by Mark Silva
President Bush, pressing for Senate confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, portrays it as a matter of national security.
"In a time of war, it is vital for the president to have a full national security team in place,'' the president says in his weekly radio address today.
Everything the president does, of course, is taking place in a time of war. Yet he hasn't portrayed the passage of a children's health care bill as a question of national security.
Today's address could be symbolic, of course. A couple of Democrats on the Senate Judicary Committee have indicated they will vote for Mukasey (pictured right) next week, even if the chairman of the committee won't. So the president should have his attorney general.
Critics remain concerned that Mukasey will not directly confront some of the tactics which the government is employing in this time of war -- in particular, the waterboarding of suspected terrorists. But Mukasey, a former federal judge, is seasoned in questions of terrorism.
"This is the kind of leader American needs to head the Department of Justice at this imporment moment in our history,'' the president says today.
A moment of war.
This is the text of the president's radio address:
"Good morning. On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on Judge Michael Mukasey's nomination to be our next Attorney General. I thank the committee for scheduling this vote. I urge them to approve this fine man's nomination, and send it to the full Senate as quickly as possible.
"In a time of war, it is vital for the president to have a full national security team in place -- and the Attorney General is a key member of that team. The Attorney General is America's top law enforcement officer, with critical responsibilities for preventing terrorist attacks and protecting our Nation.
"Judge Mukasey is uniquely qualified to fill this vital role. He served nearly two decades on the Federal bench, and some of his most important legal experience is in the area of national security. He presided over the trial of the terrorist known as "the Blind Sheikh" and his co-defendants in the conspiracy to destroy prominent New York City landmarks, including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. And when the World Trade Center was attacked again on September the 11th, 2001, Judge Mukasey quickly reopened his court, even though it was just blocks from Ground Zero. He and other judges in his district worked day and night to ensure that applications for warrants were processed, investigations could proceed, and the rule of law was upheld.
"This is the kind of leader America needs to head the Department of Justice at this important moment in our history. Judge Mukasey is a man of achievement. He is a man of character. And he has been praised by Republicans and Democrats alike for his honesty, intellect, fairness, and independence.
Since I sent his nomination to the Senate, Judge Mukasey has provided nearly six hours of testimony. He patiently answered more than 200 questions during his hearings, and he responded promptly to nearly 500 written questions. Yet some senators are working against his nomination because they want him to take a position on the legality of specific techniques allegedly used to question captured terrorists.
As Judge Mukasey explained in a letter to Judiciary Committee members, he cannot give such a legal opinion for several reasons. First, he does not know whether certain methods of questioning are in fact used, because the program is classified, he's not been given access to that information, and therefore he is in no position to provide an informed opinion. Second, he does not want our professional interrogators in the field to take an uninformed opinion he has given in the course of a confirmation hearing as meaning that any conduct of theirs has put them in legal jeopardy.
Finally, he does not want an uninformed legal opinion to give terrorists a window into which techniques we may use, and which we may not. That could help them train their operatives to resist questioning, and withhold vital information we need to stop attacks and save lives.
Congressional leaders should not make Judge Mukasey's confirmation dependent on his willingness to make a public judgment about a classified program he has not been briefed on. If the Senate Judiciary Committee were to block Judge Mukasey on these grounds, it would set a new standard for confirmation that could not be met by any responsible nominee for Attorney General. And that would guarantee that America would have no confirmed Attorney General during this time of war.
Senate leaders should move Judge Mukasey's nomination out of Committee and bring it to the Senate floor for an up or down vote. In this time of war, America needs the best people leading our efforts to protect the American people. With Judge Mukasey serving as Attorney General, our national security team will be stronger -- and the Senate should confirm this good man as quickly as possible.
Thank you for listening.''
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Mukasey obviously doesn't measure up to the standards set by Janet Reno, whom Leahy and Durbin simply loved, but who can expect such perfection from a Republican nominee?
Posted by: Alfredo | November 3, 2007 11:08 AM
If the Bush adminstration had not corrupted Mukasey by giving him instruction on torture he would have flown through committee and have been quickly approved by the Senate.
