It doesn't take a particularly elevated intellect to see over that position. Certainly, the easy retort is 'if Bush was doing it, you would mind.' But why waste time with playground point-scoring? The answer to that is, I suppose, because we're talking about the Guardian, and there's nothing else on offer.
What Richard Adams and his ilk cannot seem to do is form an opinion without first asking 'who's doing it to whom?' So consequently, since Obama got elected to the Whitehouse, they've had to make a screeching U-turn on pretty much everything Bush was doing. The wars, the bail-outs, the torture, the Patriot Act (renewed by Obama) and of course Guantalamo Bay continue. Adams won't tell you these things are good. He just won't mention them at all, except in the past.
The same tendencies are found on the other side of the sandpit, and to those of us who try to be consistent, it's difficult to avoid a smile to see, in England, the activist left-wing reemerge after sleeping, Rip van Winkel-like for the last 13 years, while Labour butchered our civil liberties. The same thing applies in reverse in America.
Holding a principled position means you do not ask 'what side's doing it?' It doesn't matter. The same rules apply to both sides.