WASHINGTON – Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey refused Thursday to rule out a controversial method of interrogating overseas terrorism suspects and declined to place limits on President Bush’s authority to eavesdrop without warrants.

As his confirmation hearings drew to a close, Mukasey’s comments before the Senate Judiciary Committee left open the possibility that he would endorse the same policies that critics accused his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, of authorizing or sanctioning.

In one exchange, Mukasey didn’t respond clearly to questions about torture. While Mukasey has condemned the use of torture, he wouldn’t say whether waterboarding should be deemed illegal.

“If it amounts to torture, it is not constitutional,” he told Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.

“I’m very disappointed in that answer,” Whitehouse shot back. “I think it is purely semantic.”

What the administration considers torture has yet to be made clear. President Bush has declined to comment on specific interrogation techniques, saying only that the United States doesn’t torture. The White House hasn’t indicated whether it would permit methods such as waterboarding, which entails pouring water on a prisoner’s face to trigger the gag reflex.

Mukasey has denounced a 2002 Justice Department memo on interrogation methods that Gonzales endorsed. The memo concluded that the president could authorize policies that violated international and U.S. laws banning torture.

After the memo was widely repudiated, a presidential executive order later set new limits on interrogation, but continued to allow harsh treatment that critics charge could include waterboarding.

Administration officials said they couldn’t comment on specific interrogation methods.

Several times during the hearing, Democrats appeared frustrated with Mukasey’s answers, saying they were troubled that he wouldn’t object to unchecked executive powers in the name of the war on terror.

“I am concerned that you leave some opening that different parts of our government may be held to different standards, or that some may be authorized to act outside the law,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman.

Senators pressed Mukasey to reject the justification for a previous spying program that allowed the administration to eavesdrop on overseas calls without warrants – contrary to laws that require oversight by a secret surveillance court.

The White House has since shifted its position, saying that it went to the court to secure approval of the program and would no longer eavesdrop without warrants.

Mukasey, however, left open the possibility that the president’s executive powers might allow him to act contrary to the law.


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.