Opinion

Editorials are posted and archived on JNonline.us .

Editorial

Moving Beyond Restored Faith

F

or the second time in American
history, a beleaguered president
is turning to a respected Jewish
jurist to try and calm the waters in the
Justice Department.
The appointment of Michael Mukasey
as attorney general echoes the decision
by President Gerald Ford to name Edward
Levi to the post in 1975, after Watergate
had brought disrepute to the office.
Levi's task was monumental. But the
highly partisan Senate hearings for
Mukasey indicate his job will be no less
arduous. In the antagonistic atmosphere
that now defines Washington politics,
he will have a difficult time navigating a
course through the final year of the George
W. Bush administration.
His nomination nearly was derailed in
the Judiciary Committee over the issue
of waterboarding. Democratic senators
pressed him to define the practice as tor-
ture.
Mukasey demurred, only going so far as
to call the practice of using the threat of
drowning as an interrogation technique
, "repugnant." This drew the fury of the
party's left and led seven Democratic
members of the committee to vote against
sending his nomination to the full Senate.
But in a carefully orchestrated move, Sens.
Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein

announced they would support him and
the nomination proceeded to confirma-
tion.
Schumer had praised Mukasey for his
independence when his nomination was
first announced. He later explained that
he was the best that could be hoped for
and was a distinct improvement over his
predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, who was a
close political ally of Bush.
Mukasey has been described as a law-
yer's lawyer, able to separate his own views
from what the law says. As a federal judge,
he excoriated administration attorneys for
some of their actions in the case against
accused terrorist Jose Padilla.

He is known for his careful approach to
difficult questions and noted as a jurist
who respects statutes and precedents.
Legal scholars pointed out that if
Mukasey had defined waterboarding as
torture, he may have been accusing some
American officials of war crimes and
tacitly conceding that he had to prosecute
them upon taking office. He has said
in private conversations, according to
Schumer, that he would not shy away from
prosecuting cases of torture by American
forces.
The episode does illustrate the need
for a clear definition by Congress of what
constitutes torture. While waterboarding is

used for training some U.S. Special Forces,
they understand that the process will not
kill them.
That knowledge is not shared by enemy
prisoners subjected to it. Does that dis-
tinction make it torture?
What about sleep deprivation?
Subjection to constant noise and light? If
Congress wants to make use of its power
to go beyond political grandstanding, it
has that opportunity here.
As the first Jewish attorney general,
Levi did an excellent job of restoring faith
in the federal justice system. We wish
Mukasey the same success in his turn at
this vital job.

Forever Chelm by Michael Gilbert

RABBI, HOW f3A7 IS
(T (F800 DIP
LITTLE THING THAT
WAS SUST A TIN
(T GJR06.)G?

AND WHAT IF THAT
WELL,
LITTL-E THING KIND THEN 1'
OF SNOWBALLED
HAVE
(NTO A REALLY
To
BIG BAP, THING?
St.

HERE,
AND 1,0T5 OF PEOPLE
TAKE
SUSPECT YOU of
TWO
WRONG1201 N G, DESPITE TALMUDS
MANY PERFECTLY
AND CALL.
PLAUSIBLE
IN THE
DENIALS?
MORNING

AND WHAT (F 1-0T5

Reality Check

Working In The Dark

T

he one newspaper job I wish
I could have had was movie
reviewer.
I had some good ones — baseball
writer, travel editor, columnist. I'm not
complaining. But getting paid to go to the
movies strikes me as a very cool way to
make a living.
You don't have to travel or interview ath-
letes or receive anonymous messages from
infuriated readers who wish to dismember
you for disagreeing with their opinions.
You just sit in the dark and watch stuff.
I got to do it for a brief time at the Free
Press. My friend Larry DeVine went on
sabbatical for a month and asked me to fill
in for him as movie critic and restaurant
reviewer.
The restaurant part was baffling.
Larry was doing a column called "The
Anonymous Gourmet." I could be just as
anonymous as he was but the gourmet
part threw me.
I remain a highly experienced eater, but

food preparation and recipes are
things beyond my ken. It was the
only time in my career that I was
afflicted with writer's block, not
to mention acid stomach.
The movie part, though, was
fine. I forget which ones I was
called on to see. I know one of
them was part of the Airport
series, maybe the 1977 version. It
was just awful and so great fun
to write about.
Sometimes, though, I get the
feeling that a movie reviewer can stay on
the job too long. He forgets who he's writ-
ing for. It's understandable. He has to sit
through so much dreck, the junk intended
to make a killing on the weekend of its
release and then vanish down the cin-
ematic rat hole.
A lot of what comes his way also is
derivative, based on formulaic plots and
comic book characterizations. It can weigh
on one's soul.

So the reviewer starts to
look for the innovative, fresh,
experimental approach,
which is pretty much what
the average moviegoer does
not want to see. The cogno-
scenti will flock to such a
film. Other customers, uh-uh.
You really have to learn to
trust a film critic. One local
reviewer lost me years ago
when she blasted Patton for
not coming down unequivo-
cally as either a movie that glorified
war or opposed it. I thought that was its
point. It refused to make such easy judg-
ments.
Just a few weeks ago, one reviewer in the
Detroit dailies gave the new film American
Gangster three stars, while the other rated
it a C-minus. He said it reminded him
of too many other films that charted a
hoodlum's rise and fall.
But that's his problem. The material was

compelling, the acting was great and I sat
there with barely a fidget for two and a
half hours. This is a critic who may have
seen too much.
That movie was the top earner on the
weekend of its release. What puzzles me,
though, is how a superior film such as
Michael Clayton, with a box office champ
like George Clooney in the title role, can-
not find an audience. This literate film
about the moral choices that lawyers
— and not only lawyers but everyone who
pursues a back road to success — must
make was wonderful.
But there is Saw 4 at the top of the
charts and Michael Clayton languishing
near the bottom.
On second thought, maybe the review-
er's job is not for me. I wouldn't see Saw 4
with a gun at my head. I just don't care for
stories about home improvements. Li

George Cantor's e-mail address is

gcantor614@aol.com

November 15 • 2007

A31

