The Brits have it correct

They haven't thrown out their Constitution. The British courts ruled yesterday that a 'significant international terrorist' deserves the same coverage under their laws as anyone else who is accused of crimes.

Therefore, Mr. Abu Qatada (aka Omar Othman) was released on Bail. Granted it is the most stringent bail ever set by the British court system. It pretty much puts him under house arrest without allowing him to use the internet or any cellular / telephone device except to call his lawyers.

Obama made a statement recently which supports my view. Paraphrasing my view: We have a constitution, we're are having our soldiers die to protect this. The constitution is
"our way of life" and is "our country." If we throw away the values instilled in this document then we might as well strike our colors (bring down our flag and put up a white flag).

If we had stood our ground on the constitution and everything it is about, then the Iraqi war aftermath would have gone so much smoother... The people in that nation would still think of us as liberators (like they did just after the "war")... People wouldn't be fighting against us. The prisons scandles, the lack of repair of infrastructure, and the treatment of prisoners sent to other nations lead people to believe that we are not who we say we are.

They think we're no better than what they had. And to some extent we are not. This becomes the source of new terrorists against us.

Most of this could have been prevented if we held to the rule of law and the constitution. I wonder why Bushie didn't hold to it... That's right, Bush has another opinion about the document -

"Stop thowing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddammed piece of paper!" (stated Nov 2005)

The fact that his job is to UPHOLD and PROTECT the Constitution and nothing else, he should have immediately been impeached at that moment.

SIDE NOTE:
Oh well, he still hasn't had a BJ in the oval office for which prosecutors define every word - including "the" and "a", then try to catch him in a lie because he didn't have "sexual activities" (as LEGALLY defined by MR. Starr) but did have "sexual activies" as defined by pretty much anyone else... That is why they couldn't get the charges to stick. He didn't do anything wrong.

Judges and prosecutors are allowed to legally define words, if they believe that they can be misunderstood, etc. This was among the few times they changed the meaning from what the general population believe (the word "the" had a different meaning). Then when answering these questions, Clinton answered them correctly as a LAWYER given a legal definition of the words he used.