1. P. Williams writes in her essay, that the war on terror is a new type of a war. What’s new about it, how is it different from traditional wars?
The war on terror is a war primarily against civilian enemies committing acts of terror, instead of a traditional war that would be against a specific body or land. P. Williams describes it as a “war of the mind” because these enemies are undefined and thus become anything or anyone that we imagine could make us afraid in addition to the actual threats. This is further different from traditional wars because we needed to find out who might be involved through the civilian population, which led to President Bush overextending his executive power without the ability for Congress or judicial checks and balances. Government acts and laws were put into place that removed rights from citizens and non-citizens alike who were suspected of terrorism, which in and of itself could have meant behaving in ways that were unsupportive or unpatriotic. In a way, it could have been seen as a war on the privacy and legal rights of the American people because many rights, such as those that protect freedom of speech or expression, or the rights surrounding a fair trial and self-incrimination, were taken away by the government.
2. In what ways does the “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights? Which amendment(s) does it seem to violate and why?
“Roving wiretaps” allow for one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices, instead of needing individual authorizations for each phone, PC, or other piece of technology a suspect possesses. This seems to violate the Fourth Amendment because it essentially makes the requirements for search warrants less than what is established. It allows for one warrant to allow federal officers to track the usage and contents of someone’s property on an ongoing basis, regardless of if that individual is using it or if they are aware it is being tracked. The items are not being seized and searched, but instead tracked, meaning that it is possible for the rights of those who are not the suspect to be infringed upon if they happen to be in contact with the suspect or use their technology during the time in which the suspect is being tracked. It also is a system based around pursuing self-incrimination, which is protected under the Fifth Amendment, through violating one’s privacy in the hope of discovering evidence of a crime.
3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?
“Sneak and Peek” warrants let authorities search a home or business without notifying the target that they are the subject of an investigation. Investigators need to explain why they want the delay notice and argue that it can help to secure information that could otherwise be covered up with having to announce the investigation. However, this also violates the Fourth Amendment, as it requires for the search to be announced as well as the items that will be seized. Sneak and Peek warrants skirt around that by allowing for investigators to enter into a suspect’s house unannounced, which violates the privacy that is expected in regards to one’s home. It creates situations where evidence could be fabricated or planted in order to condemn someone, and makes it so that the exclusionary rule would not apply because it counts these situations as legal. This once again violates the expected privacy one has under the bill of rights by allowing authorities to enter into and investigate your property without anyone being present.
