I don't normally make it a point to read Doug Giles columns because he tends to come across as a little abrasive for my taste (although I often find myself agreeing with him). However, this column is worth reading and mulling over. He makes a great point about profiling:
Profiling doesn’t rattle the innocent’s cage. The guiltless, understanding moderate Muslim men who love America and disavow their diseased brethren will not, and should not, have any problem allowing local cops or the Feds to pry into their businesses, back packs or BlackBerrys. Right? If they’ve got nothing to hide, no wicked agenda, then they shouldn’t care if the law pokes around a bit in their affairs.
Hugh Hewitt also has the latest from Great Britain on the steps being taken against radical Islam. His analysis is right on:
This is a sea-change inside the UK. A similar move within the US is very difficult to foresee given First Amendment protections for extreme speech undertaken without both the present intention and present ability to incite immediate violence: "[T]he principle [is] that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).
While he should refuse to answer, it will nevertheless be interesting to see if Judge Roberts is asked about the brandenburg "test" and /or the United Kingdom's new approach to extremist speech.