Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), has developed a certain reputation within the political establishment for being an independent-thinking “maverick.” By all indications, the credibility is hollow and meaningless — when push comes to shove, Graham has an annoying habit of dropping the facade and embracing a far-right agenda.
The latest example is, regrettably, torture. On Wednesday, 30 retired generals and admirals signed a joint letter to Congress, urging lawmakers to pass legislation requiring U.S intelligence agents to follow the Army Field Manual, which meets the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of war prisoners and prohibits torture. The House took the military leaders’ advice, and passed a measure banning torture, despite the objections of 95% of the House Republican caucus.
The legislation moved to the Senate, where it was championed by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.).
It probably stood a good chance of passing, too, were it not for the hold placed on the legislation by Lindsey Graham, an alleged critic of torture policies.
Senate Republicans blocked a bill Friday that would restrict the interrogation methods the CIA can use against terrorism suspects. […]
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., placed a hold on the intelligence bill, preventing the Senate from voting on it while the challenge goes forward.
“I think quite frankly applying the Army field manual to the CIA would be ill-advised and would destroy a program that I think is lawful and helps the country,” Graham said in an interview.
As Spencer Ackerman asks, “[T]orture is counterproductive for the military but valuable for the CIA?” Apparently, to Graham, yes.
It fits, once again, into the familiar pattern. Graham impresses the establishment by denouncing torture, the Broders of the world swoon, but when it comes time to make a difference, Graham won’t walk the walk.
Graham’s effort to protect Bush’s torture policies directly contradicts his recent anti-torture rhetoric. Just this week, Graham raked Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann, the legal adviser at Guantanamo Bay, over the coals for refusing to call waterboarding torture, even if done by Iranian “secret security agents” on an American pilot.
Given his record, the gap between Graham’s rhetoric and his legislative action isn’t altogether surprising.
In October, Graham hinted that he might oppose Michael Mukasey’s nomination unless he said waterboarding was illegal. But after Mukasey continued to refuse to explicitly call waterboarding torture, Graham reneged and helped push Mukasey through the Senate.
What’s more, Digby reminds us of this gem of a quote from Graham from just last year:
“The Army Field Manual as a one-stop shop to guide the way we handle lawful combatants and enemy combatants is absolutely necessary if for no other reason than to protect our own troops. That is why we are doing this. That is one of the main reasons–to make sure that your own troops don’t get in trouble because they are confused. […]
“The best thing we can do for anybody operating in the war on terror is give them clarity about what to do in very stressful situations. There is the combat role. What do you do with somebody who is captured? You do what the President says: You treat them humanely, you interrogate them by standards we can live by that will not erode our moral authority.”
“Where have those standards been in the last 50 or 60 years? The Army Field Manual. You can change the Army Field Manual to adapt techniques to the war on terror. There is a classified section of the Army Field Manual. There is nothing about its adoption that limits the ability to aggressively interrogate people to get good intelligence. But if you want to torture people, the Army Field Manual says no and the President says no. It is now time for Congress to say no.”
Lawmakers are trying to say no, but Graham won’t let them.