Mukasey and the Dem's political sideshow

Mukasey and the Democrats Their real target is antiterror interrogation

Excerpt:

Their immediate political figleaf is that the judge won't pre-emptively declare "waterboarding," or simulated drowning, to be illegal. Mr. Mukasey has declared that torture "violates the law and the Constitution, and the President may not authorize it as he is no less bound by constitutional restrictions than any other government official." But he refuses to say whether waterboarding meets the statutory definition of torture based only on "hypothetical facts and circumstances."

This seems fair enough given that he has not been briefed on any of the classified interrogation details (as top Congressional Democrats have been). It also seems wise given that, if confirmed, he will have to read and consider legal memoranda already approved by Justice Department officials on the same subject. How can he declare himself before he's read them?

Most important, his discretion serves the American people by helping to keep our enemies in some doubt about what they will face if they are captured. The reason that CIA interrogation methods are kept highly classified is so that enemy combatants can't use them as a resistance manual. If terrorists know what's coming, they can prepare for it beforehand and better resist.

What's really at stake here is whether U.S. officials are going to have the basic tools required to extract information from America's enemies. As CIA Director Michael Hayden pointed out in a speech this week, "the best sources of information on terrorists and their plans are the terrorists themselves."

Mr. Hayden added that fewer than 100 captives "have gone through the interrogation program since it began in 2002 with the capture of Abu Zubaydah," a top aide to Osama bin Laden and 9/11 plotter. Yet those interrogations have generated "thousands of intelligence reports." More than 70% of the human intelligence that makes it into formal U.S. intelligence estimates "is based on detainee information."

As for waterboarding, it is mostly a political sideshow. The CIA's view seems to be that some version of waterboarding is effective in breaking especially tough cases quickly. Press reports say it has been used only against a few high-value al Qaeda operatives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Zubaydah. As former CIA Director George Tenet points out in his book "At the Center of the Storm," KSM and others never would have talked about "imminent threats against the American people" had they not been dealt with harshly. "I believe that none of these success would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal," he writes.

If Democrats want to strip the CIA of this tool, then they ought to legislate it openly, not make law under the table through the confirmation process. Congress has twice had the chance to ban or criminalize waterboarding, but it declined to do so in both the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. And not for lack of trying: In debating the Military Commissions Act, Ted Kennedy offered a detailed amendment that specifically prohibited waterboarding, as well as other coercive interrogation methods; it lost on the Senate floor, 46-53.

Comment: Follup to The Democrats hypocrisy on waterboarding

Schumer and Feinstein Back Mukasey

U.S. / Politics
Schumer and Feinstein Back Mukasey
By DAVID STOUT and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: November 2, 2007
The attorney general nomination seemed all but assured when two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee announced their support.

Excerpt:

Mr. Schumer announced his support after meeting with Mr. Mukasey this afternoon. “Judge Mukasey is not my ideal choice,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement afterward. “However, Judge Mukasey, whose integrity and independence is respected even by those who oppose him, is far better than anyone could expect from this administration.”

The statement from Mr. Schumer of New York, and late word from the office of Senator Feinstein of California that she too would endorse Mr. Mukasey, virtually assured that he would win the backing of the Judiciary Committee when it meets on Tuesday, and in all probability confirmation by the full Senate.

There are nine Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, versus 10 Democrats. So with the support of Mr. Schumer and Ms. Feinstein, the numbers are on Mr. Mukasey’s side, even though Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermonter who heads the Judiciary Committee, this afternoon became the fifth Democrat on the panel to announce that he would vote against the nominee.

Mr. Schumer said his decision had been “extremely difficult,” and that a big factor was Mr. Mukasey’s opinion, conveyed to him this afternoon, that “were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority.”

Comment: Note the last sentence!