There's willing toadies and unwitting toadies. Michael Mukasey will find himself firmly ensconced in the latter class of political appointees once Cheney is done with him.

Somehow the fact Mukasey thinks that the OLC’s fig leaf legal defense of torture was “unnecessary” doesn’t exactly reassure me. It is the torture that is unnecessary, not the White House’s spurious legal defenses of it.

Didn't Durbin get creamed by the right for saying much the same thing?

It's refreshing to hear some genuine moral clarity from a high-ranking Republican these days.

And how is this any different than what Commander in Chief Bush said? Quoting him

www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html

"I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it."

I bet President Bush and Mukasey both agree we should do whatever is necessary, including enhanced interrogation techniques, to prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11, but we will not torture. This has been Bush's consistent longstanding position.

it's a trap!

as soon as he's in, it'll be all Unitary Executive this and AUMF-Iraq that.

pointed to the role of American troops in liberating Nazi concentration camps following World War II. "We didn't do that so we could then duplicate it ourselves," he said.

Ah, but 3000 Americans outweighs the 6 million Jews & 4 million gypsies, Poles, Jehovah Witnesses, feeble minded, and other assorted undesirables per the Nazis, hence the need for torture!

As Glenn pointed out -

But when asked about specific interrogation methods -- head slapping, hypothermia, waterboarding -- Mukasey says he cannot say if such measures are legal because he has not been "read into" those programs. He will, he says, take a "strong look" at those questions once he is Attorney General. So that whole line of questioning is going to be meaningless -- he will repeat what Bush says ("we don't torture and never did") but refuses to comment on the critical question -- i.e., whether the interrogation measures in question constitute "torture" and are therefore illegal.

Not really. It's the same ol' same ol'
…But when asked about specific interrogation methods -- head slapping, hypothermia, waterboarding -- Mukasey says he cannot say if such measures are legal because he has not been "read into" those programs. He will, he says, take a "strong look" at those questions once he is Attorney General. So that whole line of questioning is going to be meaningless -- he will repeat what Bush says ("we don't torture and never did") but refuses to comment on the critical question -- i.e., whether the interrogation measures in question constitute "torture" and are therefore illegal….

If you check the link, scroll down to Feinstein's questioning:
…To Mukaskey, then, it is an open question whether the President can imprison U.S. citizens, arrested on U.S. soil, with no charges of any kind. Shouldn't that be a rather significant hurdle to his becoming Attorney General, to put it mildly?…

No Bush appointee should ever be confirmed. Not one. Ever.

They later decided that you can uphold the legality of waterboarding, hypothermia, stress positions, etc. on narrower grounds--that's what he means by unneccessary: they could have done the same things to prisoners, based on a less ludicrous legal justification. He is not saying that the black sites or the techniques used there were unnecessary. His answer doesn't really tell us much. Gonzales issued pro forma denunciations of torture at his hearings too.

It is, by the way, AMAZING the extent to which journalists continue to write headlines about statements like "I denounce torture" and "I will not condone torture" & similar reassurances from the Bush administration, as if those words conveyed any information at all.

And let's not kid ourselves -- the administration never would've tapped Mukasey for the job if they thought he was going to pull a Flanders on them. That was downright Pollyannaish of you, Kevin.

You know, if the founding fathers felt unreasonable, unwarranted searches and siezures were something citizens should be free from suffering at the hands of the government they would have addressed it in the Constitution. Oh, wait............

I want to apologize for Mr. Mukasey's unforgivable comparison of U.S. interrogation techniques to Nazi actions. I think I'm going to cry.

Weasel words. "We will not torture" could mean "we will change the definition of torture so that whatever we are doing it is not torture."

As others have pointed out above, of course in later testimony that "genuine moral clarity" of Mukasey's was a wee-bit more clouded.

Bet we'll be calling him "Mostly Malarky" before too long.

I have never understood what it is about the US Senate that renders The 100 incapable of asking brief, pointed questions, like:

"You know what waterboarding is, right? Can we hand the witness a description from official government testimony? Okay -- is that torture, or not?"

Repeat as necessary.

***

Nothing a little Presidential signing statement can't fix.

Many of the guards at Nazi concentrations camps rotated out to more important fronts in the war when it was apparent the camps were about to be overrun by Allied forces. Remaining guards were commonly either the very old or very young conscripts pressed into service long after the war was essentially lost. These forces had little or nothing to do with operations of the camps or the atrocities committed therein. Yes, they were the enemy. Yes, they were guilty certainly by association. However, many were likely just as surprised and appalled by the circumstances they found themselves in as the arriving Allied forces. These are the people mhr thinks merited summary execution without a pip of protest from anyone, and certainly not by the conquering liberators said to aspire to a higher standard than the savages they had vanquished. The conservative mind boggles.

Matt S,

You're right, Durbin was criticized for saying the same thing. And I think Mukasey is just as big of a dipsh*t for saying it.

"Mukasey said that torture violates U.S. laws and pointed to the role of American troops in liberating Nazi concentration camps following World War II. "We didn't do that so we could then duplicate it ourselves," he said."

Yeah that's right, our soldiers are duplicating what the Nazis did in the concentration camps. Good lord, don't people think before they open their mouths?

"Good lord, don't people think before they open their mouths?"

LOL... Oh, the irony....

Oh, and Hacky? Unlike you, apparently, most of us have no trouble understanding what Durbin and Mukasey said and what they meant. You really should work on your reading comprehension skills.

BUT BUT they always say the "right" things BEFORE confirmation.

Think Roberts, etc.

Mukasey testified that "we don't torture" and that Bush has stated as much in an executive order.

But he equivocated on the substance of torture - just as Bush has.

How is that moral clarity?

He then said that the Bybee (sp?) memo was a mistake - it was unnecessary.

Unnecessary? He finally said it's logic was defective. I don't call things that are defective or illegal unnecessary...

How is this moral clarity?

Sorry... but after Iran-Contra and his other activities I'd trust this guy not even as far as I could throw him.

He also said the following, which is a very impressive statement IMO. Whether he means it is another matter, but just saying it is more than Gonzales could do.

"We can't turn our society into something not worth preserving in order to preserve it."

Moral clarity from a Republican?

Yes, I believe many registered Republican voters have moral clarity. But people with moral clarity are not allowed into this administration ... at any level. This administration demands fealty to Bush's particular taste of moral bankruptcy.

This would be moral lip service.

Lies. Parsed lies. And a total compromise of principle by individuals who, in another administration, would be allowed to be genuine patriots. But here? Sellouts. Every last one.

Sadly, some of them don't even realize it.

Amazingly, Nixon's administration is a beacon of moral backbone, by comparison. Who would EVER have thunk it.

Worst President Ever.

Mukasey is probably not trustworthy. Even more troubling, he is a lot smarter and more devious than Gonzales ever could be. This man should be feared.