- 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?
- 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?
- What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?
2 thoughts on “Discussion Board 9.2”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Melissa Boatswain
POL-100
Patricia J. Williams discusses the “war on terror” as a fundamentally different type of conflict compared to traditional wars. Traditional wars are usually fought between nations with identifiable military targets, battlefields, and a defined endpoint. However, the “war on terror” is an open-ended struggle against a concept—terrorism—rather than a specific nation-state. This shifts warfare from clear, direct confrontations to more ambiguous, global conflicts where enemies are often hard to identify and may be embedded in civilian populations. This also means there is no defined endpoint, making it difficult to achieve a “victory” in the conventional sense.
The “Roving Wiretaps” provision of the USA PATRIOT Act allows law enforcement to monitor the communications of a person without specifying a particular device or location. This seems to violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Traditionally, a search warrant must be specific to a person, place, or item to be searched. Roving wiretaps, however, allows authorities to monitor anyone a suspect may communicate with, potentially leading to broader surveillance that infringes on privacy rights.
“Sneak and Peek” warrants also challenge the Fourth Amendment. These warrants allow law enforcement to conduct searches without immediately notifying the subject of the search. While this can help avoid tipping off suspects in certain investigations, it limits an individual’s right to be aware of and contest searches of their property, which is a fundamental protection under the Fourth Amendment. In both cases, these provisions prioritize security over personal privacy, raising important debates over constitutional protections in the context of counter-terrorism.
Patricia Williams argues that the war on terror represents a new type of war different from traditional wars. The war on terror does not constitute a war against an identifiable nation or group but targets an abstract concept known as terrorism. This concept is not linked to specific borders, armies, or resources. It is a war against fear, emotion, and uncertainty, where the combatants may be anyone or anything perceived as a threat. The new war is distinguished by legal and constitutional changes through policies such as Indefinite detention, secret tribunals, and erosion of civil liberties in the name of national security. These measures mark a new departure from the traditional wartime practices in which due process and accountability were cornerstones. The new war is pursued on the physical battlefields and in the minds of the citizens, where fear may lead to the breakdown of trust and tolerance for authoritarian measures.
The “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment requires specificity in warrants, mandating that they describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Roving wiretaps allows a single court order to authorize surveillance across multiple communication devices without explicitly identifying the devices beforehand. This increases the risk of accidental surveillance of innocent individuals who may come into casual contact with the suspect.
“Sneak and Peek” also seems to violate the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of timely notification in searches and seizures. Under this provision, law enforcement can delay notifying the target of a search. The lack of immediate notification could leave individuals unaware of potential violations of their privacy. Such invasive methods should be tailored to situations where public safety or the investigation is at substantial risk.