One test of a logical argument is whether or not you can turn it around and have it still be true. Bill O'Reilly never turns his questions back upon his own beliefs. For example, he has never once asked whether President Bush wants American soldiers to die. By O'Reilly's logic, President Bush must want American soldiers to die because he sent them to Iraq. In this example argument, both Bill O'Reilly and President Bush would say that they don't want American soldiers to die, but that Freedom is a goal worth fighting, and dying, to defend.
So, Bill O'Reilly thinks that it is a bad thing that a judge upholds constitutional freedom and that it could result in the death of American Citizens; but that it is a good thing that President Bush sends the troops off to fight in Iraq, where they can die to impose our ideas of Freedom on another country? Has Bill O'Reilly forgotten that our soldiers are American citizens too? Or does he feel, like Bush seems to feel, that soldiers are cannon fodder to be spent as needed?
The preservation of Freedom is the responsibility of all American citizens. Freedom begins at home, and with defending our constitution at home. It's obvious that Bill O'Reilly doesn't intend to enlist and take a tour of night patrols in Iraq, so the least he can do is shut the hell up when a judge rules in favor of the constitution rather than the current transient majority political party.
So, Bill, my question to you is: Why do you want the Unitied States to become a totalitarian government with an ignored Bill of Rights where everyone is under constant surveilance?