Mukasey to Congress: Do Not Interfere

If Attorney General Michael Mukasey's response to Congress (rejecting calls for information on the destruction of CIA interrogation video tapes) is a sign of his independence, as he says, he has an obstructionist's way of going about it. Indeed, if by independence he means from congressional oversight rather than from the administration, then we can brace ourselves for continued official ethical and moral degradation.
Mukasey's letter to Senate and House committee leaders said, in part,:

"The department has a long-standing policy of declining to provide nonpublic information about pending matters. This policy is based in part on our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence."

Not a promising statement (and was it presented with a straight face?) given that law enforcement decisions have been subject to political influence. Indeed, that's entirely the point. Congressional oversight is essential because of political interference at the Justice Department. Yet even more disturbing was his comment, in rejecting calls for a special prosecutor, that he was "aware of no facts at present" that would justify such a need. Apparently, the fact that the CIA interrogation tapes were destroyed doesn't constitute a "fact" that would justify such a move.

Another indication, should one be needed, that Mukasey's assertion of independence is questionable, was the White House threat to veto House legislation outlawing waterboarding. The administration objects to "the interrogation provision and other sections that would increase congressional oversight," says McClatchy reporter Renee Schoof. It's striking that the executive branch objects to the interrogation restriction since "the legislation would require the CIA and other intelligence agencies to use only interrogation techniques authorized for the military in the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations." It seems that's not sufficient for an administration that, despite a growing mountain of evidence (at least that which hasn't been destroyed) to the contrary, repeatedly insists "the United States does not torture."

It would be useful to look at the army manual and its prohibitions:

If used in conjunction with intelligence interrogations, prohibited actions include, but are not limited to—
•
Forcing the detainee to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner.
•
Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a detainee; using duct tape over the eyes.
•
Applying beatings, electric shock, burns, or other forms of physical pain.
•
“Waterboarding.”
•
Using military working dogs.
•
Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.
•
Conducting mock executions.
• Depriving the detainee of necessary food, water, or medical care.


And yet the Justice Department, with astonishing, mind-bending arrogance, calls on Congress to delay its investigations into the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes, arguing that the House Intelligence Committee's investigation created unidentified "significant risks" to the department's investigation. Mukasey, it seems, doesn't want Congressional "meddling."
House members Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) responded by saying "there is no basis upon which the attorney general can stand in the way of our work." It remains to be seen whether they'll succumb to his suggestion that they sit quietly and await his unbiased and objective report.

As Senate Republicans obediently move to strip out the language in the House legislation related to waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation techniques" (in the words of the White House), it's likely the House bill won't retain the appropriate restrictions against such abuse. God forbid, the last thing we need is a clutch of Republican senators exercising even a scintilla of independence from the administration.
The question now before Congress is, again, will it stand tall and pursue its oversight duties as required by the Constitution? Or will it, again, stand silent and passive in the face of a monstrous and lawless administration?