In a February 24 editorial, The Washington Times wrote that "[m]osque surveillance [is] a must" and claimed that "[i]f the authorities want to locate Islamic extremists, they should keep looking at mosques." The Times further wrote: "[I]t would be a grave mistake to return to the days when the default position was to stay away from mosques and allow the domestic terrorist networks that had used them to fully reconstitute. The First Amendment is not a suicide pact."

From the Times editorial:

If the authorities want to locate Islamic extremists, they should keep looking at mosques. Just get the right person for the job.

[...]

If anything, federal authorities have been too cautious in dealing with surveillance of mosques. The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of worship does not place mosques, churches, synagogues and other religious structures off-limits to law enforcement when they suspect illicit activity is taking place inside. And while all Muslims may not be violent extremists, those who hate America and dream of carnage do tend to network at centers of Islamic worship.

[...]

The FBI may have bungled in southern California by placing their trust in a man wholly unsuited for the task to which he was assigned. But it would be a grave mistake to return to the days when the default position was to stay away from mosques and allow the domestic terrorist networks that had used them to fully reconstitute. The First Amendment is not a suicide pact.