Kavanaugh
heeft lak aan het internationaal recht, als daardoor VS belangen
kunnen worden geschaad. Zo stelt Kavanaugh dat
mensenrechtenschendingen begaan door VS
huurlingenlegers die voor het Pentagon werken ('military
contractors' als Blackwater) niet vervolgd hoeven te worden en dat al helemaal niet
door andere landen..... Je hoeft je niet af te vragen wat Kavanaugh
vindt van oorlogsmisdaden begaan door het leger van de VS of van de
onderaannemers van het Pentagon, die deze misdaden begaan >>
niet vervolgen!!
Onder
oorlogsmisdaden vallen ook verkrachtingen en martelingen en daar kom
je terug bij waar men zich nu druk over maakt in de VS als het om
Kavanaugh gaat. Het is wel duidelijk dat Kavanaugh niet zwaar tilt
aan zware misdaden begaan tegen vrouwen, of zelfs seksueel geweld
tegen mannen, je weet wel misdaden waarvoor de CIA zelfs geheime diensten van andere landen traint.......
Lees
het volgende artikel van Carey Wedler en verbaas je net als ik over
het feit dat men opperschoft Kavanaugh nog durfde te kandideren voor een
taak die belangrijk is voor de vraag of de VS eigenlijk nog wel een
rechtsstaat is......... (dat is de VS al lang niet meer en toch
levert Nederland zelfs landgenoten uit aan dit land, waar het recht
met voeten wordt getreden, zoals met het meer dan achterlijke 'plea
bargain' >> je kan beter bekennen, ook al heb je iets niets gedaan, daar
je anders een extreem lange gevangenisstraf kan worden
opgelegd.....).....
What the Media Isn’t Telling You About Brett Kavanaugh
September
25, 2018 at 4:23 pm
Written
by Carey
Wedler
(ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) —
As expected, the corporate media’s coverage of Brett Kavanaugh’s
appointment process is disappointingly superficial. While there’s
no doubt sexual harassment is a pressing issue in modern-day America,
left-leaning establishment outlets and individuals alike are mired in
these accusations, as well as partisan political divides as they fail
to recognize Kavanaugh’s very troublesome record of court
rulings—rulings that show his verifiable proclivity toward using
the government to very literally harass the American people and the
rest of the world.
While
Congress and the people bicker over their disagreements with
Kavanaugh as he testifies, few are discussing what he has in common
with both factions of the American ruling class.
The
ACLU compiled a report in
August detailing his many troublesome perspectives, highlighting his
past decisions on surveillance, free speech, presidential and
congressional war powers, and as a result, the overarching iron fist
of government power that few care to challenge, choosing instead to
fight for control of the institution at large.
As
the ACLU summarized in its “Report of the American Civil Liberties
Union on the Nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh To Be
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court”:
“[Kavanaugh’s]
record shows his extreme deference to presidential war power and
national security claims, an unwillingness to enforce international
law absent express incorporation by the political branches, and
a tendency to find obstacles to holding government
officials accountable for constitutional and human rights
abuses in national security cases.”
One
of the greatest constitutional violations since 9/11 has been the
U.S. government’s denial of fair trials and redress over government
violations of rights within the justice system. Kavanaugh has
encouraged these encroachments. In the 2015 case Meshal v.
Higgenbotham, Kavanaugh moved to deny “a remedy to an
American citizen detained and abused by FBI agents overseas,”
siding with security over freedom, claiming that giving the American
citizen in question his constitutional rights might undermine efforts
to fight terrorism.
In
a 2009 case, Saleh v. Titan, he asserted military
contractors cannot be held liable to human rights abuses as long as
they are acting under the authority of the U.S. military.
There
is ample evidence of these abuses, but Kavanaugh does not believe in
holding government affiliates accountable. Similarly, in the same
ruling, he asserted that “government contractors [are] immune
from torture claims brought under the [Alien Tort Statute] when the
contractors operate under the control of the U.S. military.”
The military’s violent authority trumps all.
In
2008, he sided with the executive branch on war powers. Kavanaugh
wrote in the ruling for Harbury v. Hayden that
“courts cannot review allegations of executive branch wrongdoing
if the claims challenge national security or foreign affairs
decisions.”
In
still another case, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v.
United States (2010), he showed his “inclination
to dismiss cases alleging government misconduct where national
security or foreign affairs are at issue.”
