Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey Photo takes oath before Senate. Photo credit. Andrew Councill/MCT
by James Oliphant
Attorney General nominee Michael B. Mukasey provided some reassurance today to critics of the Bush administration's anti-terror policies, but by and large avoided taking hard-and-fast stances about some of its most controversial practices.
Testifying before the Senate Judicary Committee this morning, Mukasey, a retired New York federal judge, explicitly disavowed the position taken on abusive interrogation practices backed by his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales.
Referring to a 2002 Justice Department memo that endorsed the legality of using such techniques on suspected terrorists, Mukasey said, "it was worse than a sin. It was a mistake."
Mukasey, 66, noted that the United States was bound by its own laws and treaty obligations to prohibit torture, but he went further, saying, "We don’t torture, not simply because its not against this or that law or this or that treaty. Soldiers of this country liberated concentration camps and photographed what they saw there as a record of the barbarism they opposed."
But that was as far as Mukasey went in giving a specific critique of the administration. Instead, on issues such as whether detainees at Guantanamo Bay have legal rights or the legality of the government's warrantless wiretapping program, he largely demurred.
Pressed by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) as to whether Guantanamo detainees should be able to challenge their detentions by filing habeas corpus actions in federal court, Mukasey said he couldn't comment because the matter is currently before the Supreme Court.
"Judge Mukasey, you're punting now," Specter said.
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) pushed Mukasey to agree that the detention facility at Guantanamo should be closed.
But while declaring that "there are substantial problems with Guantanamo both of reality and of perception," Mukasey would commit only to studying the issue after assuming office and then giving the president a recommendation.
That was the tack Mukasey took toward issues surrounding domestic eavesdropping as well. Repeatedly Mukasey warned the committee that because he hadn't been confirmed, he had no access to classified details about the government's anti-terrorism programs and couldn't provide an opinion about their legality.
He did, however, note that the president may have the legal authority to put in place such an eavesdropping program beyond the limits set by Congress in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And he suggested that as a matter of constitutional law, the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures may be more "flexible" when intelligence-gathering is involved instead of the collection of criminal evidence.
"I find your equivocation troubling," said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)
Feingold also wondered if Mukasey had been too dismissive of critics of the USA Patriot Act, portions of which, he noted, had been declared unconstitutional by three federal judges.
"What I had in mind is people who used [the act] as a shorthand for everything that terrified them, regardless of whether it was in the statute or not," Mukasey clarified.
After a recess in the hearing, Mukasey's posture was defended by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a home-state supporter of the judge who introduced him to the committee.
"You could look it as a dodge or you could look at is as the only answer a careful lawyer could give, and Judge Mukasey is a careful lawyer." Schumer said.
Mukasey did pledge to remain independent from the White House and to refrain from giving partisan staffers in the Justice Department the authority to hire and fire officials, particularly U.S. attorneys -- even going so far as saying he would resign if the president disagreed with his counsel and took an illegal course of action.
Mukasey enjoyed solid bipartisan support heading into today's hearing (he was also introduced by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) a former Yale Law School classmate) and appeared to do little this morning to jeopardize that support. He is expected to swiftly secure confirmation after the hearings conclude this week.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"AMERICA DO YOU HONESTLY THINK DICK CHENEY, DAVID ADDINGTON WOULD PICK SOMEONE WHO ISN'T GOING TO TRY TO AVOID IMPEACHMENT ORDERS FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT"
THEY BROKE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WITH NO RECORD KEEPING. THEY BROKE THE LAW BY CONSPIRING WITH AT&T AND VERIZON WIRELESS CEO'S TO WIRETAP, AND DATAMINE AMERICANS WITHOUT A WARRANT OR DUE CAUSE.
THIS ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION IS SILENCED AS IT IS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION, NOT A WORKING ADMINISTRATION IN OUR GOVERNMENT.
After last nights PBS /FRONTLINE showing of CHENEY'S LAW it is apparent that this is a no brainer and the Attorney General of the DOJ should and will file criminal charges. ALBERTO GONZALES, DAVID ADDINGTON, AND DICK CHENEY SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND POSSIBLY ENCARCERATED for the crimes against the Constitution of the United States.
As an american crying and whinning on a blog, IT'S REALLY GET A CLUE TIME.
NANCY PELOSI, THE APPROPRIATION BILL TO THE FLOOR IS THE APPROPRIATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. VOTE ON THAT, THEN IMPEACH.
THOSE ARE AMERICAS MARCHING ORDERS.
LONG LIVE NANCY PELOSI!
Posted by: Roger Morris | October 17, 2007 2:17 PM
Alberto Gonzalez should be disbarred. His memo in support of torture is a travesty of justice that not even this travesty of an administration can no longer support.
Posted by: AJF | October 17, 2007 2:37 PM
AJF
I'm sorry, but what fantasy world are you living in?
Do you honestly think that Alberto Gonzales came up with the idea for his torture memo all on his own? He was just sitting in his office and said, "You know what this country needs? An ability to torture anyone we want!"
He wrote the memo to justify actions that the administration wanted to take.
