1. P. Williams argues that the war on terror is a qualitatively new kind of conflict,
    keeping in mind some of the most essential features distinguishing it from the
    wars of the past. The character of the enemy is the first decisive aspect: instead of
    another nation-state with a regular military, this war faces non-state actors and terrorist groups operating globally and often merges with civilian populations. This makes it hard to find targets and conduct operations without civilian casualties. Furthermore, the war on terror makes asymmetric warfare the order of the day, whereby the conventional military troops are supposed to face unorthodox tactics like guerrilla warfare, cyber attacks, and terrorism. The goals, too, are different from a mere defeat of the enemy army; instead, it looks to dislodge ideologies and networks. Furthermore, military action is veiled into law enforcement in the war on terror, since it is very often carried out in terms of counterterrorism measures that include intelligence operations, surveillance, and cooperation with other nations, which complicates the traditional framework of warfare even more. These facts make the landscape of conflict increasingly complex and prolonged.
  2. One provision of the Patriot Act includes “roving wiretaps,” a very questionable regard to violating a person’s Bill of Rights, more precisely the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Roving wiretaps give law enforcement authorization to target multiple communication devices used by a suspect without having to obtain a separate warrant for each of those devices. Critics say such a vast approach undermines the requirements for particularized warrants and could result in surveillance targeting people who may not be involved in any criminal enterprise, a violation of privacy rights. Beyond that, there is an added self-incrimination problem with the Fifth Amendment: wiretaps can capture incriminating conversations and result in prosecutions based upon evidence acquired by a warrant not determined with finality. In summary, the pervasive nature of roving wiretaps would lead to invasive surveillance in violation of the basic safeguards for the protection of individual rights articulated in the Bill of Rights.
  3. The “sneak and peek” warrants that the Patriot Act enabled can make searches by police allowable without notifying their suspect of that search right away; this cuts deeply into the possibility of violations of civil rights, specifically the Bill of Rights and its Fourth Amendment. This can be considered extremely opposite to the principle of reasonable and particular searches since it permits the government to enter any private property and perform a search without giving notice in advance, hence easily violating the privacy and property rights of the citizens. Moreover, such warrants violate the due process protections of the Fifth Amendment in that such lack of immediate notification could inhibit individuals from challenging such a search or knowing on what basis such an investigation is occurring along with possible abuses of power. In addition, such secrecy does deter people from engaging in constitutionally protected First Amendment activities such as political dissent or seeking legal counsel due to fear of wiretapping. All in all, “sneak and peek” warrants contribute to an atmosphere of surveillance that many feel can only serve to erode civil liberties and the Bill of Rights protections.

Leave a Reply