WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham stepped on more than a few toes last week as he hashed out new rules for the handling of suspected terrorists.

The Seneca Republican pushed to limit Guantanamo Bay prisoners’ access to the federal courts. The Senate, 84-14, approved his plan, and the House could soon follow.

After the vote, Graham called a victory news conference, standing shoulder to shoulder with U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., amid a pack of journalists and photographers. Levin had kind words for Graham, after persuading him to give detainees back a few rights that Graham would have taken away.

Among those who did not feel like patting Graham on the back:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Graham linked his measure with anti-torture language President Bush dislikes, but which many in Congress support.

The language, championed by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would explicitly forbid the torture or abuse of prisoners held by American forces.

The administration, which says U.S. soldiers do not torture, argues that the McCain policy would make it tougher for interrogators to get information out of suspects.

ARLEN SPECTER

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the only Republican to vote against the Graham plan, blasted Graham on the Senate floor for failing to bring it before the Judiciary Committee, on which Graham sits.

“The great difficulty with the Graham-Levin amendment is that it was worked out yesterday, sort of an affront to the Judiciary Committee, if I may say so, that there is no time for the Judiciary Committee to have a hearing on the matter to consider it,” Specter said. “It is untenable and unthinkable and ought to be rejected.”

ACADEMIA

It wasn’t only the American Civil Liberties Union that thought Graham went too far in toughening the rules on Guantanamo suspects.

Law professors across the country weighed in against Graham’s measure — on television, in editorials and in their classrooms.

Typical of the commentary:

“It’s a big black eye for American justice,” Elizabeth Hillman, an Air Force veteran and a law professor at Rutgers University in Camden, N.J., told the Christian Science Monitor.

“It’s a dilution of the standards developed during the last 50 years.”

THE FRENCH?

At the press conference, a reporter with a French accent asked Graham about several Guantanamo detainees who, the U.S. military has determined, are not threats.

Yet they are still at Guantanamo, she said.

They are cleared to leave, Graham said, but they don’t want to go back to their home countries for fear they will be tortured or killed. It’s a matter of finding new home countries from them, he said.

“Where are you from?” Graham asked the reporter.

“I’m from France,” she said.

“You can have ‘em,” quipped Graham.

At that point, Levin jumped in front of Graham and began waving his arms, pretending to save his Republican friend from a grand faux pas.

Don’t take offense, a grinning Levin begged of the French journalist. Graham would have said that, he told her, “wherever you were from.”

——————————

VERBATIM

“Since losing the 2004 election, Democrats have developed a disturbing case of obstructionism and now falsely claim that President Bush exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.”

— U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., on the House floor last week, denouncing Democrats’ charges that President Bush misled the nation into war

Reach Markoe at (202) 383-6023 or lmarkoe@krwashington.com