2008 Lindsey Graham seems to disagree with 2009 Lindsey Graham
A week ago I was sent up to Capital Hill to cover the Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on "What Went Wrong: Torture and the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration." My boss didn’t expect that I’d come back with much, but he wanted to make sure we didn’t miss anything since he’s been following the ongoing saga of Judge Jay Bybee.
I knew once I heard Sen. Lindsey Graham’s opening statement that the hearing could have some fireworks, though.
"Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I really don't know what to say or how to begin, other than the difference between the nobility of the law and a political stunt may be soon evident one way or the other. And I don't know whether this is actually pursuing the nobility of the law or a political stunt. We'll let the American people decide."
I was struck immediately by the tone of Graham’s voice. He meant business and seemed visibly annoyed that he had to be sitting there. And even though, like usual, he reiterated repeatedly that he loved the law and continues to be a decorated Jag Lawyer, Graham’s trademark counselor disposition disappeared. He was the lone Republican that stayed for the duration and was by far the most passionate lawmaker, defending the same Bush lawyers that he is on record of saying, "used bizarre legal theories to justify harsh interrogation techniques."
Was this the same man who had teemed up with Sen. John McCain on the anti-torture amendment? Who even liberals gave kudos to for his moderate stances on how enemy combatants should be treated?
Graham came back on the rails when he said, "the only way to operate is within the law." But he soon fell off again when he said that although the Bush Administration saw the law many times as a "nicety that we couldn’t afford," their actions where not criminal because 9/11 scared the hell out of everybody:
"It's not really fair to sit here in the quiet peace of the moment and put ourselves in such a holier than thou position because you don't have to make that decision. They did."
By the end, Graham was literally all over the map. He at one point said that:
"Waterboarding has never been an appropriate technique for me, and if there are any military members listening out there today, you will be prosecuted if you waterboard a detainee in your charge. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, it would be a violation."
But then later concluded:
"Waterboarding at the time of 2002 was not clear what law it violated. The Geneva Convention did not apply until 2006."
When I returned from the hearing, I was telling my boss that Graham seemed to be debating himself.
Last June, he had covered a similar Armed Services Committee hearing and said Graham came across as both reasonable and tempered.
He told me to watch the footage and see if there were any contradictions that could be edited into a short video.
Here is what we produced: