Is Mukasey willing to be a ‘no’ man in the White House?
What do you think?
USATODAY-Bush’s pick for attorney general must clarify views on executive authority.
Judge Michael Mukasey is in most respects a solid nominee for attorney general. Members of both parties praise him. He gives every indication of being a highly competent, fair-minded jurist who would revive a Justice Department that was politicized and demoralized while Alberto Gonzales was in charge.Nevertheless, two of Mukasey’s statements during his confirmation hearings two weeks ago were so troubling that a pause is in order before the Senate takes up his nomination:
* First, the judge repeatedly fumbled a question about whether waterboarding — a process that simulates drowning — is torture. Mukasey flatly asserted that torture is unconstitutional, but then he declined to say whether waterboarding qualifies. Somewhat unbelievably for a judge who has presided over terror trials and written incisively about how to handle detainees, he claimed not to know what the well-publicized technique involves.
It’s an open secret that U.S. interrogators have waterboarded some “high value” terror suspects. Mukasey seemed worried about opening the door to prosecuting those who relied on what they thought was legitimate authorization. That’s a valid concern, but someone who wants to be the nation’s top law enforcement officer ought to be willing to label waterboarding for what it is.
* Second, and of far greater concern, is what Mukasey said about the limits of presidential power. While the president cannot act illegally, he said, “illegal” is a fuzzy concept when it comes to the president.