Hysteria is not a method of combating terrorism. Unraveling the safeguards of the breadth of the executive branch's power because of a "clear and present" danger is not wise method, either. True, but neither is resorting to a conspiracy-based abandonment of logic. Do the examples above represent "hysteria," or do they represent a less sinister frame of mind? "Racial profiling" is a vague concept that can apply to various anecdotal situations. Regarding the NSA wirtapping operation, how does it compare to situations when the NSA doesn't need a warrant in the first place? Which provisions of the Patriot Act do you view as invalid? The entire thing? Certain sections? How does the Patriot Act compare to case law that already exists? The dangers with issues like these are that a person can base how they react to them on nothing but their own perception. An extreme privacy advocate might believe that something like a warrant must be used in every situation, with no exceptions. However, society as a whole has allowed and accepted numerous exceptions to the above based on the situation. If that's the case, which view is more extreme? Neither is automatically more "correct" than the other, except a person's perception shouldn't ignore reality. There can certainly be concerns raised about any of the above, but concerns can be raised about any action, law, or belief. The difference applies when that concern is viewed with a critical eye, instead of falling back on "so and so is evil because I don't like it!"