Democrats welcomed Michael Mukasey as a "consensus choice" for Attorney General only weeks ago, but incredibly his confirmation is now an open question. The judge's supposed offense is that he has refused to declare "illegal" a single interrogation technique that the CIA has used on rare occasions against mass murderers.Read the whole thing.
All of the Democratic Presidential candidates have come out against the distinguished judge, and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee appear ready to block his nomination from even reaching the Senate floor. This is remarkable not for what it says about Judge Mukasey but for what it reveals about Democrats and the war on terror. They'd disqualify a man of impeccable judicial temperament and credentials merely because he's willing to give U.S. interrogators the benefit of the legal doubt before he has top-secret clearance.
Could there be a clearer demonstration of why voters don't trust Democrats with national security? In the war against al Qaeda, interrogation and electronic surveillance are our most effective weapons. Yet Democrats have for years waged a guerrilla war against both of these tools, trying to impose procedural and legal limits that can only reduce their effectiveness. Judge Mukasey is merely collateral damage in this larger effort.
The editors make a powerful case that the Democrats' Mukasey fight is being driven not by calculations of what's best for American national security, but by the need to pander to the party's antiwar base.
In any case, the good news this afternoon is that key Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are backing Mukasey's appointment, which means the nominee will likely gain confirmation (maybe Senate Democrats read the Wall Street Journal).
For additional commentary, check Memorandum. For a prototypical demonization of both the Bush administration's anti-terror agenda and Judge Mukasey, check the comments from the left's foremost surrender hawk, Glenn Greenwald.
No comments:
Post a Comment