Don't know if I'm for or against this, but I always thought racial profiling was when you pulled someone over--or otherwise investigated them--strictly on color. So if a murder suspect were a black male, and you simply rounded up all black males, then yeah, you're profiling. But if the subject is a black male, known to frequent certain establishments, live in a certain neighborhood and work a certain job, and you start investigating people who fit that, uhm, "profile" that sounds like standard police-work to me. Here is the alleged "racial profiling" which the DOJ is seems primed to initiate:

The changes would allow FBI agents to ask open-ended questions about activities of Muslim- or Arab-Americans, or investigate them if their jobs and backgrounds match trends that analysts deem suspect.

FBI agents would not be allowed to eavesdrop on phone calls or dig deeply into personal data--such as the content of phone or e-mail records or bank statements--until a full investigation was opened.

I guess the operative phrase is "trends that analysts deem suspect." If such "trends" are limited to regularly attending mosque and having a full beard, that's probably profiling--and more importantly bad police tactics, no? If, however, it means a Muslim cat who makes frequent trips to, oh I don't know, Afghanistan, has had contact with suspected terrorists, and recently purchased a large number of firearms, that seems fine to me.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.