Tweet
So here’s where Lindsey Graham shows Rahm Emanuel that he represents some value-added on detainee issues to the Obama administration.
John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced a bill today — the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010 — that authorizes indefinite detention without charge for terrorism detainees. (Or, as McCain put it, “authorize detention of enemy belligerents without criminal charges for the duration of the hostilities consistent with standards under the law of war which have been recognized by the Supreme Court.”) While McCain and Lieberman are usually Graham’s main Senate allies on security stuff, look what Graham told Fox:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), an Air Force Reserves Judge Advocate General, told Fox he usually “understands what John and Joe are trying to do,” but he added, “I just don’t feel comfortable with it. There is a role for the civilian courts to play.”
And that’s what we call water-carrying. Graham’s opposition should be enough to cut the bill off at the pass.
It’s that kind of evening and I’m in that kind of mood, so I’m going to ask just how much water Graham actually carried. This bill was never going to pass, although, in fairness, it could have been (or might still be!) politically troublesome as long as the Democrats choose to remain supine on security issues. So now Graham visibly goes to bat for the administration’s right to try detainees in the federal courts — yes, this is how far we’ve sunk — and so Rahm gets to use that in internal discussions with, like, Eric Holder and David Axelrod for why all roads to closing Guantanamo Bay go through the stand-up G Lindsey Graham. You can almost feel that military commission for KSM coming closer… closer… closer…
You don’t think McCain and Lieberman teed up Graham for this, do you? Naahhhhh…. (Like I said, it’s that kind of night.)
17 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
The idea that closeted Lindsay Graham is taken seriously on any military matters whatsoever is very offensive. Only a bully like Rahm could make use of such a weasel for his own purposes.
May be that kind of night, but your suspicions seem spot on to me.
I feel so … used.
Interesting.
If John McCain had been elected president, would Lindsay Graham have any MORE influence over detainee policy, Gitmo closing, and terror trials than he does today?
There’s a lot of conceptual build-up and knock-down going on in this post that has no necessary connection to actual things in the world, nevertheless the basic proposition is plausible. By and large, it just sounds like Attackerman is not entirely sure what he makes of the whole Graham-Rahm-GTMO-MilComs story. It’s interesting to watch.
Whether this is an elaborate feint of some kind on Graham’s part, isn’t the broad outline of the deal fairly clear: Graham delivers Gitmo closure in exchange for Military Commissions? If this is meant to influence the terms of that deal, what are the stakes at play? Graha says he sees a role for Article II courts. Is it to give him the call on just what that role is?
Word on the street is that Obama is now thinking military tribunals afterall. Oh the shock. After repeatedly being told on blog after blog that Holder is “independant” and doesn’t take orders from Obama, it should be interesting to see just how independant he truly is. Will there be screams from the left as there were with Bush and his puppet? There sure as hell should be.
The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010 goes directly against the language, spirit and intent of the United States Constitution and even the current Roberts Supreme Court must find it illegal. Enacting it or even debating it would be a colossal waste of effort in a Senate that can’t pass legitimate legislation.
The “word onthe street” has been all bee put there by Rahm and Lindsey. It’s spin and trial balloons. Which BTW, can turn into reality if nobody does push back.
“Screams from the Left.” Sounds like a good working title for the whole Obama Administration.
It seems to me that the only real difference between the left and the right in this country anymore is that the right is covertly contemptuous of it’s base while the left is openly contemptuous of it’s base. This is a result of our lobbying class. Ordinary citizens, (those without money and contacts on the Village circuit) just need to STFU and let the “adults” handle everything. I no longer recognize my nation and if I could retroactively withdraw my service years, I would.
Innocent until proven guilty, how about following the rules of war including declaring one. John and joe are so much smarter than the guys that wrote the constitution.
In case you guys were wondering about what this post means in light of today’s WP story on KSM & military commissions, I wrote a Marvel Comics-heavy update.
Ignoring the first level of spin and trial balloons, we have the Republican “moderate” position saying that he will grant that the third leg of the government stool is not completely irrelevant just yet. Seems like a fairly grand gesture.
Of course the SCOTUS pretty much already pretty much authorized what McCain and Lieberman seem to be pushing for via the Patriot Act, so recently reauthorized for Obama’s application, so this appears to be a fallback position that avoids the need to be brought up to a vote on a regular basis. We’re all just frogs in a slowly heating pot.
Yeah, right… this’ll never be abused.
Authoritarian police-state rule: Take one giant step forward.
The Dems are just so piss poor at Politics.
Obama should quietly take Little Linda aside and threaten to remove the Marines from Parris Island. In a State with as many violent militaristic psychopaths asS.C. that would spell the end of the Closeted One.
Good God. Can Obama not stick to his guns on anything? Even when he’s RIGHT?!!?! For a constitutional lawyer, he’s certainly ready to compromise away some of the most precious freedoms and protections we have in this country for the sake of…what? Bipartisanship? Non-confrontation? Other people’s paranoia?
What evil demon is whispering in this man’s ear that he should ignore his initial judgment? Does he not trust himself, or is compromise more important to him than principle? I can’t figure him out, and frankly I’m getting pretty tired of trying.