Bush: 'I Am Relevant'

The Washington Post editorial board asks: "Does Mr. Mukasey believe that Rasul v. Bush, in which the Supreme Court found that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base had the right to challenge their detentions, was decided correctly? Would Mr. Mukasey support legislation, pending in Congress, to restore the habeas rights of those detainees? If not, why not?

"As attorney general, Mr. Mukasey would be responsible for authorizing surveillance of U.S. citizens who were overseas and believed to be involved in foreign espionage or terrorism. What legal standards and laws would Mr. Mukasey rely on to determine whether such a surveillance request was appropriate?

"Would he strictly apply U.S. laws and Supreme Court rulings to determine whether CIA interrogation techniques were appropriate? Would he share that guidance with Congress? Does he believe such methods as 'waterboarding' and sleep deprivation are lawful? Should they be?"

The New York Times editorial board asks: "Will he lead an investigation of the still-festering United States attorneys scandal? Will he cooperate with Congressional investigators, make documents available and seek to obtain testimony from Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, who have made baseless claims of executive privilege?

"How will he ensure that his staff's loyalty is to justice, not to the president's political team -- especially since many of the top lawyers are 'loyal Bushies' hired by the old regime? . . .

"What will he do to ensure that the right of minorities to vote is protected and that the department is not used, as it has been recently, to pursue false charges of voter fraud?"

The New York Times op-ed page solicits questions from several experts.

Jack L. Goldsmith, Harvard law professor and former Justice official asks: "In 2002 the Department of Justice opined, 'Any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogations of battlefield combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the commander-in-chief authority in the president.' Do you agree with this statement? How do you define the scope of the president's exclusive military powers?"

Jenny S. Martinez, a Stanford law professor who represented Jose Padilla before the Supreme Court in 2004, asks: "Do you believe the president is legally obliged to comply with federal statutes if he thinks compliance in a particular instance would harm national security? What about the Geneva Conventions and other treaties ratified by the Senate?"

Yale law professor and blogger Jack M. Balkin asks: "Secret laws are inconsistent with democratic self-government. What steps will you take to ensure that members of Congress and the public can obtain secret opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel that explain the executive branch's views about the legal limits of interrogation practices and surveillance programs? Will you ensure that members of Congress have at least as much knowledge about our surveillance practices as employees of privately owned telecommunications companies?"

Legal blogger Marty Lederman asks: "If an enemy of the United States captured non-uniformed U.S. personnel, such as intelligence officers, and interrogated them using some combination of severe stress positions, hypothermia, threats, and prolonged sleep and sensory deprivation, would you conclude that the U.S. persons had been subjected to torture or to 'cruel treatment' prohibited by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, or would you say that the enemy had acted lawfully?"

Justice Watch

Dan Eggen and John Solomon write in The Washington Post: "The Justice Department under the Bush administration has retreated from prosecutions of mobsters, white-collar criminals, environmental crimes and traditional civil rights infractions, new department data show.