The New York Times and Washington Post both front articles on the role played by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the President's current nominee for Attorney General, in the creation of several controversial legal memoranda surrounding the status of detainees, application of the Geneva Conventions, and the use of "coercive interrogation" tactics that may or may not be torture. The front-page stories come one day before Mr. Gonzales appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee in confirmation hearings for the post of AG. Senators on both sides of the aisle, but mostly Democrats, have pledged to ask him hard questions about what role he played in this process, although it's widely expected that Mr. Gonzales will tapdance out of any hard questions or assert a litany of privileges to the questions.

Also, former OLC chief Doug Kmiec, who now teaches at Pepperdine University law school, has a hard-hitting oped in support of Mr. Gonzales in today's Wall Street Journal (subscription required). The oped hems and haws a bit, but tries to argue that Mr. Gonzales used the Office of Legal Counsel precisely as it should've been used — and that the great wisdom here was that they corrected their mistakes once made. It's an interesting argument... but I'm not sure that I buy it.

In the final analysis — It's all but certain that the Senate will give its advice and consent to Mr. Gonzales' nomination. Despite the serious questions about his background, and past legal work in the public and private sector, I think this issue has already been decided. He wins on a straight party-line vote; he probably also pulls some Democrats, particularly those who care about Latino support. Blocking Mr. Gonzales' nomination will not do the Democrats any good in the short run or the long run. Nonetheless, the Democrats ought to lead the Senate in exercising its Constitutional duties of oversight via the confirmation process. By and large, this administration has operated its legal war on terrorism out of the public view, and without public debate, since Sept. 11. There are broad policy questions that deserve such debate, and which can be effectively aired during these hearings, in my opinion. Moreover, even if the Senate does not torpedo this nomination, it can still do some good by asking these questions and using the confirmation process as a tool by which to scrutinze conduct which the Bush administration has claimed to be their executive prerogative (and unscrutinizable by anyone — Congress or the courts) since Sept. 11. The Senate has both the right and the duty to ask Mr. Gonzales the tough questions, and it must do so.