Senators Push Mukasey on Waterboarding

Jan. 30, 2008— -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey deflected sharp questions and pointed criticisms Wednesday, disappointing lawmakers who had hoped they could use his first hearing on Capitol Hill, since his confirmation, to tease out a legal stance on the harsh simulated drowning interrogation technique known as waterboarding.

Mukasey, who sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., late Tuesday in which he wrote "I do not think it would be responsible for me, as attorney general, to provide an answer" on the legality of waterboarding, spoke to the issue in his opening remarks.

"I have carefully reviewed the limited set of methods that are currently authorized for use in the CIA program and I've concluded that they are lawful," he said at the beginning of the nearly five-hour-long hearing.

"I'm aware that you and other members of the committee have asked specifically that I address the legality of waterboarding," Mukasey said. "I sought and I received authorization to disclose publicly, however, that waterboarding is not among the techniques currently authorized for use in the CIA program."

But the attorney general's prepared remarks and his letter, both sent to the committee in advance of the hearing, did not satisfy some members of the committee, who have pushed Mukasey for a specific declaration on the legality of waterboarding and long criticized the Bush administration's intelligence and surveillance policies.

Contending that "waterboarding has become the worldwide symbol for America's debate over the torture, and became the centerpiece of your confirmation hearing after you refused to take a position on whether it's lawful," Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., pressed Mukasey to make a determination on the issue.

"In fact, even though you claim to be opposed to torture, you refused to say anything whatever on the crucial questions of what constitutes torture, and who gets to decide the issue," Kennedy said. "It was like saying that you're opposed to stealing, but not quite sure whether bank robbery would qualify."