....that there is no major difference between parties in terms of what the gov't does, nothing will make it so.

They are the property party. It is time to stop attacking based on blue vs red, and attack the real problem: our government has run amok.

I just don't believe any series of incremental steps like "electing better Democrats" is going to make things change the way they need to change to reverse the disgusting things being done in the name of the people. It's past time to think bigger.

It is sharply clear now that the Constitution and the rule of law in America is a dead letter, as is whatever delimited democracy we once enjoyed. We hear public officials sing the required encomia to the "our great land of liberty" and all the rest of the standard baloney-rhetoric of con-men working their hustles, but it cannot be denied. The shockingly crude and imbecilic level to which public debate has fallen in this country tells the tale, and what passes for reporting of the news and the issuance of "opinion" by news media is scarcely-disguised government propaganda and distortion.

There are, by virtue of the internet, alternate sources of news and opinion, some good, many bad, but unless the American public can rise from their torpor and realize what is happening and take action to stop it, we will soon be too far gone to turn back.

Obama revealed all one needed to know about him in his vote FOR the bastardized FISA revision, with its gift to the telecoms of immunity from civil liability for their participation in illegal wiretapping and electronic evesdropping. Obama had pledged to vote against a bill that included this provision, then voted for it. Even now, we're seeing the promise of health care reform revealed as yet another scam, with Obama complicit in the scamming.

Some may say Obama was a better choice, even still, than McCain would have been, and frankly, I don't see how or why. With each passing month, Obama shows himself to be ever more committed to the imperial state, and to consolidating unto himself the powers of a Caesar.

Honestly, I don't think McCain would have gone where Obama is going. (Full disclosure: I voted for Nader.)

He knows full well (read the link) that this is all theoretical. The Obama administration was left with the problem of what to do with the residuum of the Bush Administration. This is merely one of the trial balloons (and NO, that isn't a REAL trial). For the moment some people will stay in jail. No, I don't know how long. I trust that they will not be tortured in the interim. You don't.

Shepard's reasoning that what Gambia did was "torture" because of its sadistic intent, while the US can't possibly be torturing because we're trying to obtain information echoes the same sentiment of Justice Scalia from early 2008:

http://www.faithfullyliberal.com/?p=1012

In response to a question about whether torturing someone to get information is cruel and unusual punishment: “And when he’s hurting you in order to get information from you…you don’t say he’s punishing you. What’s he punishing you for? He’s trying to extract…,”

We (the Good US of A) aren't punishing anyone, we're merely trying to extract information. I'm glad we got that settled. Now I can go back to not thinking about all of the detainees that we extracted info from to death.

The Obama administration was left with the problem of what to do with the residuum of the Bush Administration.

Not when it comes to continuing unconstitutional policies. Really, there isn't a problem there that can be blamed on Bush. Obama can either continue to do the same, or discontinue the policies. In the end, it is that simple. To even hint at a policy that the President knows guilt better than our legal system cannot be blamed on a President that is no longer in power.

In its own twisted way, the Bush approach was actually more honest and transparent: they made no secret of their belief that the President could imprison anyone he wanted without any process at all. That's clearly the Obama view as well, but he's creating an elaborate, multi-layered, and purely discretionary "justice system" that accomplishes exactly the same thing...

"Clearly the Obama view" is a phrase I guess I would use with extreme caution.

Here, this whole indefinite detention question, I can't figure out if Obama thinks the President has this authority, if it is inherent etc; or if this is a policy decision driven by political convenience.

Perhaps Obama actually believes the President doesn't and should never have this authority but he would rather gum this to death and wait for the SCOTUS to declare it unlawful at some point in his second term, and he will then undo the "system" without having to worry about political fall-out.

Maybe this is a dumb theory, but I feel cynical has trumped callous from what we have seen of the Obama administration so far and this would be an extension of the same theme.

Before the usual suspects chime in, could we please define what we are discussing: It is Obama's "justice system". We are not discussing the whole man or all of his policies. It seems to me that many of his defenders think that you either love him or leave him.

I write that from a European perspective where people mostly view your president in terms of his foreign policies. And I think that our perception that Obama is a vast improvement over GWB is true regardless of "true intentions" about Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Unfortunatley, in that optic, the closing of Guantánamo sells pretty well and so far few people here bother whether Obama solves or aggravates the underlying problem. Rather, we concentrate on the failure of our governments to ease the closing of Gitmo, and we rightly criticize them for that. It will take a while until we too realize what the "Obama justice system" is up to.

Thus, Bernbart and friends, I do not doubt that in many respects, Obama is a vast improvement, yet in matters of civil liberties no amount of rationalizing can compensate for the bitter truth: Here Obama and his people are further down the slippery slope than even Bush and Cheney. Glenn's despair and harsh words are fully justified.

We might start a discussion whether or not Obama needs to yield to the Right's pressure on this issue in order to gain support on others. I doubt it because I cannot detect the pressure to go further than Bush, tere is one volition there, and I can't possibly see this as an effort to "contain the damage" or find a "compromise". On this his record, however, there can be little doubt: It is bad, BAD, VERY BAD. So far, I have found not even one rational motive for these policies other than "he is evil", "power corrupts", or "he's part of the evil system". But that's for historians to find out.

Impeding the Obama administration to further undermine the process of law is the order of the day.