I guess we won't know for a while whether Michael Mukasey is one of those increasingly rare decent and respectful Republicans -- or just another wily judicial politico. Actions will be what count.
About torture, he said the right things. But how does he define torture? Do we know for sure? Is there some hidden exit point that we aren't noticing yet?
“Would it be a safe characterization of what you’ve just said that you repudiate this memo as not only being contrary to law, but also contrary to the values America stands for?” [Senator Patrick Leahy] asked.
“I do,” the nominee replied.
“Thank you,” Mr. Leahy said. “Is there such a thing as a commander-in-chief override that would allow the immunization of acts of torture that violate the law?”
“Not that I’m aware of,” Mr. Mukasey said.
How about partisan politics influencing the "administration of justice"? Another solid-sounding response:
As for any notion that politics should intrude into the administration of justice — a situation that many administration critics say existed under former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales — Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, said that “partisan politics plays no part in either the bringing of charges or the timing of charges.”
And then there's the information sought by Congressional oversight committees, information which has not been forthcoming from Justice. In a letter to Mr. Mukasey on Oct. 2, Senator Leahy said Mr. Mukasey would be asked about a variety of legal issues that some senators have said the White House has refused to address in detail.
“Regrettably the White House has chosen not to clear the decisions of past concerns and not to produce the information and material it should have and could have about the ongoing scandals that have shaken the Department of Justice and led to the exodus of its former leadership,” Mr. Leahy wrote. “Those matters now encumber your nomination and, if confirmed, your tenure.”
In other words, wait and see.
And finally, wiretapping and civil liberties.
Democrats made clear in advance that they would question Mr. Mukasey about whether he supported the administration’s antiterrorism policies, especially its use of harsh interrogation techniques for terrorist suspects and its domestic eavesdropping program.
In his court rulings and other writings, Mr. Mukasey has suggested that he endorses the administration’s views on its wide-ranging authority in battling terrorist threats.
Glenn Greenwald, who live-blogged the hearing this morning, concluded:
Mukasey will clearly support the Ashcroft/Comey/Goldsmith view that the President possesses Article II power to eavesdrop for foreign intelligence purposes, even on U.S. soil, and that FISA cannot restrict that power.
