This really is an amazing statement from Sen. Lindsey Graham, on the politics of closing Guantanamo (via Marcy Wheeler):
Some believe amending appropriations bills for the Justice Department and the Defense Department could get the Guantanamo debate rolling again after the election. However, when asked what could force action, Graham warned that another terrorist attack against the U.S. would bring urgency to the matter and not necessarily in a good way.
“There's going to be an attack. That's going to be the impetus. That's going to be what it takes to get Congress and the administration talking; we have to get hit again,” the senator said, suggesting that passing a bill before that happens might be more reasonable than what would come afterward.
“If there is a successful attack, there is going to be a real violent reaction in the Congress, where we will react more emotionally than thoughtfully,” Graham said.
I continue to be mystified by the idea that Republicans can openly explain how they intend to exploit terrorist attacks for political gain without any actual consequences. In its most charitable interpretation, Graham is saying, cooperate now, because after another terror attack there won't be any more chances.
Here, Graham suggests that talks over Gitmo broke down because of the White House, possibly due to their desire to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators in civilian court, but I think it's pretty obvious that in return for closing Gitmo, Republicans were demanding the ability to micromanage the administration's prosecutorial decisions and proposing legislation gutting the Bill of Rights. As Wheeler suggests, it's likely that the administration "got a sense of just how bad Graham's “compromise” really was." Between Graham and his friends, Joe Lieberman and John McCain, there was legislation that would allow the president to detain anyone, even an American citizen, indefinitely, there was Graham's legislation that would place the process of indefinite detention under regular court review (which civil libertarians suggest is unnecessary because the habeas lawsuits the government keeps losing already do so), and other Republicans were proposing legislation that would have restricted the administration's choice of venue in trying suspected terrorists to the rather ineffective military commissions.
There's also a question of how far Graham was really willing to go -- between Gitmo, immigration, and climate change, Graham has been willing to talk but unwilling to commit, and frequently at the last minute his cooperation becomes dependent on some kind of concession -- like repealing birthright citizenship -- that makes collaboration not worth the price of the ticket.