Having proven that he can be corrupted why would we expect non political judgement about who and when to prosecute from him?
Posted by: c. perry | November 3, 2007 11:29 AM
"up or down vote"
Rats...I had hoped this phrase had died a quick death...it's a VOTE period.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | November 3, 2007 11:37 AM
Bush never fails to play the fear card. The Department of Justice is demoralized and need a stellar candidate to set things straight. This guy isn't even close to being the right person at the right time. But then again the nomination is typical of the ineptitude we've had to suffer through with the Bush/Cheney regime.
Sad and deppressing. This country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | November 3, 2007 11:58 AM
We are not at war. The Neo-con's are at war. Let them fight the war. Why should we die for oil?
Posted by: Lou | November 3, 2007 12:09 PM
It is not President Bush's place to tell Congress how to fulfil its Constitutional prerogative.
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution vests the president with the power to nominate federal officers, and vests the Senate with the power to approve or deny the president's nominee on whatever basis it wishes.
Whether one likes the president's nominee or not, the Senate's "advice and consent" is an important element in our constitutional balance of power. The president may dislike the fact that Congress isn't his lap dog ready to jump when he says "jump", but I feel more comfortable that our founding fathers built in the protection afforded by "advice and consent".
Finally, the argument that we are "in a time of war" is disingenuous on the part of the president. Surely the Department of Justice didn't grind to a halt the day Attorney General Gonzales stepped down; there are thousands of men and women working in the Department of Justice every day; it's just the position at the top that's vacant. And some might suggest that the DoJ is no more "headless" than it was during Gonzales' out-of-the-loo tenure. President Bush should stop repeatedly trying to play the "we're at war" card and start working with Congress on a basis other than "Do what I say".
In any event, Mukasey will be approved in spite of Congressional misgivings. He's too strong a candidate in spite of whatever misgivings people may have. In fact, I agree that he is right not to conjecture about what he as Attorney General would do under a hypothetical situation.
Posted by: JRR | November 3, 2007 12:15 PM
So let me get this straight...when J. Kerry said that the war on terror should be handled more like police work than military action he was pillored by the right. Now, the worst POTUS ever says that the war on terror requires an AG...the most senior LAW ENFORCEMENT agent in the US. Bush is a moron and so are those who follow him so blindly!
Posted by: Neal | November 3, 2007 12:53 PM
Neal, the war on terror is largely a military conflict. But any war, whether this one or WWII or WWI or what have you still needs an AG, an FBI and even perhaps local police.
Posted by: John D | November 3, 2007 1:29 PM
Hey Lou,
Why do you think wars have been fought? Why did Japan attack us? (We threatened Japan's access to needed raw resources) What are you ... about 8? Have you thought about what $150 a barrel oil, or a supply cut off might do to US economy ... and american jobs? ... No, because you probably don't have a job ... just as long as the government keeps sending those checks ... right? ....
Probably lost you in mid-sentence due to your ADD.
Posted by: K W Smith | November 3, 2007 2:19 PM
Bush is lying about the efficacy of torture. Not only is it an ineffective interrogation method but it is also illegal.
Bush has made a mockery of the oath to protect and defend the Constitution. If he truly believes he cannot do his job within the confines of the Constitution he should resign. It is pathetic that we have permitted Bush to use the crutch of police state tactics simply because he claims that such tactics are required.
Posted by: Mike | November 3, 2007 2:19 PM
JohnD,
The war on terror is not a "military" operation since there's really no country we are after, rather radical idealogues in many different nations. Working with various POLICE agencies around the world is the answer, not a false war on false pretenses by a false Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, there's still around 24% of the nation, the "deadenders" out there who thinks the military is the answer.
Posted by: Neal | November 3, 2007 2:26 PM
Kerry is an idiot. Mr Taliban, you have the right to remain silent, and a right to an attorney ... LOL ... Just what we need. The left is quick to try and bestow american citizen rights to the entire world. Just imagine how this would have worked in previous wars!
