After Congress adjourned for its summer recess last week, the Senate quietly returned to the White House the nomination of William J. "Jim" Haynes to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

As general counsel at the Defense Department, Haynes helped craft the Bush administration's legal rationale for aggressive detainee interrogation techniques used by U.S. military and intelligence forces at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the Guantanamo Bay compound in Cuba and other sites.

Graham, a former military lawyer, is widely seen on Capitol Hill and beyond as the man most responsible for the Senate's failure to confirm Haynes. From his seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Graham expressed strong concerns about Haynes' fitness for the appellate court.

Graham's stand has earned the admiration of many military lawyers and other senior officers. But it angered conservative activists who have condemned Senate Democrats for refusing to allow up-or-down votes on Bush's controversial judicial nominations.

"To say the least, I have serious reservations about his nomination," Graham said Thursday in an interview. "This is not about being conservative. It's about being held accountable for what happened on your watch."

Graham also drew heat from conservatives last year for his membership in the "Gang of 14" senators, seven Republicans and seven Democrats, who negotiated a compromise for handling judicial nominees.

Under the deal, Democrats pledged to use a filibuster only in rare circumstances, while Republicans backed away from their threat to change Senate rules so that only 51 votes -- instead of 60 -- would be needed to break a filibuster.

This year, Democrats repeatedly vowed to filibuster Haynes' nomination. But it never reached the Senate floor because the Judiciary Committee failed to take a vote. With nine Republicans and seven Democrats on the panel, opposition from a single Republican was enough to stymie the nomination.

Graham insisted he wasn't blocking Haynes' nomination, but his opposition was an open secret on Capitol Hill.

"There are lots of other Republicans who say he did block it," said Sean Ruston, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a group of prominent conservatives and Republicans who push for the appointment of "constitutionalist" judges to the federal bench.

"Jim Haynes was blocked in committee for months at the behest of Senator Graham," Ruston said.

Among the group's founders are former Michigan Gov. John Engler and Connie Mack, a former U.S. senator from Florida.

Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Mike DeWine of Ohio were among a handful of Republican senators who raised concerns about Haynes, but Graham was the most vocal.

On the Senate floor and in committee hearings, Graham said it would be unfair to reward a senior Pentagon official who helped devise the now-repudiated interrogation procedures while at the same time prosecuting rank-and-file soldiers who practiced them.

Graham also said that the policies crafted in Washington confused soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere because they contradicted well-established military regulations on interrogating enemy detainees.

In a dramatic showdown last month, Graham grilled Haynes at his confirmation hearing, cutting him off in mid-sentence at several points. Graham highlighted contradictions between Haynes' testimony and that of military lawyers who said Haynes ignored their strong opposition to the interrogation techniques.

Graham ridiculed Haynes' contention that he didn't set interrogation policies but merely passed on the findings of Justice Department lawyers to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the White House office of legal counsel.

John Hutson, a retired admiral and former judge advocate general of the Navy, joined 19 other retired military officers who opposed Haynes' nomination in writing a letter last month to Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Hutson said it took political courage for Graham to oppose a high-profile nomination by a president of his own party.

"I think that Senator Graham is doing exactly what he was elected to do and constitutionally is required to do," Hutson said. "If he's voting his conscience, then that's what we want U.S. senators to do. We don't want them to just automatically follow the party line. I admire him for it."

Ruston, executive director of the Committee for Justice, said Graham's opposition to Haynes has not been lost on conservative and GOP activists and leaders around the country.

In a June 8 letter responding to conservative activists upset by his stance on Haynes, Graham said he could not ignore the views of senior military officers.

"As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a strong supporter of our men and women in uniform, I am troubled that very distinguished military leaders have expressed strong opposition to the Haynes nomination," Graham wrote. "As our defenders of freedom, I take their criticisms very seriously."