1. What’s new about the war on terror, how is it different from traditional wars?

Patricia Williams points out that the war on terror is pretty different from the wars most of us learned about in history class. It’s not about countries fighting over borders or resources. Instead, it’s this huge, confusing battle against “terror,” which isn’t a country or a specific enemy you can easily point to. It’s like the enemy could be anywhere and is more about scary ideas than soldiers on a battlefield. This makes everything more complicated because how do you fight against something you can’t exactly see or define?

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?

The “Roving Wiretaps” from the Patriot Act feel like they’re stretching the rules of the Fourth Amendment—that’s the one that protects us from random searches. Normally, if the government wants to tap your phone, they need to tell a judge exactly why and what they’re looking for. But with roving wiretaps, they don’t have to be so specific. They can tap any device you might use without proving each time that they have a good reason to do so. It feels like this could lead to a lot of unnecessary snooping because they don’t have to be as careful about respecting people’s privacy.

3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?

“Sneak and Peek” warrants let the police search places without telling the people right away that they’re doing it. This is another tricky area with the Fourth Amendment. Usually, if the police search your house, they have to show you the warrant and tell you what’s going on, which means you know your rights are being respected right then and there. But with these sneak and peek searches, they can come in, look around, and you might not know about it until later. It’s worrying because it seems like it could open the door for them to stretch the rules about what’s okay and what’s not without anyone watching.