... has nothing to do with being thus far unaware of Bush administration policies on domestic surveillance or any failure of the MSM to cover this issue.
Yes, there are new details emerging, but we knew--we pretty much ALL knew--this was going on.
As much as I cavil about the national Libertarian Party, it was the only political party that really made this a significant issue during the 2008 elections. Again and again.
The ACLU has been pointing this out--in detail and along with other homeland security outrages--for years.
We knew. As a friend of mine said about two months ago, "There has been no greater stain on the reputation of American in modern memory than the fact that we torture."
Torture, surveillance, constitutional abuse.
And yet there continues to be surprise [now growing louder, I will admit], among our liberal and progressive friends that the Obama administration would rather leave this all in the past, and is reluctant to name a special prosecutor.
How could this be? It's not the political cost, as some have suggested. It's the fact--that the MSM and New Media have both documented thoroughly since Inauguration Day--that little has changed under the new administration.
The Obama administration has gone to court repeatedly relying on Bush-era legal theories to defend its conduct, has mooted its ability to detain people found innocent by the courts, and has even discussed executions without trials while pushing for a new cyber-security law that amounts to authorizing a complete government take-over of the internet. The Obama administration piously talks about shutting down Gitmo while maintaining abusive interrogation techniques at Bagram.
Want links? I've done this so many times that you can just start here.
The Obama administration therefore has this tiny little conundrum to solve before it can authorize a special prosecutor: how do you take the Bush administration to court for doing many things that you're still doing?