Hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary- Mark Up to Vote on the Nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States

Statement

Hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary- Mark Up to Vote on the Nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have had the chance to say my piece on the floor of the Senate and on -- the last speaker in the committee, and a lot of very senior and distinguished senators are still waiting, so I will speak briefly. But there are a number of points that I wish to make.

The first is to agree with the senators who have spoken today that Michael Mukasey is highly qualified for this position, that he is evidently a very fine man, and that he is assertedly and probably quite independent.

I do have one hesitation when I say that, though, and that has to do with Judge Mukasey's difficulty answering a very direct question about waterboarding. And I think that there is room for question as to whether that was a display of a reasonable judicial reticence or whether this candidate for nomination had been vetted by the Bush White House and instructed that this was a no-fly zone and that he was not to give the answer that his legal brilliance, his candor, his logic would all lead him to. Instead, he was to give the answer that he gave.

I would like to associate myself with the remarks Senator Feinstein has made about the Department of Justice, and those of Senator Schumer. Clearly, there are grave issues at the Department of Justice, and it is a matter of urgency that capable, honorable leadership be put in place there.

I would also take a moment to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Graham. I think his remarks about America being a country that is strengthened when it follows its laws and strengthened when it manifests its values is -- was beautifully stated and is vitally important.

The reason that I voted against Judge Mukasey is that I feel that the discussion about torture that we have had has provided the opportunity for this country to have a moment of clarity about what should be a simple and clear proposition, and I'm afraid that by allowing this nomination to proceed, we will lose that moment of clarity. I don't think we can look to this administration to provide that moral clarity to the world.

Unfortunately, it is my belief that when Vice President Cheney, for instance, gets on the television and tells the world that we do not torture, around the world far too many people believe not only that we torture, but that we lie. And so Congress has the chance to provide that moment of moral clarity that I think is important.

No one, I doubt, feels the harm to the Department of Justice more than I do. I've served as United States attorney, and the calling that that department represents is very, very, very important to me, to this country and to the values that we share. So I am very deeply torn to have voted against this nominee, but I do see a nation under the Bush administration that is on a slow and sickening slide from the "city on a hill" that earlier presidents talked about. We have compromised our values; we have disregarded our Constitution; we have degraded our standing in the world. And people died for this stuff.

So in some respects, it is a sacrifice for the department of Justice, and that pains me and grieves me, but in pursuit of that moment of clarity, there can be a signal to the rest of the world that the fires of our values still burn alive in American hearts. I have voted against this candidate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source