Washington Post jumps shark on Mukasey confirmation

[ProSense]

WaPo echoes Bush's "Confirm Mukasey Now, Ask Questions About Torture Later"

The title of this thread is the url for this:

Friday, November 02, 2007

Now Why Didn't I Think of That? Washington Post Proposes That Senate Ban Torture!

Marty Lederman

The Washington Post today, straining to demonstrate Solomonic wisdom, urges Senators to do two things simultaneously: They should confirm Judge Mukasey and, at the same time,

<...>

-- And it's not as if torture was legal even before the Senate, House and President acted on these instruments. As the Supreme Court recently explained, under international law (including the laws of war binding on the executive branch), the flat ban on torture is among the handful of international law norms with the greatest "definite content and acceptance among civilized nations": Even for purposes of civil liability, "the torturer has become–like the pirate and slave trader before him–hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind".

<...>

Has it really come to this? Can one of the nation's leading newspapers actually decide to publish the words that it's about time "the Senate" finally "ban torture" -- something it has thus far "declined to do"?

What the Post might have written that might have made some sense: "Because Judge Mukasey and the Bush Administration do not seem to understand that the techniques they refuse to disclaim are torture and cruel treatment that are already unlawful several times over, the Senate should tell President Bush that it will confirm Judge Mukasey if and only if -- and after -- the President signs the Biden bill."

That wouldn't be a panacea -- because President Bush could always rewrite the Field Manual. (Don't put it past him.) But it would be a start. And it would make sense. Today's Washington Post editorial, however . . .

{ADDENDUM: The Post editorial is obviously motivated by a sense that Michael Mukasey is a thoughtful and serious person, with the sort of gravitas and integrity that the Department of Justice desperately needs right now. I have every reason to think that is correct -- indeed, Scott Horton has worked with him and strongly vouches for his character, to the point where Scott had been urging his confirmation. But as Scott himself notes today, the vote is no longer about Mukasey's character -- or not only about it, anyway:

I have very strong conflicting views about the vote which is coming in the Judiciary Committee. I believe that Mukasey, as an individual, is exceptionally well qualified to serve as attorney general. I would approve the Mukasey who says he "personally" finds waterboarding abhorrent. But I am troubled by the "official" Mukasey who is being trotted out as something different. And I believe that the nation cannot, at this stage, accept the appointment of an attorney general who refuses to come clean on the torture issue. In the end this is essential to national identity, and to the promise of the Justice Department to serve as a law enforcement agency. Too much of what the Justice Department has done of late has little resemblance to law enforcement. Rather it looks to be just the opposite.

If the Bush Administration wants to turn torture into a litmus test, so must Congress. The question therefore ultimately becomes one of principle and not personality. The Judiciary Committee should not accept any nominee who fails to provide meaningful assurance on this issue. And, though it saddens me to say this, Michael Mukasey has not.

P.S. I really, really hope that the DOJ-arranged meeting Scott describes, between Mukasey and "movement conservatives," did not actually occur -- or that, if it did, Mukasey rebuked them in the strongest possible terms. If the account is accurate, it's pretty chilling.}

"The real reason why Judge Mukasey cannot say that waterboarding is illegal..."

Edited to add:


When is waterboarding not torture? When it interferes with Dick
Cheney’s and David Addington’s retirement plans.

[liberal N proud]

1. Banning the actions would not stop the bu$h regime

No one has held them accountable and they know that no one will hold them accountable and therefore see it as a license to violate any and all laws as they see fit.

[elehhhhna]

2. Why pass laws to make illegal actions illegal? Duh.

[ProSense]

3. Updated OP. n/t