MUKASEY: That's a direct question, and I will give a direct answer.

No, I am not, for this reason: Whatever was done as part of a CIA program at the time that it was done was the subject of a Department of Justice opinion through the Office of Legal Counsel and was found to be permissible under the law as it existed then.

For me to use the occasion of the disclosure that that technique was once part of the CIA program -- an authorized part of the CIA program, would be for me to tell anybody who relied, justifiably, on a Justice Department opinion that not only may they no longer rely on that Justice Department opinion, but that they
will now be subject to criminal investigation for having done so.

That would put in question not only that opinion, but also any other opinion from the Justice Department.

Essentially, it would tell people: "You rely on a Justice Department opinion as part of a program, then you will be subject to criminal investigation when, as and if the tenure of the person who wrote the position changes or, indeed, the political winds change." And that's not something that I think would be appropriate and it's not something I will do.

Law is subject to interpretation when specifics are absent. In this case we see that much of the law pertaining to dealing with terror suspects is open to interpretation and has not been fleshed out. Intent to break a law matters when the law is not specific. Investigations require the evidence of wrongdoing or intent for a prosecuter to proceed with an investigation. Since the law did not specifically prohibit waterboarding terror subjects there is no evidence of wrongdoing. That leaves the prosecutor to make a judgment call about intent. And it's clear he feels, after reviewing the counsel's opinion, and the framework of the law it relates to, that the agents did not intend to break the law and, in fact, were not breaking any laws.

So he has stated he will not prosecute.

Waterboarding was not clearly illegal. Now legislators and others want to imply or interpret the law different from the Justice Department. That's all swell and fine, but it can't be used as a tool to retroactively prosecute people who were at the time following the law as the Justice Department lawyers opined at an earlier time.

It's really not that complicated. For folks who want to see a political witchhunt, to boost their own power, and for those Americans who don't really believe terrorists are bad guys and that America deserved 9/11 , naturally it becomes more complicated.