Civil Liberties? Not In Obama's Terrorist World

The world is reeling, tumbling, impacting even my own real space. I've not been able to really comment, mostly just overwhelmed by what other bloggers have already said -- so why repeat myself.

But Obama's alliance with the Bush position on the detainee situation just makes my blood boil. As usual, Glenn Greenwald puts forth a better written argument than I could, so I suggest a proper read.

So that Barack Obama -- the one trying to convince Democrats to make him their nominee and then their President -- said that abducting people and imprisoning them without charges was (a) un-American; (b) tyrannical; (c) unnecessary to fight Terrorism; (d) a potent means for stoking anti-Americanism and fueling Terrorism; (e) a means of endangering captured American troops, Americans traveling abroad and Americans generally; and (f) a violent betrayal of core, centuries-old Western principles of justice. But today's Barack Obama, safely ensconced in the White House, fights tooth and nail to preserve his power to do exactly that.

[snip]

... If there was any unanimous progressive consensus over the last eight years, it was that the President does not have the power to kidnap people, ship them far away, and then imprison them indefinitely in a cage without due process. Has that progressive consensus changed as of January 20, 2009? I think we're going to find out.

[snip]

To recap: Obama files a brief saying he agrees in full with the Bush/Cheney position. He's arguing that the President has the power to abduct, transport and imprison people in Bagram indefinitely with no charges of any kind. He's telling courts that they have no authority to "second-guess" his decisions when it comes to war powers. But this is all totally different than what Bush did, and anyone who says otherwise is a reckless, ill-motivated hysteric who just wants to sell books and get on TV.

Obama's stance on the state secrets defense in the telecom fiasco, and his stance on terrorist abductions and rendering them to Bagram instead of Gitmo, is pro Bush, no ifs, ands or buts about it. This is a complete contradiction of the rhetoric he spewed when trying to get America to vote for him, an America that overwhelmingly does not approve of torture, nor of rendition.