Interesting Washington Post article (may require registration to read):

French Stretch Civil Rights To Limit

In a nutshell, the article explains how France pushes civil rights to the brink of creating a no-rights situation for those suspected of plotting terrorism, or even associating with suspect terrorists.

France's laws make our Patriot Act look tame, yet the population isn't disturbed. I can only speculate that the French general population trusts its law enforcement to not take advantage of reduced civil rights.

Anyway, it brings up some issues that we can debate:

Should the US allow the infiltration of religious organizations to monitor for terrorist rhetoric?

Should the US deport religious leaders who preach terrorism?

Should terroist rhetoric be exempt from the First Amendment free speech and freedom of religion protections?

I'd frankly not shed a tear if terrorist rhetoric were to be made a punishable offense. Included in this notion are domestic terrorists who preach Christianity on one level and violence toward society on another. In simple terms, anyone using religion to preach violence ought to be locked up, possibly in a high-security mental institution and monitored for other destructive behavior.

Call me conservative on this if you like. The liberal part would release drug users to make room for the violence preachers.

1) Well, the French do it, MI5 does it, what is the betting that someone in the Dept of Homeland Security is ALREADY monitoring / infiltrating Islamic groups?
Pretty high - it is their job after all.

2) Well, I suppose you could always stick them in Guantanamo Bay....

3) No. Free speech is free speech. You might not like it, but there is a lot of difference between SPEECH and ACTIONS. Once you start denying people the freedom to preach terrorist rhetoric, then you have to define what speech is 'acceptable'. In other words, an element of government has to decide what speech is acceptable and what is not. They may define terrorist rhetoric extremely loosely.....

1. Yes, absolutely yes. I believe that if we allow terrorists of any form to preach violence via religious sermons, people are far more likely to act. If we don't take measures to protect ourselves from terrorism, they will strike via whatever avenue they can. Why would anyone have a problem with opening their churches to surveillance? What do they have to hide?

2. Deportation is too soft. These people should be prosecuted and locked up. There shouldn't be a soft-side to the attack on terrorism. It's absolutely necessary to keep these people suppressed financially, emotionally, and physically.

3. Freedom of speech has limits. The reality is that we cannot threaten people, slander people, etc. Why can't this extend to statements in church? How many anti-American statements are there made in our back yards?

I can say that I have a problem with living in Dallas knowing that there was an arm of the 9/11 attacks living in our back yard (here in Richardson...literally a couple miles from my home). I have a problem with the understanding that there are undoubtedly sympathizers, financiers, and supporters of the Al Qaeda cause.

I would venture to guess that the CIA or FBI probably has tabs on what's going on in America's hot spots and that they're using all arms of the law to restrain further violence. The problem lays in the fact that inside that Mosque (or church or whatever), we have no abliity to prevent action from being planned, etc.
I believe in religious freedom absolutely. I do not believe that Anti-American sentiment constitutes religion.

Should the US allow the infiltration of religious organizations to monitor for terrorist rhetoric?

I am certain that this is done in the US, to the extent that it is possible.

Should the US deport religious leaders who preach terrorism?
It depends on what you call "preaching terrorism". Inciting others to violence is already a punishable offense in some instances (inciting a riot). Preaching violence towards others should be a punishable offense.

Should terrorist rhetoric be exempt from the First Amendment free speech and freedom of religion protections?

As I said, preaching violence against another person should be just as illegal as assault, at the very least. If violence is actually performed by a member of the audience, the speaker should be an accomplice at the very least and probably punished in the same way as the perpetrator.

Should the US allow the infiltration of religious organizations to monitor for terrorist rhetoric?

Yes, as long as we monitor ALL sects. Religion is a threat because it can be used to justify any atrocity.

Should the US deport religious leaders who preach terrorism?

Of course. Religion is dangerous and antithetical to freedom.

Should terroist rhetoric be exempt from the First Amendment free speech and freedom of religion protections?

Yes, but...We must be careful what is considered dangerous and who makes that distinction. I think we should probably stick to the 'incitement' test.

Should the US allow the infiltration of religious organizations to monitor for terrorist rhetoric?

Allow me to rephrase...should people be allowed to attend religious meetings? Obviously, the answer to this is yes, which means the answer to the debate question must also be yes. Who's to differentiate an infiltrator?

Should the US deport religious leaders who preach terrorism?

Depends...see below.

Should terroist rhetoric be exempt from the First Amendment free speech and freedom of religion protections?

Exempt? No. However, inciting riots and violence is already an offence, one which would seem to apply here.

Should the US allow the infiltration of religious organizations to monitor for terrorist rhetoric?
I don't see how "allow" enters into it. Very few religions are closed societies anyway (and those that have been in the past have proved themselves to have needed infiltrating anyway - Branch Davidians anyone?)

Should the US deport religious leaders who preach terrorism?
IMO advocating terrorism should be a criminal offence, so if they aren't US citizens deportation might be in order, though custodial sentences should be an option.

Should terroist rhetoric be exempt from the First Amendment free speech and freedom of religion protections?
I've never thought free speech is an absolute right under all circumstances, and I live in Britain where it isn't, so I've no problem with this.