And Now for Something Completely Different . . .

"Obama and Biden will restore respect for the rule of law and America’s values. They will: reject torture without exception or equivocation, including so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding; restore the Rule of Law by closing Guantanamo and restoring habeas corpus; and provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track down terrorists without undermining our Constitution or civil liberties." Blueprint for Change Obama and Biden's Plan for America (pdf), page 71

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama and Joe Biden condemned the Bush (R) administration policy of holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as "enemy combatants" without benefit of habeas corpus. Candidate Obama also promised (page 5 of pdf) to "eliminate the practice of extreme rendition, where we outsource our torture to other countries."

Hopeful supporters, believing in his ability to bring change by ending the shameful treatment of prisoners and closing the Guantanamo Bay prison and prisons in other countries, voted President Obama into office. The voters expected change. Thus far the only changes seem to be that Obama administration policies are different than Obama campaign promises:

• A February 17, 2009 NY Times article, "Obama’s War on Terror May Resemble Bush’s in Some Areas," suggests that Obama nominees espouse policies very similar to those of the Bush administration--supporting indefinite detainment of prisoners without trials, and advocating skirting restrictions on torture by sending prisoners to countries with no such restrictions. The article states:

"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 article also points out that President Obama's administration is not as open as he promised during his campaign:

"Mr. Obama’s Justice Department last week told an appeals court that the Bush administration was right to invoke 'state secrets' to shut down a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees who say a Boeing subsidiary helped fly them to places where they were tortured."

• A February 20, 2009 NY Times article, "Guantánamo Meets Geneva Rules, Pentagon Study Finds," reports a Pentagon study commissioned by President Obama concluded that the prison complies with the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva Conventions.

Apparently we can now conclude that reports of widespread abuses at Guantánamo and reports that many detainees were suffering severe psychological effects after years of isolation were mistaken. We can also conclude once again that the Obama administration thinks the Bush administration policies were correct since the Obama administration policy for treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo shows no significant change from those of the Bush administration.

• A February 21, 2009 NY Times article, "Obama Upholds Detainee Policy in Afghanistan," describes the Obama administration response to the habeas corpus lawsuit on behalf of prisoners held for years at the US Air Force base prison at Bagram in Afghanistan:

"The Obama team determined that the Bush policy was correct: such prisoners cannot sue for their release."

President Obama's legal team agrees with the contentions of then-President Bush’s legal team that federal judges had no authority under the Constitution to hear challenges by detainees being held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

• A March 13, 2009 NY Times article, "US Won't Label Terror Suspects as Combatants," outlines the Obama administration policy "changes" from the Bush administration with respect to the Guantanamo Bay prison. The Obama administration echoes the Bush administration policy of detaining suspects without benefit of habeas corpus:

"...the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted..."

President Obama's Justice department also "...provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration."

Not much change in policy, but they did stop using the words "enemy combatant" when referring to illegally detained prisoners.

The Justice department did supply a new requirement for whom the US government could imprison without benefit of habeas corpus:

"The new definition did add a requirement that to justify detention a detainee would have to have 'substantially supported' Al Qaeda, the Taliban or forces associated with them. But the administration did not define 'substantial,' and the detainees’ lawyers said they doubted that the change would help many of their clients."

So finally, some "substantive" differences between the Obama administration and Bush administration policies towards prisoners:

• Prisoners will no longer be referred to as "enemy combatants." (Sorry Shakespeare.)
• Detainees who have not "substantially supported" al Qaeda or the Taliban can be released--pending definition of "substantial." Determination of what constitutes "substantial" requires a mindset capable of debating what the meaning of 'is' is (Youtube video). The "rule of law" is restored.

Now that's the kind of "real change you can believe in" from President Obama. My faith in the republic has been restored; I feel better now. How about all you Obamaphiles?