NUREMBERG MUKASEY?

So we can’t get Attorney General Mukasey to accept that certain actitivites may be unlawful. When discussing what constitutes torture AG Mukasey makes the following three arguments.

• He can’t say what constitutes torture because what we’re talking about is what “shocks the conscience” – and besides certain topics are secret.
• Certain acts may be permissible if the “relative benefit that might be gained” from the technique outweigh the act.
• If authority – or “certification” – was given the acts may not be illegal.

Great. Laws are (1) now a matter of judgment, (2) applicable depending on the information that might be gained, and (3) can be made legal, depending on who gave the order.

This seems pretty arbitrary to me. So why have any laws? Slate’s Dalhia Lithwick puts it more concretely: If the law has any purpose “it is to punish past bad acts and to alert people as to what types of conduct will be punished in the future ..." She adds "... the attorney general has just obliterated that purpose.” At least Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) had the good sense to tell AG Michael Mukasey that the “I had authorization and therefore I’m immune from prosecution” argument is reminiscent of the Nuremberg Defense.

Whew ... I’m relieved. I thought we were collapsing into the era of Rome’s Caligula under President Bush. It's good to know a U.S. Senator thinks it’s just the Nazis we're emulating. I feel better now.

- Mark