The headline in the liberal Los Angeles Times read "Mukasey's reply draws more fire", while the more-liberal-if-that's-possible NY Times reported "Mukasey Calls Harsh Interrogation ‘Repugnant’"...putting aside their strong desire to skewer a Bush nominee in order to support Chuck Schumer.

Clearly, liberals, including the beyond-liberal Patrick Leahy didn't enjoy Attorney-General nominee Michael Mukasey's refusal to categorically call waterboarding illegal, despite his saying that he found such harsh interrogation techniques to be "over the line" and "repugnant."

Waterboarding, which involves tying a person down on a board, usually inclined with head lower than feet, covering the face or the mouth and nose, and then pouring water on the person's head to make the person feel like he is drowning or suffocating, has been the subject of debate for some time.

It is more of a political issue than a serious question, in my view: According to the NY Times, "A knowledgeable official said on Tuesday that waterboarding was used on three prisoners, the last time in 2003."

While I freely admit that waterboarding is one of the last things I'd want to go through, it's a bit difficult for me to think of it as torture on a par with beatings, long-term solitary confinement (especially in a very small space), electric shock, and other things which are much more likely to leave long-term physical or mental damage. Basically, it's hard to imagine that scaring the hell out of someone without actually doing physical damage to him is obviously "torture". I am not saying that the Supreme Court wouldn't rule so if such a case ever got to them (not that they have jurisdiction in such matters), given that they also said that non-state ununiformed terrorists deserve Geneva Conventions protections. But I am saying that Mukasey is right to say, as reported in the LA Times article above, "As described in your letter, these techniques seem over the line or, on a personal basis, repugnant to me, and would probably seem the same to many Americans. But hypotheticals are different from real life, and in any legal opinion the actual facts and circumstances are critical. Any discussion of coercive interrogation techniques necessarily involves a discussion of and a choice among bad alternatives. I was and remain loath to discuss and opine on any of those alternatives at this stage."

As presidential candidates Biden (a member of the Judiciary Committee which is questioning Mukasey) and Clinton weigh in against Mukasey, it will be interesting to see how many of the Committee's Democrats are willing to go against Chuck Schumer, a senior and powerful Senator who is in touch with many big money donors from Wall Street. It is quite interesting to see that Schumer's name is never mentioned in the LA Times article and only noted in passing in the NY Times article as the person who suggested Mukasey for the job.

The Judiciary Committee membership is 10-9 Democrat. If the rest of the Democrats decide to vote against Mukasey, something entirely possible given the exceptionally liberal group of Democrats on that committee, it will be fascinating to watch Chuck Schumer try to decide how to vote. If all the Republicans will support Mukasey, you will see Schumer cast the tie-breaking vote. I hesitate to predict which way he'll vote, but my guess is that if that situation arises, he will vote against Mukasey and give a press conference with a long face saying how the nominee had disappointed him.

If that happens, it will be time for some serious political hardball by President Bush, making the Democrats look as bad as they deserve to look for obstructing a nominee of the highest qualifications and reputation over his being unwilling to give an uninformed answer about an interrogation method which probably has not been used by Americans in several years despite our being in a real war against real enemies who are willing to die as long as Americans die with them.