Obama is going to be worse than Bush. Americans; and the World, will wish bush was back after Obama.
Obamas mentor was none other than Brzezinski.
Lets look at the New York Times article on this subject. Its very telling.
We know that supposedly the entire camp structure and facilities World Wide are shutting down, however:
Habeas Corpus, what is it?
"Habeas corpus formed a part of the American legal system from colonial times, and it was the only specific right incorporated in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Habeas corpus has been suspended a number of times, most notably by Abraham Lincoln during the early days of the Civil War.
Habeas corpus became a subject of renewed controversy after the Sept. 11th attacks. When the Bush administration created a system of military tribunals for dealing with terrorism subjects in 2002, it asserted that "illegal non-combatants'' fell outside of the Geneva Conventions and were not entitled to habeas corpus. That view was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2006. Congress, then controlled by Republicans, responded by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by detainees challenging the bases for their confinement. Instead, such challenges were to be governed by the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, which allowed detainees to appeal decisions of the military tribunals to the District of Columbia Circuit, but only under circumscribed procedures, including a presumption that the evidence before the military tribunal was accurate and complete.
In a 5 to 4 decision issued on June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that approach to be unconstitutional, declaring that foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have the right to challenge their detention there in federal courts." http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/habeas_corpus/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
Notice that the Supreme Court on June 12, 2008 stated "have the right to challenge their detention there in federal courts."
Now lets look at what Obama is going to due as was found in the New York Times article. Notice their use of double speak throughout.
"They will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said."
The CIA will not be allowed to use coercive interrogation methods, but the same ones that the Military uses when interrogating TERRORISM suspects. This entire circumstance was 'how the military was interrogating' terrorist suspects was it not?
"They could also allow Mr. Obama to reinstate the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation operations in the future, by presidential order, as some have argued would be appropriate if Osama bin Laden or another top-level leader of Al Qaeda were captured."
So, at any time Obama can reinstate the same operation that they are supposedly closing. Is this not the same power still in effect that Bush had? Not to mention that the entire reason for the operations to begin with; Osama bin laden and Al- CIAta, have not only not been investigated, but spoken off by Bush as "not important any longer", should really indicate to most people that it never was important to find Al CIAta, nor will it be, because if so, they wont have the PATSY any longer to blame things on, for they did create Al Qaeda for that exact purpose.
"A government official said Mr. Obama’s order on the C.I.A. would still allow its officers abroad to temporarily detain terrorism suspects and transfer them to other agencies, but would no longer allow the agency to carry out long-term detentions."
What agencies? And until that is known for sure, then nothing has changed.
"Mr. Obama had suggested in the campaign that, in place of military commissions, he would prefer prosecutions in federal courts or, perhaps, in the existing military justice system, which provides legal guarantees similar to those of American civilian courts."
No, there is no similar under the Constitution. "perhaps, in the existing military justice system" is not an option. They are not in the Military; or are they? This action would be the same as now, against their Rights. This is not a War, no matter what Bush has said. They are not Military Combatants as the Supreme Court has pointed out "In a 5 to 4 decision issued on June 12, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that approach to be unconstitutional, declaring that foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba have the right to challenge their detention there in federal courts." Source - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html?_r=2&hp
You see, they SHOULD be allowed Redress in Federal Courts, having cases 'against' the United States Government. This would open a way up as well to PROSECUTE Bush, but its not going to happen under Obama. We are already seeing him protect his 'cabinet' affiliates as well as his own ass on many issues that he was in support of in his years in the Senate.