Mukasey Torture Fallout

Last weeks pro-torture performance of Michael Mukasey before the Senate Judiciary Committee is still creating waves. Slate's Phillip Carter and Dahlia Lithwick have written an excellent commentary touching on the history of waterboarding and why the act should be formally disavowed by Mukasey and the Bush Administration. Yesterday, the LA Times rightly devoted an op-ed to the issue. The piece, penned by George Washington University's Jonathan Turley, concludes:

This confirmation vote should be about torture. It is truly a defining issue, not just of the meaning of torture but of the very character of our country. It is the issue that distinguishes a nation fighting for the rule of law from a nation that is a threat to it. If members of the Senate consider torture to be immoral, they must vote against Mukasey.

If the administration is unable to find a nominee who will denounce torture, then it should be left with an acting attorney general who will lead the department without the consent of the Senate. After all, there are worse things than being denied confirmation. You could be water-boarded, for example.

Experts and commentators aren't the only ones disturbed by Mukasey's stance on torture. Democrates on the Senate Judiciary Committee have woken up as well. On Tuesday, they penned a letter to Mukasey demanding he clarify his views on waterboarding. "Please respond to the following question," they wrote. "Is the use of waterboarding, or inducing the misperception of drowning, as an interrogation technique illegal under US law, including treaty obligations?"
Simple question... but will it elicit an equally simple "Yes" response? I'll believe it when I see it-- all the indications so far reveal that Mukasey will defend the illegal programs of the Administration if he wants continued White House backing. Mukasey, it appears, is no different from his disgraced predecessor after all.