However, cases about terrorism where police investigate individuals who are fundamentalist Muslims, the religious group known to have produced the September 11 terrorists, are an almost immediate cry of "racial and religious profiling." Claims of racial profiling are complaints against what is an established police investigation method and are a last resort by accused individuals to divert attention away from their crimes and toward a more favorable outcome. Situations of blatant racial discrimination (requiring Arab males to take a loyalty oath to the U.S., for example) or of invasions into private, law-abiding citizens' lives (pulling their library records), while contradictory to our ideals of individual rights, are really not likely to happen. The priority of the federal government is currently and will remain, naturally, in pursuing terrorist suspects whom they already have reasonable suspicions about as opposed to investigating and intruding into the private lives of law-abiding citizens.

A came to this panel with the intent of being a voice of moderation; I do intend to offer viewers an option between the violation of the civil liberties that they hold so dear and extending these rights and privileges to individuals whose intent is to harm the U.S.

There does exist a middle ground of protecting both the safety and liberties of American citizens; a way to ensure that all suspects are treated in a manner that is consistent with our traditional values of equal treatment and privacy while still maintaining national security and not unduly hampering the efforts of law enforcement officials.

Some provisions of the Patriot Act are expiring in December of 2005 (Wikipedia 2005). Debate...

Civil libertarians fear the renewal of the provisions, and national security hawks fear their repeal. Both sides have only the best interest of America in mind, they simply have different methods of ensuring that our way of life and our values are protected.
A propose that the solution to this dispute is for Congress to realize that during a time of war, like current days, that public outcry over potential government action is not justification for hampering the capabilities of law enforcement officials who are protecting the national security. For there to be ideals to protected at all, some power to investigate, observe, and interrogate suspected enemies of our nation must be given to police and the military in their interactions with suspected terrorists.

Thank you for your time and for allowing me to voice these issues today; I hope that the viewers will be able to see the middle ground regarding the U.S.A. Patriot Act and the powers of police at all levels to do their jobs.

Works Cited

Department of Justice website containing full text of USA PATRIOT Act, 2001. Accessed online 09/09/05 at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf

Lithwick, Dahlia and Turner, Julia, 2003. "A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 1: Should you be scared of the Patriot Act?" published online at Slate.com on 08/23/03 and accessed 09/09/05 at http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/

USA PATRIOT Act" at Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, 2005. Accessed 09/09/05 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act