As writer Tom Eley has pointed out, Obama's orders leave torture, indefinite detention intact.
The orders signed by Obama do not undo the Bush administration's attacks on constitutional and international law They do not challenge the supposed right of the president to unilaterally imprison any individual, without trial and without charges, by declaring him to be an enemy combatant Nor do they end the procedure known as extraordinary rendition
They do not affect the hundreds of prisoners 600 at the Bagram prison camp in Afghanistan alone incarcerated beyond the barbed wire of Guantanamo
On the question of so-called harsh interrogation techniques,' i.e., torture, Obama's orders leave room for their continuation
White House Counsel Gregory Craig told reporters the administration was prepared to take into account demands from the CIA that such methods be allowed
Obama announced the creation of a task force that will consider new interrogation methods beyond those sanctioned by the Army Field Manual, which now accepts 19 forms of interrogation, as well as the practice of extraordinary rendition
Furthermore, as reported by Brian Ross of ABC news, If Guantanamo is ever closed, the US government intends to will ship alleged terrorists caught up its international dragnet to other secret American-run prison camps.
If Obama were truly committed to ending the legacy of torture and secret detention, he would authorize the prosecution of those officials responsible, all the way up to the top. Instead, he has said he will do no such thing.
Perhaps the president has been taking advice from Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who last December said that the continuation of the CIA's illegal practices "might be necessary".
In the words of Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, Obama has set out a stall that indicates he is quite willing to take ownership of Bush's war crimes by looking the other way on torture and rendition.
