I've heard and seen the recurring talking point in several newscasts or AP stories that Mukasey has stated that waterboarding is illegal in the Uniform Military Code of Justice and by extension that therefore "the United States does not torture."

If I am not mistaken, the CIA is not covered by the Military Code. Therefore this whole talking point is moot since we're talking about the CIA and what they do in their secret camps.

I think that those of us opposing this nomination should make sure that we push back very clearly on this issue and allow a "bait and switch" here, granting wavering Democratic Senators an escape hatch to just let the nomination pass.

I know it's too little and possibly too late...

But I still find any opposition at all heartening. The Congress has failed us and failed us badly-- but I'm glad they're at least putting up some fight. -- Persia

Is that really how you view it? Because I think you might want to rethink that. If they were putting up an actual fight there would be no question about whether this authoritarian judge would have any hope of being confirmed. In fact, is there any logical reason that the Democrats are in a position to have to put up a fight? Aren't the Democrats in control of this situation? Couldn't they have said "don't even bother coming because there isn't a snowballs chance in hell you will be confirmed?"

I think your willingness to see them as "at least putting up some fight" speaks to what Glenn just wrote about. Even we (sane people) have internalized this new "state of the nation." Even we find it normal that the man made it past the first day. Even we find it "normal" that he was nominated in the first place. That is the larger problem, no?

The government has spent nearly twice as much providing personal security for the Bush nominee than any other judge in his position. Does that mean he is already part of the shadow government which Cheney runs? One assumes security is merely protection, until of course you want to travel without being noticed.

Waterboarding is nothing but an act of pure sadism. Those who permit and enable it in any way are sick sadists. To express "reservations" about Mukasey's de-dacto support of this sadistic act is morally as pathetic and bankrupt as expressing reservations about the Nazi atrocities. Instead of this wimpy, halfhearted whimper, there should have been a unified, unequivocal statement from the Democratic caucus that Mukasey's nomination was dead because of his refusal to unequivocally condemn a sadistic and highly criminal act sanctioned by the US government.

Mukasey's refusal to say that the President is bound by statute - i.e., by the law - strikes at the heart of the Constitution, and is far more dangerous than his failure to classify waterboarding as torture, deplorable as that is. Yet we're not hearing a peep from Democrats about that issue.

Regardless of whether it actually accomplishes anything in terms of curtailing U.S. policy regarding enhanced interrogation techniques, a failure to stoke support for Mukasey's rejection also holds symbolic significance. It is certainly possible for the tools of totalitarianism to be enabled in a democracy, but that doesn't excuse a failure to use the tools of democracy to resist.

I'll support anyone, any time, who takes a stand against torture. This is why I welcome the fact that a few Democrats have seemingly located their consciences, a critical faculty that has recently been conspicuous by its absence.

I have no idea what motivates the Democrats individually or collectively. Not possessing the personal qualities necessary to be a successful politician, I can't begin to understand this breed.

Anything that is an attempt to turn back the tide sweeping this country back toward barbarism, is welcome to me. Perhaps I am naive and this is just a cynical move, meant to score some political points with the Democratic base. Whatever. I continue to hope that the tide will turn, that together the American people and the Congress will repudiate the shameful policies of this administration. If the refusal to confirm Mukasey is a step in that direction, I welcome it.

Dear Mr. Greenwald:

Is it possible that the reason for this sudden backbone on the part of the Democrats has something to do with the Democratic candidates' positions?

I recall that some time ago you mentioned how polls repeatedly supported the analysis that the American public condemned torture and illegal wiretapping, and that every time the Democrats caved to Republicans on those issues their positive numbers dropped.

Presumably each candidate now has their own quasi-independent poll analysis teams- teams that no longer take their cues directly from the same clump of people informing, say, Harry Reid and Rahm Immanuel. That would increase the likelihood that someone in those teams would challenge the party's main poll analysts, and as a consequence at some point one or two of the candidates might have signalled to Reid or others that their caving in was shooting the Democrats' electoral chances in the foot.

This is, of course, pure speculation on my part, but I have read campaign notices by Barack Obama and Chris Dodds stating flatly that they oppose grants of telecom amnesty, so it is not beyond considering.

So am I just grasping at straws here, or is this a realistic possibility?

I agree with what you say about the behavior of Democrats in the past on the torture issue. I can't help but hold out hope, though, that this time, Sheldon Whitehouse's question on waterboarding has put the Bush administration in a corner. By demanding no less than a statement that waterboarding is torture and therefore unconstitutional, the Democrats put Mukasey in an impossible place. He knows that the Bush administration has made waterboarding quasi-legal through its secret memos, and that those who have engaged in waterboarding have received quasi-immunity. (We all know this). So he can't say it is unconstitutional or illegal without jeopardizing that part of the Bush administration's secret structure. But he also cannot come out and say that waterboarding, which is so obviously a practice of repeatedly simulating the death of the prisoner, is constitutional.

There's nothing Mukasey can say on this. Let's just hope that the Democrats don't back down.