ROBERTS (CNN): Ed, you said a second ago that you can't confirm or deny whether waterboarding has been used. It's widely held waterboarding is what broke Khalid Sheik Muhammad to get him to divulge all of the information he had. What is your sense? Is waterboarding legal?
GILLESPIE(White House Counselor): The fact is that those who have been briefed on the program in the United States Senate, members of the Intelligence Committee, and others who are familiar with the program have said that it is legal. And those are the ones who have a basis to know. The fact is the government doesn't confirm techniques regardless of whether they're used or not used. No rule in or out because the idea is not to help terrorists who mean to do us harm.
Judge Mukasey remains linguistically challenged after expending four pages dodging the question of whether he thinks waterboarding is torture in his written response to Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy's request for clarification on the issue. Time reports that if he"refuses to declare waterboarding expressly illegal, he looks likely to be rejected by the Judiciary Committee" Bravo. How can the nation's chief federal law enforcement officer be soft on a morally repugnant and clearly illegal government activity and still have the credibility to enforce the law? Of course the answer is, he cannot. This is a litmus test that really means something.
The NY Times spins the justification that Judge Mukasey, by refusing to make a categorical conclusion in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee, may be attempting to avoid prejudicing any future defense government agents might have to erect against possible civil lawsuits or criminal prosecutions. What binding legal effect his personal opinion could have prior to becoming Attorney General in such possible legal proceedings is unclear and even speculative. Legal experts point out that CIA agents received legal protection in 2005 from Congress for torture acts they may have committed pursuant to government authorization.