The bush administration asserted that it could detain anyone without a trial and torture them. This is not equivalent to any average administration as you implied.
The current administration asserted that it has the right to assassinate anyone it wants, American citizen or not, outside of a battlefield, without any oversight or due process.
That's why the US citizen should not elect the same PMs or (maybe) even the same party (although If I were a US citizen I'd sure as hell be a democrat).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki is the case most people bring up. Killed by a drone strike without due process, but nobody claims that he was anything but a terrorist.
And the current, Democratic, administration hasn't exactly rolled back many of these changes, right? My point isn't to criticize the Obama administration, but rather ask: if Hillary Clinton was asked to serve on the board of $your_favorite_service, would you consider dropping that service?
Hasn't exactly rolled back? In some cases they were expanded, including to the point of shoot first and ask questions later. As for your hypothetical, since she's apparently going to run for President and would have a decent shot at winning, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Not to mention the countless drone strikes that kill numerous civilians in the process. Don't let that fool you though. They're apparently not as bad as waterboarding for some reason.
I am not an American, so I am not really acquainted with transgressions of Hillary Clinton but if the tech community would provide the reasons to do so, I would definitely quit using the service.
Compared to the Obama administration's assertion that it can kill any American it wants without trial? Here's are reports on this policy from two traditionally liberal news organizations (the conservative ones are equally damning):
Don't get me wrong, I believe the Bush administration was horrific. But the Obama administration has turned out to be equally immoral, and in some cases (spying and assassinations) even more so.
I was replying to the implication that the bush admin was just your typical political sin of power. Why you viewed that through a partisan lense I do not know.
I didn't view it through a partisan lens. I don't give a damn what party Bush or Obama belong to -- they've both been horrible presidents from an international relations and domestic privacy/constitutional rights perspective, regardless of what letter comes after their name.
I agree this was bad. I disagree that it was uniquely bad. I strongly feel that it's a red herring.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but Americans seem have become easier to whip into a tribal-political rage recently. That in itself is dangerous. It makes the country more susceptible to populism.
To me, this immediately registers as a visible hint at problems in the system which are never eliminated but need to be constantly challenged to keep them to a tolerable level.
It's a sign that there is a market where political capital and influence is being acquired, traded and sold. It implies crony capitalism, corruption, class entrenchment. If your reaction is 'Look a Republican! Charge!' then you bury the other stuff. The real, genuine, scary problems with the system, not a party and not an old administration.
