Michael Mukasey attempted to advance his stalled nomination for attorney general Tuesday by giving Congress a written statement discussing the legality of waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

Mukasey submitted a four-page legalistic discussion that did not give Democrats what they were demanding: a succinct statement on whether waterboarding is akin to torture.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who has jurisdiction over the nomination, said that Mukasey’s letter did not satisfy his concerns.

“Based on an initial review of his response to the letter, I remain very concerned that Judge Mukasey finds himself unable to state unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and below the standards and values of the United States,” said Leahy.

Mukasey sent his letter to Congress Tuesday in response to a request signed by all 10 Democrats on Judiciary that he answer directly the question of whether waterboarding is torture.

A senior Senate Democrat told The Hill Tuesday that Mukasey’s nomination had no chance of passing the Judiciary Committee if he declined to classify the interrogation technique, which simulates drowning, as torture.

Intelligence officials have admitted to waterboarding captured members of al Qaeda. The Bush administration has battled to have as much freedom as possible in its treatment of terrorist detainees.

The conflict between Bush and Congress is putting Mukasey in a bind. If he refuses to condemn the practice as torture, Democrats might block his nomination. However, giving in to Democrats might put him in a position as attorney general in which he has to strip the U.S. intelligence community of an interrogation technique considered necessary by the Bush administration.

Mukasey informed senators that his legal opinion on waterboarding would depend on the facts and circumstances of the program and reminded them that he had not been briefed on the government’s interrogation program and techniques.

Mukasey wrote that it would be irresponsible “for me to seek confirmation by providing an uninformed legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances.”

“I will review any coercive interrogation techniques currently used by the United States Government and the legal analysis authorizing their use to assess whether such techniques comply with the law,” he wrote, adding that, if he finds a practice to violate the law, he would immediately advise President Bush of his finding.

Senators have also submitted to Mukasey a list of written questions to augment his testimony earlier this month before the Judiciary panel. The extra questions touch on issues such as terrorist interrogation, terrorist surveillance, the firings of U.S. attorneys, civil rights and law enforcement.

Leahy said he would await Mukasey’s answers to these questions and then consult with Judiciary Committee ranking Republican Arlen Specter (Pa.) and other committee members before scheduling a vote.