I have to highlight this Washington Independent post, because it provides the legislative language favored by the people Lindsey Graham is telling the White House he can bring along in a detentions deal:

An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 15 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.

That’s not Jim DeMint’s language. That’s not James Inhofe’s language. That’s not even Jeff Sessions’ language. That’s John McCain and Joe Lieberman’s language. Indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge. What I wouldn’t give to see one consistent tea partier, dressed in his colonist breeches and tricorner, ask whom the Founding Fathers would want detained indefinitely without charge. McCain and Lieberman are the very first people Graham would approach for any Guantanamo deal with the White House.

Translation: Graham ain’t bringing one GOP senator with him. But the White House can compromise on its principles and inflict a humiliating political defeat upon itself! Who could turn that deal down?

Meanwhile Newsweek proclaims Graham a new ‘maverick’ without once actually inspecting what votes he can deliver. Hey, there was a ‘West Wing’ episode that kind of maybe portrayed something superficially similar to what Graham and the White House are trying to do, so who needs research or critical thinking skills?