- Normal, traditional wars are most commonly fought between nations with a clear endpoint, enemies, and objectives. The war on terror is different because it’s not fought with an enemy, but instead with our own fear. War of terror doesn’t have a clear endpoint, or anyone to hold the victory of the war.
- “Roving Wiretap” does affect the bill of rights. It effects the first amendment; roving wiretaps are made to be a use of invasion of privacy. this could limit conversation and be put into fear under government monetization. This could happen with being loosely connected with a suspect. It also violated the fourth amendment, the protection against unreasonable search and seizures. This act requires some type of warrant. Roving wiretaps allows surveillance to check in between devices without any warrants.
- “Sneak and Peak warrants” also violate the fourth amendment, which protects others against unreasonable searches without notifying those whose property is under search and seizures. “Sneak Peak warrant” allow law officials to search people’s property without immediately notifying that individual.
One thought on “Discussion board 9.2 – Aniyah Kitson”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Aniyah, You’ve outlined the distinctions of the war on terror well. Unlike traditional wars, which have clear sides, goals, and an endpoint, the war on terror is a complex, often invisible conflict fueled by fear, with no specific enemy or decisive victory.
Regarding “Roving Wiretaps,” they do raise constitutional issues, impacting both the First and Fourth Amendments. Their broad surveillance scope may suppress free speech and personal privacy without a clear warrant, conflicting with protections against unreasonable searches. “Sneak and Peek” warrants similarly sidestep the Fourth Amendment by allowing delayed notification of searches, creating significant privacy concerns.