I only hope the law allows it, but I sincerely hope that the architects of all of this Gonzales, Bush, Cheney and especially John Yoo all end up in prison for all of this. Anything short of that is a travesty of the American system of justice.
Posted by: dogjudge | October 17, 2007 3:45 PM
dogjudge-
When did I ever imply that Gonzalez was acting alone?
I was simply stating that the memo, is in my opinion, evidence enough to warrant his disbarment at a minimum.
I do agree that many in this administration should face legal consequences for their actions.
Posted by: AJF | October 17, 2007 3:54 PM
I'm waiting for the presidential candidate to say that they will seek criminal charges against G. W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They have committed treason.
Posted by: San Miguel | October 17, 2007 3:59 PM
"Fredo" Gonzales, while he was in his role as Attorney General, is analogous to Chimpy McFlightsuit in his role as President: a passive, incurious, stage-prop mope/marionnette - whose strings are pulled by someone out of sight. In Fredo's case it was Addington and Yoo. In Chimpy's case, it was (and continues to be) Dick "Shotgun" Cheney. Addington's leash also runs to Cheney's hand.
Years from now, after all of the classified documents are exposed, historians will consider this presidency to be the Cheney Presidency - not the Bush Presidency - as Cheney truly called/calls the shots - while Chimpy meekly and obediently signs pretty much anything that Cheney sticks under his nose. This will be viewed as a very dark chapter in the history of the American Presidency.
Posted by: Buster | October 17, 2007 4:11 PM
Roger,
While I agree with what you are saying (I saw only part of the PBS show) we should not act too quickly.
Convicting this ilk within the next year only guarantees Presidential Pardons and Freedom medals. Let's wait until their Ventriloquist dummy is out of office and then go after the whole lot of them.
to my knowledge there is no statuete of limitations on treason so why rush.
Posted by: Carl L | October 17, 2007 4:12 PM
to my knowledge there is no statuete of limitations on treason so why rush.
Posted by: Carl L | October 17, 2007 4:12 PM
Carl,
Speaking of "Rush", can we put his fat doughy butt on trail for his treasonist "phony soldiers" comment?
I'd suggest taking him down to DC town square, stripping him naked and hanging him upside down by his toenails.
Posted by: John E | October 17, 2007 4:30 PM
Roger Morris - Would you please take a more nuanced approach to the use of your capitalization key? You evidently don't realize how this detracts from the substances of your posts . . . .
Posted by: Buster | October 17, 2007 4:37 PM
Easy answer to the interrogation problem at Gitmo. Put them all on a special "cruise" ship operated by the Turkish
Army and do not allow any Congressional
Committee or Amnesty International boarders. Problem solved.
Posted by: Hassan | October 17, 2007 4:38 PM
Given the information that has come out on the torture issue, I have a question.
Various folks have started to openly state that there is no doubt in their minds that the US currently, and over the last five years has tortured people. This is in violation of both American and International laws.
You get folks such as John Yoo, David Addington and Alberto Gonzales who have given "legal" opinions that the President can take these actions.
On one level, and though I hate myself for it, it appears as if Cheney and Bush both have their butts covered since they can say that they asked for legal opinions and that lawyers told them it was lawful.
Does anyone know, references please, if any of these folks could actually be taken to trial, and if convicted, actually end up in prison?
Would it be restricted to the lawyers who wrote the opinions, or could Cheney and Bush be held liable?
Posted by: dogjudge | October 17, 2007 4:46 PM
dogjudge
The Nazi's in Germany did everything legally. They achieved this by 'turning the law inside out'. (1,(2))
(1) Rise and Fall of the Third Reich(Shirer)
(2) Inside the Third Reich (Speer)
They, the leaders, were all eventually held accountable.
I know, we are not there yet. Just a sample of awful, immoral acts that were 'legal'.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 17, 2007 5:44 PM
PS;
dj
They did this by corrupting the German justice system, BTW.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 17, 2007 5:45 PM
Am I the only one who thinks this guy has been coached to say exactly what these rubber stamp congress people (both parties) want to hear? Wasn't he paraded from office to office like all the others before him to ensure he will be confirmed? How stupid do they think the public is?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | October 17, 2007 6:17 PM
nessy,
'Hey, he's likeable! How can you oppose him!'
Posted by: C.Morris | October 17, 2007 7:38 PM
I just watched this guy on the News Hour.
These guys are experts at not answering any question.
He may be an improvement over AG AG.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 17, 2007 8:46 PM
Michael B. Mukasey has allot of work to do in order to restore Americas faith in the AG's office. I hope he can pull it off.
Posted by: An Inconvenient Truth | October 18, 2007 4:30 AM
Judge Mukasey has to sit there being pounced on by Pat Senator Depends Leahy,Chuckie Schemer, Dickie Durbin, Ted Kennedy and all the rest of the Jackasses who wouldn't qualify for the job themselves. They are there to help the ACLU, Move On.org, People for the American Way, Media Matters Clinton think tanks all.Don't forget NARAL abortion according to this group is health care.These pious elitists liberals make me sick. Glad to live far from Burwash in fly over country. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | October 18, 2007 1:24 PM