Mukasey’s tortured response

Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as the next Attorney General continues to be in doubt, in large part because he refuses to answer a simple and obvious question.

Attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey told Senate Democrats yesterday that a kind of simulated drowning known as waterboarding is “repugnant to me,” but he said he does not know whether the interrogation tactic violates U.S. laws against torture. […]

In a four-page letter to the Judiciary Committee, Mukasey walked a tightrope by outlining the laws and treaties forbidding torture and other cruel treatment, and explaining the legal analysis he would undertake of “coercive” techniques, while generally declining to render judgments.

Mukasey said that techniques described as waterboarding by lawmakers “seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me, and would probably seem the same to many Americans.” But, he continued, “hypotheticals are different from real life, and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical.”

There’s nothing “hypothetical” about it. We know what waterboarding is — the Senate Judiciary Committee reminded him of the technique’s horrid details last week — we know it’s illegal, and we know the United States has prosecuted those who’ve used waterboarding since the Spanish-American War.

As for the “circumstances” dodge, this is a little too reminiscent of Rudy Giuliani’s contention that waterboarding may not be torture at all: “It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it.” A response like that made Giuliani sound like he’s stark raving mad, but Mukasey’s response isn’t a whole lot better.

The more Mukasey simply refuses to acknowledge reality, the more it puts his confirmation in doubt.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the Judiciary panel’s chairman, reacted with blunt dissatisfaction, saying in a statement yesterday that he will continue to delay any vote on Mukasey until the nominee answers more questions from lawmakers. “I remain very concerned that Judge Mukasey finds himself unable to state unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and below the standards and values of the United States,” he said.

Senate Minority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) added that Mukasey had “spent four pages responding and still didn’t provide an answer” to the question, “Is waterboarding illegal?” “Judge Mukasey makes the point that in the law, precision matters. So do honesty and openness. And on those counts, he falls far short.”

As for Republicans, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) says he still wants a straight answer out of Mukasey, but the rest of the GOP members on the Judiciary Committee issued a joint news release asking the Senate to “stop playing politics with the Justice Department.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said late last week that Mukasey’s position raises “doubts” about his fitness for office, but this week, has reversed course, saying he’s satisfied with the “facts and circumstances” letter issued yesterday.

As for the big picture, Hilzoy offers a helpful reminder:

That we are even having a debate about this question, and that it is not a foregone conclusion that someone who claims not to know whether waterboarding is torture cannot possibly be confirmed as Attorney General, is a testament to the moral degradation of our country, and of our political discourse.

There is no vote scheduled on Mukasey’s nomination. Stay tuned.

Sounds like someone is going to have to define the word “is” for this guy.

  • I think as a part of his confirmation process, he should be waterboarded. That should take it out of the hypothetical and into real life for him. I’m betting a couple hours of that and he’ll be answering all their questions just the way they want him to.

  • I have a feeling Mukasey doesn’t want the job (who would?), but accepted the nomination our of respect for the president. He’s figured out a way to through the fight and come away clean. The only flaw in his plan may be the general spinelessness of the Republicans.

    Thus ends our overly contrived plot of the day;>

  • That we expected anything more – or less – from a Bush nominee is a sign of our groundless optimism. The recent torture case brought against Donald Rumsfeld in France is probably a harbinger of things to come. Bush & Co. want to maintain all of the legal cover that they can. Lamentably, they won’t ever go to prison but, adding torture convictions in foreign countries to the already dismal Bush legacy would chafe them greatly.

  • I find it amazing that the official line of the Republican Party is:

    The United States should be allowed to torture people and that any law or any Constitutional requirement or Treaty requirement forbidding torture should be disregarded.

  • The official line of the Republican Party:

    We alone determine what is and is not legal.

    The party is more important than the country.

  • As I understand it, Mukasey is hedging because he doesn’t want those who have been employing these tactics to have to be held accountable. Hmmm….why does this sound so familiar? Why, it’s almost like you can sense that he’d like to say he believes it’s illegal, but if he did, it would only be fair to give “retroactive immunity” to those involved, because, after all, they were just relying on advice that it was all just peachy-keen. Call it the telco provision; it’s shorter.

    You know, goes hand-in-hand with the Blackwater use immunity, with Scooter Libby’s pardon; if there were crimes committed, it’s no one’s fault, ever. At this point, why not just end the charade that we’re a moral and principled nation, and just have Bush issue blanket pardons to everyone.

    This is what we’ve come to – even bothering to waste time talking to someone who aspires to the highest law enforcement position in the country, who couldn’t tell you which was his ass and which was his elbow unless he had more facts.

    Un-freakin’-believable.

  • Mukasey is stalling for time.

    Today is the last day of October.

    How many days until the Senate recesses for the winter break?

    That is how many more days the Bushylvanians have to hold out, in order to get everything filled via recess appointments. Every last vacancy that can be filled by a one-year recess appointment—will be filled by a one-year recess appointment. Bush and his cult-followers know that this is their last stand; the numbers cannot be tweaked, hedged, and spun enough to make an ’08 victory possible for these buffoons. They’ve got one year left to rake as much cash as is humanly possible out of the national treasury, borrow enough on the federal credit account to line their deep pockets with, and disable the Republic’s ability to pursue them after the truth finally comes out.

    On a side note: Does the US have an extradition treaty with Paraguay?

  • Eyeless in Gaza would be a good refresher for our policy-makers to read. Their Machiavellian mantra has been hit straight on by Huxley’s retort: The end never justifies the means, but rather the means themselves become the end. Under Bush we have become a nation that tortures! -Kevo

  • What a dilemma. The dems would not even be considering this guy except look who we get while we’re waiting for a new AG. Who else is he going to nominate?
    There’s no question that Mckasey is trying to cover for crimes already committed. Bush is making sure no one will ever be prosecuted from this administration. Anything besides impeachment is a waste of time and our “courageous” dems in office are all trying to avoid conflict until they get a new president.

    They will regret this decision because they haven’t put together yet how much more damage this president will do and that he is making it impossible for the next administration to be successful. They will be faulted for all the messes they refuse to clean up now. Because they did not impeach this president they will lose power in 2012 as a direct result.

  • Will anyone really be surprised if Specter caves after saying the right things? And, Graham voting the way the President wants? Somewhere (maybe under his or Cheney’s bed) there is a box of pictures that many congressmen don’t want the public to see. How else to explain it?

  • Comments are closed.