Most likely, the same thing that happened in the '90's -- nothing. Muslim terrorists will have a multi-culturally-sensitive free ride, complete with all kinds of federally-funded community outreach programs (Karen Huges, ICNA) and cushy Federal appointments (Alamoudi) until they actually do some major damage (the first WTC bombing), which, of course, will be handled as a law enforcement issue.
This is a fundamental conflict that needs to be resolved now, before we are faced with the inevitable result of allowing conflicts of this magnitude to go unaddressed.
In our suicidally PC society, what are the alternatives? They can't be deported due to fear of "torture" in their home countries, and in places like Canada, the bar for political asylum is set barely above ground level. Al-Arian is slated to be deported, but there is considerable doubt that the Feds will be able to do so. It took years to deport his brother-in-law, who was finally surreptitiously dumped somewhere in the ME shortly after 9/11.Taking these would-be jihadists and hate mongers to court is useless unless a crime can be proved, and the lengthy three-ring legal circus, fawned over by the media, is incredibly expensive: e.g. Moussaoui.
If we release them, we tie up resources in tracking them, and take a great risk of losing sight of them.
We are hoisted by the petard of our own political correctness, and until we have the fortitude to declare Islam a violent political ideology, rather than a religion, this problem will fester, and our defenses will continue to weaken as more and more of them are allowed to infiltrate our society, openly propagate their murderous ideology, and destroy our defenses.
I see Clinton using provisions in the Pariot Act to wiretap, harrass, and imprison the likes of Linda Tripp, Gennifer Flowers, and Monica Lewinsky. But not Vince Foster.
I think that the provisions of the Patriot Act, one by one, will eventually be subjected to Supreme Court or lesser court rulings and be folded into the body of common law, at which point Constitutional issues disappear. In some, perhaps many cases, we will have to fine tune the provisions to reconcile them with Constitutional mandate. Right now we don't have this.
What we have now is a body of law which forms, for lack of a better description, a sort of alternate reality, partially or completely outside the purview of Constitutional protection, and conflicts of this type are ripe for abuse when someone like Clinton comes along.
Finding a middle ground probably won't happen in one swoop, but instead a long series of smaller solutions applied where necessary, as necessary. One alternative that can't be ruled out, a liberal administration which writes the entire Patriot Act out of existence without regard for national security issues. Not an ideal solution either.
The Patriot Act achieved its short term purpose, now it is time to make sure it aligns with Constitutional protection, because if we don't, the alternatives are uniformly negative.