If someone wants an example of why Bin Laden and his group must be laughing all the way after the United States Supreme Court decision last week creating a defacto “terrorist bill of rights,” one must only look as far as what happened recently in the United Kingdom.

Due to legal techincalities, the court system ruled that the United Kingdom could not deport the terrorist or hold him in jail. Whats worse is that Abu Qatada will be recieving £1,000 per month in state benefits. Nothing like paying Al Qeada directly.

I have news for anyone who believes that giving terrorist access to our civilian court systems and fighting the war on terror as a law enforcement issue - you are dooming our society. These people do not play by the rules and will in fact use them to their advantage.

Do I believe in violating our own laws while persuing these types of individuals? Of course not.

I do not believe in giving terrorist special rights from which to take advantage and destroy our society with. Unfortunately with Democrats in Congress holding up FISA reform and giving people shooting at our troops habeas corpus rights, there apparently are many who do.

I would point to this case as a perfect example of how and why they are wrong.

Of course all the whining and gnashing of teeth from those in the Democratic party who willfully incite and participate in voter fraud won’t be happy, but the rest of us in the real world cannot be disappointed in the decision today by the United States Supreme Court to uphold an Indiana voter ID law.

I havent read the decision and dont know much about the precise mechanics of the decision so needless to say I wont comment further at this juncture.

What I will add is that there were numerous cases of voter registration fraud here in Missouri and abroad. To turn a blind eye to this problem would be negelgent.

Do some of the people who claim that poor, elderly voters and minority voters would be unfairly targeted and disenfranchised, have a point? In my opinion no.

I do believe that states requiring IDs should make an ID available free of charge. The catch, of course, is for people to prove how they are via birth certificate and or other documentation. Those kinds of details can be debated.

In the end, however, with thousands of fraudently registered voters filling the rolls there must be a way to verify the voter is who they say they are. Without it such a feature, our democracy will be dead.

Many Democrats understand this and are implimenting far more draconian policies during their current primary to ensure that Republicans do not participate.

My only addition to the conversation would be that there is a strong need to be sure that the law does not go beyond verification of the voter. We must ensure that the voter is able to speak their voice free of intimidation and within the framework established by our founding fathers.

If we leave that framework our democracy again, will be doomed.