Obama made a passing reference to civil liberties in a campaign speech this week.

We haven’t talked about what's at stake with respect to the Supreme Court.  We haven’t talked about what's at stake with respect to civil liberties.

OK - lets talk about that.

Most of the bold rhetoric surrounding civil liberties from the 2008 DNC platform was cut from the 2012 DNC platform, a change that is open to a variety of interpretations. I think that any way you slice it, clearly, mainstream Democrats aren't concerned about civil liberties issues right now and don't notice the absence of these issues in the platform. It seems clear that Democrats only care about civil liberties when Republicans are in the Whitehouse.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, as a civil libertarian, I don't have a lot of friends in the American political spectrum, and usually the friends I have are only my friends temporarily whenever they see an opportunity to criticize their political opponents. Take, for example, Glenn Reynolds' insipid call for Obama to resign last month. Of all the affronts to civil liberties that have happened over the past 12 years, he chooses this moment to call for a President to resign? Forgive me for not feeling inspired by his zeal to defend our Constitutional rights.

The civil-libertarian cause is diminished when it appears as if it's opportunistically invoked as a cudgel against ideological opponents.

Many real civil libertarians are critical of Obama's record. However, I think that this mostly represents a feeling of disappointment rather than outright frustration. In my mind the Bush administration committed three significant sins respecting civil liberties:

1. Supporting the Patriot Act - The Patriot Act was passed with broad bipartisan support but for some reason it turned into a partisan issue. There were several provisions that have been found unconstitutional and therefore I think people like me who expressed concerns about it in 2001 have been more-or-less vindicated. I wish that all of the liberal loudmouths who later seemed to join in opposition of it were as angry at the Democrats who voted for it as they are at Bush. Regardless, the Bush administration presented this bill and it is part of the Bush legacy, including the unconstitutional provisions.

2. Indefinite Detention without Charges - The indefinite detention, without charges, of a US Citizen (Jose Padilla), seized on US soil, crossed a line. It is impossible, in my mind, to rationalize applying the term "free society" to a country in which that action was legal. I am very disappointed in the amount of legal wrangling and time that it took to put the issue to rest, and the vagueness with which it was put to rest. The Bush administration started this fire and poured gasoline on it at every opportunity.

3. Illegal Wiretapping - It appears that the Bush administration may have been collecting call record information for every telephone call and internet communication that occurred anywhere in the country during the early years. Whatever was going on, it was so offensive that Attorney General John Ashcroft, hardly a civil libertarian, threatened to resign over it. It is clear that Bush was running programs that broke the law and used incredibly poor legal reasoning to justify those programs.

These sins are significant because they strike at the heart of basic civil liberties and constitutional concerns - the right to be free from detention without charges - the right to be free from suspicionless surveillance. These are red-line issues for civil libertarians. If you're not furious about them, I'm sorry, you're not a civil libertarian (and that goes for a large number of so called libertarians who can't see clear to voting for a Democrat in light of these issues).

Obama, for his part, has not committed any of these sins.

Many of the issues here were cleaned up by the courts prior to Obama assuming office and without his having to lift a finger. The worst provisions of the Patriot Act have been held unconstitutional by the courts, and the Boumediene decision seemed to finally repudiate the idea that anyone could be held without charges, albeit without directly addressing the issue of US citizens on US soil.

What sins has Obama committed? Several, but none of them are as significant I think.

1. Wiretapping - Congress had decided to legalize part of the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping program, although it appears that other parts were not legalized. The Obama Administration has fought vigorously in court to prevent any consequences from falling out of the revelations around these programs. Civil libertarians are reasonably frustrated by that, because the next time Telecoms are asked to help break the law, there will be no reason for them to do anything but comply. Thats a problem, but it isn't a direct strike at the heart of the Constitution.

The ACLU has also pointed out that Obama is doing more lawful surveillance than the Bush administration did. That is also problematic, but not as deeply offensive as the illegal programs the Bush administration was operating.

2. Drone Strikes - Anyone with a conscience ought to be concerned about the innocent victims of Obama's drone strike program and its long term consequences. However, I don't think it raises fundamental Constitutional issues. I'm not persuaded that there is a due process concern regarding the targeting of US citizens in Yemen. This is not US soil and it is not clear that the administration has a lot of good alternative options - this is not remotely comparable to the detention of Jose Padilla (which occurred at Chicago O'Hare airport). Basically, I am concerned that these drone strikes might be a bad idea - that they might be hurting too many innocent people - but I don't think they are an attempt to tear down the Constitution.

3. Freedom of Speech - The Obama Administration asked Google to review whether the Innocence of the Muslims video met their acceptable use guidelines. I would have liked to see the Administration take a firmer position in support of Freedom of Speech, but nothing they did here is as offensive as Glenn Reynolds made it out to be. I am not at all concerned about the fact that the creator of the video has been arrested. The man is a convicted felon who probably violated his probation. Your right to freedom of speech does not include the right of immunity from prosecution for crimes that are highlighted by your actions and under any other circumstances the right wing would be the first to point that out.

Has Obama been a friend of civil liberties? No. He hasn't.

This is problematic given his strong statements about civil liberties in the campaign running up to the election in 2008 and the clear civil liberties components of the DNC's platform. Those of us who believed that he would be a strong defender of our liberties were fools. I bought into it and I was wrong.

But, he isn't a fundamental threat to civil liberties either, in the way that the Bush administration was. I am not enthusiastic about four more years of Obama, but I don't fear it, either.

What kind of alternative does Romney offer? After 8 years of Bush I can not take Conservatives who claim to care about civil liberties seriously. I can see no reason why you would think that our liberties would be better off under a Republican administration.

Obama brings up Civil Liberties in campaign speech