Posted by: K W Smith | November 3, 2007 2:53 PM
Neal, the war on terror is largely a military conflict. But any war, whether this one or WWII or WWI or what have you still needs an AG, an FBI and even perhaps local police.
Posted by: John D | November 3, 2007 1:29 PM
Further proof that you have no idea what your talking about John D. This so called war is a sham. A FRAUD. This waste of American life & treasure is about no-bid contracts and corruption.
You sir defend a pack of criminals.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/11/1131/
FAO Alan Greenspan, here is a map of the Persian Gulf:
http://www.reisenett.no/map_collection/middle_east_and_asia/Persian_Gulf_Region.jpg
Notice how far Iraq is from the Strait of Hormuz. Notice Iran is between it and the north side of the Strait, and a half dozen Arab nations with US military bases are between it and the south side of the Strait.
FAO Alan Greenspan, here is a map of the Persian Gulf:
http://www.reisenett.no/map_collection/middle_east_and_asia/Persian_Gulf_Region.jpg
Mr Bush should find a real AG this time around. What a pity he continues to waste time and money sending up sh%tty nominees!
Posted by: slippery slope | November 3, 2007 6:05 PM
The left is quick to try and bestow American citizen rights to the entire world.
Isn't that the reason why we are fighting these wars to bestow democratic principles of freedom law justice and order in other tyrannical countries; bringing American citizen rights to the entire world, one country at a time. And isn't it hard to wage a war based on values. It just gets too sticky exempting yourself from values you are fighting wars for in the world; becoming the dictator to become the liberator.
Posted by: Isac | November 3, 2007 6:10 PM
The entire time Gonzales was the AG--there was not a true "functioning" AG. There was only a legal extention of the OVP and the Bush WH into the DOJ. Why the hurry for an AG now?
Is/was Mukasey a witness for his own character in front of congress? Did Bush do any witness tampering if/when he gave Mukasey info. or instructions on torture?
Posted by: Vivian | November 3, 2007 8:20 PM
The left is quick to try and bestow american citizen rights to the entire world.
Posted by: K W Smith | November 3, 2007 2:53 PM
You're kidding...right? You invade Iraq and you say the "left" wants to bestow rights to the entire world? What a joke.
Posted by: bill r. | November 4, 2007 7:51 AM
WOW. The AG is not only responsible for regulating torture tactics, but internal spying practices in America. Anybody Bush approves for the job has to be Satan's Spawn or a mass murderer.
Posted by: Giraffe | November 4, 2007 8:26 AM
You're kidding...right? You invade Iraq and you say the "left" wants to bestow rights to the entire world? What a joke.
Posted by: bill r. | November 4, 2007 7:51 AM
Scary thing is they're not kidding. The dead-enders have bought the lie hook line and sinker.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | November 4, 2007 1:09 PM
A letter to Leahy from a number of JAG's...
__________________________
Dear Chairman Leahy,
In the course of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s consideration of President Bush’s nominee for the post of Attorney General, there has been much discussion, but little clarity, about the legality of “waterboarding” under United States and international law. We write Because this issue above all demands clarity: Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.
In 2006 the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on the authority to prosecute terrorists under the war crimes provisions of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. In connection with those hearings the sitting Judge Advocates General of the military services were asked to submit written responses to a series of questions regarding “the use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce the misperception of drowning (i.e., waterboarding) . . .” Major General Scott Black, U.S. Army Judge Advocate General, Major General Jack Rives, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General, Rear Admiral Bruce MacDonald, U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General, and Brigadier Gen. Kevin Sandkuhler, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, unanimously and unambiguously agreed that such conduct is inhumane and illegal and would constitute a violation of international law, to include Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
We agree with our active duty colleagues. This is a critically important issue - but it is not, and never has been, a complex issue, and even to suggest otherwise does a terrible disservice to this nation. All U.S. Government agencies and personnel, and not just America’s military forces, must abide by both the spirit and letter of the controlling provisions of international law. Cruelty and torture - no less than wanton killing - is neither justified nor legal in any circumstance. It is essential to be clear, specific and unambiguous about this fact - as in fact we have been throughout America’s history, at least until the last few years. Abu Ghraib and other notorious examples of detainee abuse have been the product, at least in part, of a self-serving and destructive disregard for the well-established legal principles applicable to this issue. This must end.