He
has also opined that the U.S. government’s war powers are free from
the constraints of international law and that international treaties
can be ignored if U.S. courts “construe statutes, at least when
related to war powers.” Further, he has asserted that while the
U.S. should technically respect international law, the courts have no
power to make the government comply with it. That decision should be
left to the president and Congress (most of us know how they’ve
handled their war powers).
Regarding
“continued detention” pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use
of Military Force, Kavanaugh went so far as to acknowledge in
2013’s Ali v. Obama that “this is a long war
with no end in sight,” but still decided “it is not the
Judiciary’s proper role to devise a novel detention standard that
varies with the length of detention.”
Kavanaugh’s
prompted another judge to claim the current Supreme Court nominee had
stretched the meaning of the AUMF so far that some habeas corpus
rulings were “functionally useless.” Similarly, as the ACLU
observed, Kavanaugh has “joined or written numerous D.C. Circuit
opinions that have turned judicial habeas review of Guantánamo
detention into a virtual rubber stamp.”
His
record on free speech is less atrocious than his reverence for
authoritarian war powers, protecting government corruption and
violence, and denying justice to citizens and noncitizens alike.
Nonetheless, he has been known to side with suppressing speech on
some occasions. As the ACLU report explains:
“His
jurisprudence suggests that, where the precedent is clear, he
faithfully applies the law. Where the case law offers ambiguity,
however, he has shown a willingness to restrict speech rights.”
With
regard to government spying, in Klayman
v. Obama in
2015, he disturbingly said the “suspicionless
mass collection of Americans’ call records is ‘entirely
consistent with the Fourth Amendment.’”
Further, he said: “The
Government’s collection of telephony metadata from a third party
such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a
search under the Fourth Amendment”—and
that even if bulk collection did constitute
a search, such searches are totally reasonable.
He
is also supportive of America’s growing police state. In the 2007
ruling United
States v. Askew,
he sided in favor of police stop-and-frisk tactics, another violation
of the 4th amendment. In another broad show of support of police
powers, he endorses qualified immunity, which is used to
exempt “government
officials from liability for constitutional rights violations where
their actions are not clearly unconstitutional.” This
concept has been used by the Supreme Court to let a police officer
who shot a woman in her own yard off the hook, setting further
precedents to prevent police accountability. Though he opposes
“absolute immunity,” his support for a concept that already
limits government responsibility is troublesome on its own – and is
consistent with rulings regarding the government’s war powers.
The
national conversation about Kavanaugh is obsessively focused on
sexual harassment allegations and his views on traditional partisan
divides like women’s rights and healthcare. While these are not
unimportant issues, it is painfully telling that few are concerned
about the exact same issues both the left and right agree upon that
amount to verifiable harassment — by the government against the
American people and victims of his war machine.
Will
Congress be questioning Kavanaugh on mass surveillance? Doubtful,
considering they continue to pass legislation
to enable it. Will they question him about his endorsement of
unrestrained executive and legislative war powers? Again, doubtful
given their unrelenting warmongering
and commitment to spending taxpayer
dollars on their crumbling empire. As Congress continues to violate
the people’s rights while feigning concern for their well-being—and
as the media routinely fails to
inform the public of these incremental erosions of their freedoms and
liberties, it’s no surprise the country at large remains
unconcerned about Kavanaugh’s authoritarian record on war powers
and surveillance or his dubious commitment to free speech and holding
domestic law enforcement accountable.
=================================
Het label 'Academi' onder dit bericht staat voor het bedrijf Blackwater, men heeft deze naam geïntroduceerd nadat Blackwater psychopaten een groot aantal oorlogsmisdaden hadden begaan, waardoor er ophef ontstond over dit duivelse geteisem.....
Zie ook:
'Rechters die het opnemen voor verkrachters dienen te worden afgezet'
'Kavanaugh: dus een vrouwvijandige smeerlap word aangewezen als opperrechter door een andere vrouwvijandige schoft.........' (het woord opperrechter in deze kop klopt niet, Kavanaugh is lid van het hooggerechtshof, waar een ander de functie van opperrechter bekleedt, e.e.a. doet verder niets af aan de strekking)
'Bovenklasse ontloopt elke verantwoording, waar de onderlaag zoveel mogelijk verantwoordelijk wordt gehouden voor elke misstap' (in het artikel van Caitlin Johnstone dat is opgenomen in dat bericht, wordt over Kavanaugh gesproken)
