I live in Washington, D.C., and I travel on trains, subways, buses and planes. I have stood next to a bomb-sniffing dog on my way to work. I have seen police switch trains to be closer to a family of Middle Eastern decent. I am, like many Americans, disturbed by the arrest and detainment of American citizens without charge or access to counsel.

But that is not in the USA Patriot Act, no matter how concerned we might be about it. This country is composed of different people with varying views and priorities.

In order to progress, all sides must remain focused on the facts and real debates instead of using emotion to pit Americans against each other.

There are important components to the Patriot Act that help remove the legal barriers that prevent law enforcement and intelligence officers from sharing information, but there are some things that deserve more attention and fine-tuning. It is important to protect the American people, but also to protect and defend the Constitution. Congress should pursue security measures that prevent terrorism, but not at the expense of our civil liberties.

What should be questioned is not the Patriot Act as a whole, but the 16 provisions that were considered controversial four years ago when the bill was passed. Many voted for the act because of this limit and the oversight that was promised.

Unfortunately, that oversight did not come, although one court found the confiscation of personal records without judicial review to be unconstitutional.

The question is really about balance. The framers of the Constitution knew the balance between security and liberty when war was being fought on our shores.

Today, Congress has a duty to protect the American people from terrorism, but they also need to protect law-abiding citizens from unaccountable government power over our personal lives.

They do not need to violate our Constitution to keep our country safe.