Apparently Obama Embraces bush era 'al-Qaeda' Policies?!?

[leftchick]

great....



http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday Feb. 18, 2009 05:59 EST
Charlie Savage on Obama's embrace of Bush/Cheney "terrorism policies"

During the Bush presidency, there were few reporters, if there were any, who were better on issues of civil liberties and executive power abuses than Charlie Savage, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his work exposing the lawlessness of Bush's signing statements while at The Boston Globe. For that reason, it will be very difficult even for the hardest-core Obama supporters to dismiss away the following observations about Obama as nothing more than the angry harping of excessively impatient, unfairly harsh and/or alarmist Obama critics (also referred to by some Obama supporters -- using the Fox News script -- as "Far Leftist, Marxist, reactionary, radical demagogues"). From Savage this morning on the front page of The New York Times:

Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush’s “war on terrorism,” the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda.

In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government “for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”

These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies.

[atreides1]

1. Maybe Lindsey was right

This isn't change we can believe in.

Now I realize that the "true believers" will attack Mr. Savage for his views and give us what has become the standard excuse.

"The economy is more important" or "I'm sure the President has a plan"

While the economy is important, and the President may have a plan, right now it looks as if it's going to be business as usual, in other words "we'll just do it the same way the other guys did".

I'm not sure who to trust, especially when the nominee for Solicitor General agrees that detainees can be held forever without having any criminal charges filed against them.

For the time being I'm going to watch and see if there is going to be any change, but if by May this government is still using rendition, holding "suspects" indefinitely without charges, and allowing the military kangaroo court to continue, then maybe the justice that we thought was coming was nothing more then a campaign talking point!