The Rule of Law is fundamental to our existence as a civilized nation. The Rule of Law is not a goal which we merely aspire to achieve; it is the floor below which we must not sink. For the Rule of Law to function effectively, however, it must provide actual rules yhat can be followed. In this instance, the relevant rule - the law - as long been clear: Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances. To suggest otherwise - or even to give credence to such a suggestion - represents both an affront to the law and to the core values of our nation.
We respectfully urge you to consider these principles in connection with the nomination of Judge Mukasey.
Sincerely,
Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000
Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.)
Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88
Posted by: rncbs | November 4, 2007 6:18 PM
If torture is not the bright line drawn in the sand, we are already Nazi Germany and deserve the world's obliquy
Posted by: PROUDLIBERAL | November 5, 2007 2:58 AM
When will Americans learn?
Even a failed idiot like Bush seems comfortable pleading special consideration in time of war, a war he started, an unnecessary war, a pointless war.
A letter from a bunch of retired military hacks on a matter of civilian government should leave any impression than that they don't know what they are talking about?
When will Americans learn? Apparently never.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | November 5, 2007 9:29 AM
Proud Liberal like all liberal Democrats today you hate America. It all started in the 60's with anti-military,moral relativism, inhaling pot, anti-war,and general anarchy. Now, you people feel enlightened enough to run America down daily. The Clinton's hail from this pot world of new age psychobabble.They believe they are in the new age of Aquarius. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | November 5, 2007 9:32 AM
Jerry,
You seem to be full of hate lately. Relax buddy. There are 300 million or more people living in America. Everyone will have a different point of view.
Show yourself at the poll and vote for whoever you believe in; but don't attack people. The majority of Americans don't have the same point of view as you do.
We prefer diplomacy over war. That is not a Liberal view. We prefer the Constitution over suspension or laws. That is not a Liberal view. We prefer a President with limited power over a Dictator. That is not a Liberal view. We prefer independent energy over foreign oil. That is not a Liberal view. These are American views.
Posted by: Lou | November 5, 2007 12:06 PM
I keep asking this question, but NOT ONE supporter of the Republican party has the backbone to answer it:
"WHO WOULD JESUS WATERBOARD?"
Posted by: BC | November 5, 2007 12:12 PM
"Proud Liberal like all liberal Democrats today you hate America. It all started in the 60's with anti-military,moral relativism, inhaling pot, anti-war,and general anarchy. Now, you people feel enlightened enough to run America down daily. The Clinton's hail from this pot world of new age psychobabble.They believe they are in the new age of Aquarius. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | November 5, 2007 9:32 AM
Jerry either you've been spying on the person who posted as proud liberal or you are making allot of assumptions. I find it interesting that those of you who demonize the left wing are also the people so willing to fall in line behind the worst presidential administration ever. Like a bunch of mindless glass bottom boat riders, you smoke the opiate of the masses and surrender your civil rights each day in the name of security.
Mr Bush plays the fear card (the AG as necessity) along with an unhealthy dose of religious zealotry in order to ram his twisted agenda down the American publics throat.
Some of us see him for what he is. Call us liberal or call us patriotic, these days to me they are one and the same!!! Open your eyes Jerry. Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | November 5, 2007 12:17 PM
I keep asking this question, but NOT ONE supporter of the Republican party has the backbone to answer it:
"WHO WOULD JESUS WATERBOARD?"
Posted by: BC | November 5, 2007 12:12 PM
I'm a republican and I'll tell you. I think if I were Jesus, of course everyone knows George Bush is but... if I were. I'd waterboard anyone who defends the bill of rights.
Posted by: Barry G | November 5, 2007 3:08 PM