|
 So far, Mukasey has told senators he will reject any White House meddling in Justice Department matters and resign if his legal or ethical concerns about administration policy are ignored.
Senators of both parties liked most of what they have heard. Republicans even grinned at his answer when Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., asked him whether he also would challenge the Democratic-led Congress if need be.
"I'm not a bashful person," Mukasey replied during the proceedings Wednesday in his second day of confirmation hearings. "I'm not going to become a bashful person if confirmed."
Senate confirmation seemed all but certain, but members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have more questions for him.
Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he would query the former federal judge on his views of the administration's position on executive privilege. The issue arose when presidential counsel Fred Fielding declared certain White House documents and information off-limits under the privilege.
Mukasey on Wednesday gave a hint of his posture on the issue. While he sees valid reasons for declaring executive privilege, his reaction to some of the White House's rationale was, "Huh?"
Ranking Republican Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he also would have questions about whether Mukasey believes the Justice Department can live with a legal shield for reporters against being forced to reveal sources in federal court. Again, Mukasey gave a glimpse of his opinion a day earlier, saying he had significant concerns about the legislation pending in the Senate. But he did not endorse or reject the proposal.
Also expected to come up are questions about who Mukasey might choose to fill an array of empty senior positions at Justice, legal rights for terrorism suspects, more about the president's eavesdropping program, problems at Justice's Civil Rights Division and proposed reforms in the Freedom of Information Act.
Right from the start of his confirmation hearings, Mukasey made clear that he would keep partisan politics out of federal law enforcement, a stark contrast with how the 110,000-employee agency operated under the man he would succeed, Alberto Gonzales.
Appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan, Mukasey, 66, said he would review opinions issued by the department's Office of Legal Counsel to make sure they are legally sound. He described as "defective" a 2002 memo that defended the Bush administration's use of torture techniques against terrorism suspects.
"It purported to justify measures based on broad grants of authority that were unnecessary," he told the panel Wednesday
Likewise, on politics, Mukasey said he would discourage his prosecutors from bringing charges against political candidates shortly before elections and would not let party loyalty be a consideration for people applying for Justice Department jobs.
[to top of second column] |
 "That's the standard I'm going to make very clear, very precise, and I'm going to enforce," Mukasey said.
It was a far cry from the policies Gonzales allowed before he resigned in September after months of criticism and questions about his honesty.
An internal Justice Department investigation is looking into whether Gonzales lied to lawmakers about the administration's terror programs and illegally let politics influence hiring and firing of Justice Department employees. Gonzales, a close friend of President Bush and a former Texas Supreme Court justice, has denied any wrongdoing.
Lawmakers of both parties liked most of what they heard, but Mukasey did not emerge unscathed from the four hours of questioning.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., criticized him for writing a 2004 speech that derided criticism of the USA Patriot Act as "recreational hysteria." He also described as "somewhat troubling" Mukasey's reluctance to say whether he thinks the administration's terrorism surveillance program crossed the legal boundaries of a 1978 law setting limits on government spying in the United States.
Mukasey said he has not seen details of the surveillance program or other classified Bush administration policies and could not provide an educated answer. He responded similarly to other pointed questions about indefinitely detaining terror suspects and torture methods.
"Judge Mukasey, you're punting now," Specter chastised during a legally technical discussion about rights given to detainees.
Mukasey said he wanted to be careful talking about a legal argument currently being considered by the Supreme Court.
"I'm going to have to do what I was told to do when I was a kid," Mukasey said, "which is,
'I have to watch my mouth about this.'"
[Associated Press; by Laurie
Kellman]
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.
 |
