[ad_1]
Brett Kavanaugh was categorical when he was sitting on the witness stand at his 2006 confirmation hearing to be a judge of the court of appeal. Kavanaugh was questioned by the Democrats about his knowledge of President George W. Bush's torture policy and the treatment of detainees while he was a White House badociate advisor.
He replied that he was not involved in the questions on the Senate Democrats have never fully accepted Kavanaugh's answers to questions on any of the policies the more controversial of the Bush administration, and now they are ready to resuscitate the issue, Kavanaugh to be auditioned by President Donald Trump. 19659002] Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Whose questions in 2006 sparked the denial of Kavanaugh, said in an interview this week that "what he told us under oath is not accurate."
Democrats demand White House records any involvement of Kavanaugh in political discussions about the detainees, which could slow Trump administration's hope of seeing Kavanaugh confirmed prior to the Supreme Court's convening on October 1st.
Kavanaugh participated in at least one controversial meeting at the White House office in 2002, and two former White House officials detailed his role in interviews this week with the Washington Post. Bush was then developing his policy on the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects, and Kavanaugh needed to interpret an important question about how inmate policy was likely to be viewed in a Supreme Court challenge, especially by Judge Anthony Kennedy.
Kavanaugh insisted on how he thought Kennedy would vote on the question of whether some inmates should be deprived of a chance to be heard and have a lawyer, according to other participants.
Kavanaugh had already been confirmed Circuit Court when the White House meeting went public in a Post report. Democrats, including Durbin have since sought to question Kavanaugh about his misleading Senate Judiciary Committee.
Kavanaugh refused a request for an interview. White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement that "the testimony of Judge Kavanaugh reflects the facts well."
The two former White House officials who were meeting with Kavanaugh said that they did not think Kavanaugh's policy of torture. One of these officials, Tim Flanigan, a former White House vice-district attorney, said the policy was tightly "compartmentalized" and that Kavanaugh was not allowed to know it. The second official agreed to speak on condition of anonymity and confirmed the memory of Flanigan.
Yet, Durbin said that there was a conflict between Kavanaugh's testimony that he was not involved in the rules governing the inmates and his participation in a meeting. have legal advice. "It's a critical element in detention and interrogation as to whether a person is represented by a lawyer," Durbin said
. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, a Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, echoed Durbin's concern, saying in a statement to The Post that Kavanaugh "was holding senior positions at the White House, and he would have weighed in on how his former boss, Judge Kennedy, He however baderted that he had no knowledge of the Bush administration's torture policies during his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee in 2006. C & D Is precisely the reason why this production of documents is so crucial in this confirmation process. "[19659013] Kavanaugh was an badociate adviser from 2001 to 2003, at the time when Bush was developing policies that led to interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, raising constitutional issues that were hotly debated in the administration and in the courts. told the Post that Kavanaugh's role did not involve reviewing the policy on terrorism suspects. "I do not remember having conversations with Brett about torture or the war on terror," said Gonzales, adding, "It is possible that we have consulted with one of badociated lawyers. "to a case brought by the administration.
This is what happened one day in 2002, according to two former officials who worked with Kavanaugh in Gonzales' office.
In the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration imprisoned so-called enemy combatants at the US military base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Some within the Bush administration have stated that detainees should not be allowed to have legal representation. They maintained that the detainees were not entitled to it and feared that it would prevent them from being questioned about possible terrorist plots.
The issue was deemed likely to be submitted to the Supreme Court, which led the council office to the case would succeed – and the likely role of Kennedy as a swing vote.
Kavanaugh and another member of the legal team, Brad Berenson, had been Kennedy clerics. Berenson argued at the meeting that Kennedy would not accept the concept of denying detainees the right to be heard and to have legal representation, and the case would be lost, according to a attending the meeting. Berenson declined to comment
David Addington, advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, argued that the fighters were being held outside of the United States and were not entitled to a lawyer, said the participant. Addington did not return a call looking for comments.
While Berenson and Addington had a heated exchange, Berenson asked Kavanaugh to join the conversation. Kavanaugh said that he was in agreement with Berenson that Kennedy would be in favor of a hearing and legal representation for the detainees, according to the two former White House officials. The argument became so strong and so heated that one of the jurors slammed his fist on the table, flying a plate of nuts in the air. A White House secretary knocked on the door to ask if everything was fine, said one participant.
Addington's point of view prevailed over White House policy, allowing the administration to spend months interrogating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Subsequently, the Supreme Court issued decisions effectively declaring Guantanamo Bay detainees entitled to a hearing.
At the 2006 confirmation hearing, Durbin asked Kavanaugh when he had played a role in preparing for a judicial appointment. on Bush's "detention and interrogation policies". Kavanaugh preferred his answer by saying that he was "not involved in questions about the rules governing the detention of fighters". He then said that he was not working on the specific appointment that Durbin was questioning.
A White House official, who said he was not allowed to speak, said Durbin's questions related to controversial torture policies. detainees should be heard and have legal representation – the question that has arisen since. But Durbin said that it was significant that Kavanaugh offered the denial.
The appointment of Kavanaugh was approved 57-36. He is now appointed to fill Kennedy's seat on the court.
The 2007 report mentioned that Kavanaugh had participated in the discussion on whether inmates should have a lawyer. Shortly after, Durbin and Leahy protested that they had been misled.
Leahy, who was then chair of the committee, wrote to Gonzales, then Attorney General, about the "inconsistency" of the "possible false testimony". a crucial role in reviewing the appointment of Mr. Kavanaugh by many senators. He asked Gonzales to investigate.
Ten months later, on March 19, 2008, Deputy Attorney General Brian Benczkowski responded that the Public Integrity Branch of the Criminal Division "was reviewing this case and determining that it was There was no sufficient foundation.
Benczkowski was approved last week by an almost paritarian vote of 51 to 48 to lead the criminal division because of the objections of Democrats who expressed their concerns about working in private practice for a Russian bank [19659010]. The policy of the Bush administration's detainees has developed into two main phases. The first took place when Gonzales sent Bush a note in February 2002 stating that the Geneva Convention did not apply to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Then, in August 2002, the administration produced what is now referred to as the "Torture Memorandum", which states that the torture of Al-Qaida suspected terrorists "can be justified" and that international laws against torture may not apply.
On May 12, 2004, five days after the publication of The Post's memo on torture, a White House official sent an email to Kavanaugh – who was then secretary of Bush's staff – describing the public relations strategy. to explain the memo. The email, published by the George W. Bush Library, stated that Bush "never considered allowing torture under any circumstances". These talking points were then repeated by government officials during Sunday talk shows.
An outcry ensued about the note, and the administration finally canceled it. Kavanaugh, asked about the policy at his 2006 confirmation hearing, said he was unaware of the rating until it was released in June 2004. In a written follow-up to find out if he was in agreement with the torture memo, he said: I do not agree with the legal badysis contained in the memorandum, including as regards the definition of torture.
During his eleven years in the federal tribune, Kavanaugh voted in several cases related to the detention of suspected terrorists. Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas who wrote about Kavanaugh's decisions, said that Kavanaugh would be "very deferential to the executive" on issues such as inmate politics. Vladeck said that even though Kennedy was a swing vote on these issues, "if there will be a fifth vote to decide on these cases, it will not be Kavanaugh."
The Washington Post's Emma Brown contributed to this report.
Source link
