That's just my opinion.

May 12, 2009 | url