Remember the rule of law? Pretty vague memory, isn't it? - Updated

Smintheus at Daily Kos discusses Attorney General Mukasey's testimony:

The answer that waterboarding him personally would constitute torture puts Mukasey in line with DNI McConnell.

Funny though that in his answer to Kennedy, Mukasey doesn't need to know any further circumstances to make that decision. He's been claiming that torture is situational; certain circumstances make waterboarding legal. But with regard to himself, he doesn't hesitate to issue an opinion without even the slightest quibbling about possible circumstances.

That seems to imply that waterboarding Michael Mukasey would be torture under any conceivable circumstances - because he's innocent of wrongdoing. And yet none of the people who've been tortured by the CIA under George Bush's orders had been convicted of anything. The presumption of innocence is the very foundation of our law. Neither George Bush nor Michael Mukasey is in any position to rule that none of the prisoners might conceivably be innocent. They haven't attempted to assert that power. These and other prisoners of course remain innocent before the law until found guilty of some crime.

Essentially Michael Mukasey is declaring: No, you may torture other innocent people but never me. He is what passes these days for America's lawyer.

SSJOAS!

It would have been nice if the Senate of the United States of America had told the Sociopath-in-Chief that they would NEVER confirm anyone as Attorney General who would not unequivocally acknowledge that waterboarding is torture and therefore illegal. Of course, Bush could not do that, because we know we've waterboarded and if we admit that it's torture then it would follow, as the night the day, that the maladministration is guilty of violating the law. Which, my friends, the whole world already knows. We have a lawless thug in the Oval Office who has been turning the United States into a rogue nation.

Oh look! Britney got 52-50ed. [No, I am not going to provide a link; y'all have better things to think about.]

UPDATE:
Scott Horton has a great article up at Harper's about Mukasey's appearance. It really captures a lot of the issues and makes them quite clear. I recommend reading the whole thing.

Horton cites "Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin’s summation of the Mukasey testimony:"

You’re crazy if you think I’m going to admit that any of the interrogation practices previously performed by the Administration that just hired me are illegal. Saying that would suggest that people in the Administration violated the law and are subject to criminal prosecution, and that previous OLC opinions have condoned war crimes. The only thing I will tell you is that I sure hope we don’t continue one of these practices in the future (lucky for me you haven’t pressed me about the others!). But don’t ask me to say that the President can’t do any of them later on if he wants to. I mean, come on, guys, I just got here, you know? I just put new drapes in my office. I really don’t want to have to get fired only three months after I started. Oh, and by the way, the President, my boss, never violates the law. Got that?

There you have it: our American democracy gone down the tubes. Drawing toward his conclusion, Horton writes:

Mukasey promised a new rapport with Congress and with the American public, and he promised to restore the integrity for which the Justice Department was once famous. At this point he’s made a few positive personnel moves and given a few encouraging speeches, but when we come back to a focus on the major issues that he was forced to confront in the second day of his confirmation hearing, there is precious little to separate his opinions and conduct from his tarnished predecessor, Alberto Gonzales.

h/t to Smintheus at Daily Kos for the Horton tip.

--the BB