During his 2008 campaign, President Obama indicated that, upon taking office, he would “immediately” investigate the legality of the war-on-terror tactics used by Bush administration officials. Nearly three years later, many of Bush’s strategies are still in place, and the Obama administration has even commenced a vigorous defense of one of the antiwar movement’s biggest bogeymen, John Ashcroft, in a Supreme Court case:

The Obama solicitor general’s office is representing Ashcroft, contending he’s immune from legal action that springs from his actions as attorney general.

“That immunity rests on important public policy considerations, including the concern that harassment by unfounded litigation would cause a deflection of the prosecutor’s energies from his public duties,” Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued in a legal brief.

The case involves a Muslim convert, Abdullah al-Kidd, who is disputing the legality of his detention as a material witness in a 2003 terror case. Leftists and antiwar activists have often cited al-Kidd’s case as evidence that the Bush administration exploited the material-witness law to detain civilians unjustly.

But in court documents, the Obama administration continues to assert what many Bush-administration officials have been saying for years — that these strategies are necessary for law-enforcement agencies to do their jobs.

“The fear of personal liability may dissuade prosecutors from obtaining such a warrant when they harbor any suspicion that the subject might be involved in criminal wrongdoing but do not yet have probable cause to bring criminal charges,” said Katyal.

The left has been largely silent on Obama’s continuation of Bush’s terror policies. Will it now start going after the president for his defense of Ashcroft? This high-profile Supreme Court case could create a schism in Obama’s left-wing base.