Black Box Report

I mentioned recently that the only question left over Michael Mukasey confirmation as attorney general was which Democrat would stab their party in the back. Now we know. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has voted with Republicans so often she may as well change her name to "Josephine Lieberman," so that's no surprise. But Chuck Schumer? Talk Left's Jeralyn says he's the real disappointment:

Not because he is a progressive on criminal justice issues and this is a change of hat for him -- he isn't -- but because it seems like he voted for Mukasey just to avoid looking like a jerk for suggesting his name in the first place. In other words, he cares more about his reputation than what's good for the Justice Department.

Schumer defends his decision, that despite his furrowed brow, soul-searching and "deep concerns," he believes Mukasey is a "good man." What definition of "good man" is he talking about?

Have we reached the point in this country where a man can countenance torture and the shredding of the separation of powers, and still be called 'a good man'? At what point do we say 'no', such a man cannot be good? Is this now a partisan point of view?

Schumer defends his decision, saying Mukasey assured him privately (instead of on the record, during his confirmation hearing) that if Congress outlawed waterboarding, he'd enforce that law. Marty Lederman says, "Yeah, so what?"

That all sounds perfectly fine and reasonable...except, of course, that no such specifying law will ever be "in place," because the President, devoted to torture and cruelty, would veto it.

What Senator Schumer ought to do, therefore, is simple -- that is, if he truly cares about ending torture and cruel treatment: pledge to vote to confirm Judge Mukasey if and only if -- and after -- the President signs S.1943.

Hmmmm...S.1943. "A bill to establish uniform standards for interrogation techniques applicable to individuals under the custody or physical control of the United States Government." And it specifically outlaws waterboarding. Why, what a good idea! It's cagey, politically popular, and has the added benefit of being the right thing to do. Which is, of course, why it will never happen and why the bill languishes in the Judiciary Committee. Because this crop of Democrats just doesn't roll that way. Smart? Tough? Not these guys. (Granted, even if Schumer found a pair and pushed the bill through, and it passed with a veto-proof majority, you know Bush would add a signing statement and Dems would throw up their hands and say, "Well, that's that, then!" Still, y'know, it's the right thing to do.)

Schumer defends his decision because now is not the time for the Senate to make a "bold declaration" about torture and waterboarding. Shaun Mullen asks, "If not now, then when?"

There is nothing more important today than the fight over water-boarding. It is quite literally a fight for America's soul...

Here are my responses to each of Schumer’s rationalizations:

(1.) Yes, Main Justice is a mess, but putting its administrative house in order pales in comparison to calling out the president on torture.

(2.) It’s nice to know that he believes that Mukasey is a man of his word, but we know without question that the president is not. Nor is he about to cede any of the unprecedented power that he has grabbed.

(3.) When is it the time for the Senate to make “a bold declaration” about anything of consequence, let alone something so consequential as torture? The answer is evident: Not any time soon.

But the deeply ingrained Democratic instinct to roll over and play dead is, sadly, alive and well. Schumer says to keep Bush from getting everything he wants with a recess appointed AG, we have to give Bush everything he wants with Mukasey.

(Cue forehead slap)

You wanna know why congress is so unpopular, Chuck? That's why.