1. It’s different from traditional wars because the war is to have destruction to benefit them while old wars that wasn’t their goal as well as they wanted to negotiate not like the new wars they dont want that.
2. Roving Wiretaps are violating the fourth amendment of the bill of rights. They are violating it by watching someone or listening and viewing conversations on different devices without a warrant. 
3. A sneek and peek warrant are a search warrant that allows law enforcement to enter a private home without the owner permission 

Bill of rights in politics

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 she talks about about is very broad. As in a war having to do being suspicious with anyone around you. Civilians overall. You just never know who in your own country can be against the United States themselves in helping terrorist from inside the United States.

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

Wiretapping violates the fourth amendment. It violates the fourth amendment right because it’s violating ones privacy.

3.What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants

sneak and peek warrant also violates your fourth amendment. Sneak and peak warrants are able to go into your home violate your privacy when you aren’t even in your home to protect yourself just in case any Officer abuses their power with any corruption that is possible to happen an individual isn’t there to witness anything.

The “struggle on terror” is a unique combat that is exceptional from ordinary wars. In ordinary wars, international locations combat each other; however, in the struggle against terror, businesses like Al-Qaeda and ISIS aren’t tied to any country. These people can get assistance from anyone worldwide, making it easier to forestall them with ordinary armies. The combat against terror is going past simply one country, so international locations want to paint collectively and percentage statistics to be safe. There are also vital guidelines regarding how to deal with humans and what may be complex in this sort of combat. Technology, like cameras and computers, is frequently used to search for terrible guys. Some humans fear that specific laws, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, could damage the guidelines that shield our rights, including proper privacy and an honest trial.

1. 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.
2. “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.
3. “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.

Juan Carlos Rodriguez

Patricia Williams says that traditional war is different then war on terror because because the war on terror is more broad. Usually in war there is one enemy like ww2 it was hitler, but in war on terror it changes to a spectrum to anyone that causes fear.

Roving wiretaps could violate the fourth amendment by letting one wiretap access multiple devices.

Sneak and peak warrants can also break 4th amendment rights by not informing individuals of the search before it happens.

1. Within P. Williams’ essay conveys their message about a war with the focus on terror focusing on new dangers rather than revolving around just the physical destruction that traditional war causes. It differentiates itself from traditional war through a different perspective through not just targeting different territories or military resources, but through a focus on the civilian population and the country’s infrastructure. In traditional warfare, it’s common to have two oppositions facing direct combat with one another with established enemies on each side. In contrast to that traditional warfare, it focuses on factors that are not directly related to the conflict. They tend to gravitate towards unconventional methods to take the advantage of the opposition making the definition of victory unclear and what they need to attack. It makes gathering intelligence and surveillance more valuable, but it leads to further discussion around security being over civil liberties.  

2. The “Roving Wiretaps” of the patriot act causes great concern in terms of violating the bill of rights through the fourth amendment which protects individuals from searches that are unreasonable and seizures. This provision helps the authorities to administer surveillance to wherever they deem it’s appropriate across multiple electronic devices. This can span to an individual’s cellphone to their personal computer all under a single tap to avoid needing multiple court orders to complete this task. While people that support the Roving Wiretaps argue that it’s required to have this flexibility when they have criminals that are extremely familiar with technology, it can lead to a leak of information for those unassociated with the person they are tracking. Using this kind of surveillance goes against the principles in the fourth amendment which protects individual rights. 

3. The “sneak and peek” warrants are described to be warrants that allow law enforcement to complete searches of individuals without notifying the person they are going after. This warrant can also contradict the protections that the fourth amendment provides for the individual. This provision can allow for law enforcement to delay informing the individual about their search which can go against what is considered legal in that investigation. Critics do argue about this practice potentially extending beyond terror and espionage. Through allowing the normalization of these operations, these sneak and peek warrants can raise awareness about the potential abuse that these warrants can cause towards protections that the constitution provides for individuals.

1. Patricia Williams describes the war on terror in her essay as a new kind of warfare that is essentially distinct from conventional conflicts. The war on terror is a struggle against ill-defined ideology rather than a particular state or political institution, in contrast to wars between nations. This absence of a distinct enemy causes ambiguity, making it impossible to set concrete goals or define victory, as the enemy is not confined to a single country but is instead a scattered network of individuals and groups.

Williams also argues that the scale of this conflict is worldwide, crossing national boundaries and having an unparalleled impact on civilian life. Targeting both internal and foreign dangers, the war on terror has resulted in increased government monitoring, security measures, and a blurring of the boundaries between the home and foreign fronts. As governments step up surveillance even within their own borders to prevent possible threats, the global reach and participation of civilian populations alter the conventional rules of engagement and have an impact on civil liberties.

Furthermore, Williams contends that our conception of peace and security is called into question by the war on terror’s endless duration. The war on terror is centered on fighting an ideology that might never completely vanish, in contrast to normal battles, which usually end with treaties or surrenders. This flexibility runs the risk of extending state monitoring and military engagement indefinitely, which would affect civil rights and have long-term repercussions on domestic policy and individual liberties. By bringing to light the intricate moral and legal quandaries of contemporary battle, the war on terror thus signifies a change in our understanding of conflict.

2. The “Roving Wiretaps” clause in the USA PATRIOT Act raises serious questions about possible violations of a number of Bill of Rights amendments, including the Fourth Amendment, which deals with search and seizure. The U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment shields people from unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires that warrants be backed by probable cause and include a detailed description of the location to be searched and the people or property to be taken. With roving wiretaps, law enforcement can keep an eye on several devices without obtaining a warrant for each one. The government does not need to identify the precise devices being tapped before conducting surveillance on a target who regularly switches their communication devices or locations, as permitted by Section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act. Because it permits a wide-ranging and possibly intrusive kind of surveillance without the same procedural protections that would often accompany ordinary wiretap warrants, critics contend that this clause essentially circumvents the Fourth Amendment’s explicit requirements.

Other Amendments may also be indirectly affected by the consequences of governmental overreach in personal privacy, although the Fourth Amendment is most directly implicated. If people are reluctant to voice their thoughts or speak openly because of concern about being watched, then their right to free speech may be violated. The dread of being watched could stifle free speech and deter people from taking part in lawful demonstrations or government criticism which would violate their first amendment. Moreso, if the government gathers data that could be used against someone in court without conducting the necessary due diligence, the safeguards against self-incrimination may also be jeopardize, which violates their fifth amendment. 

3. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, by requiring that search warrants be backed by probable cause and explicitly list the locations to be searched and the objects to be taken. The clause that permits law enforcement to postpone informing a property owner about a search that has been carried out on their property is the main controversial feature of “Sneak and Peek” warrants. The provisions of the Fourth Amendment are violated by this departure from the customary requirement of immediate notification. These warrants allow law enforcement to bypass the property owner’s right to contest the search by allowing covert entry and search without prompt notification. This could potentially compromise the owner’s rights to contest the warrant or to shield their possessions from unjustified inspection and seizure.

The Fourth Amendment is largely impacted by “Sneak and Peek” warrants, but the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination, is also affected. People are protected by the Fifth Amendment from being forced to testify against themselves or from the illegal gathering of information that could be used against them. Evidence is acquired secretly when “Sneak and Peek” warrants are executed without the property owner’s knowledge, which may result in circumstances where people are not aware that they are the subject of incriminating evidence. This lack of knowledge could affect their self-incrimination rights and make it more difficult for them to present a defense because they might not learn of the evidence until the case is in court. Concerns about ethics and constitutionality arise when evidence is gathered in a manner that the subject cannot dispute.

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?

It is a new that war of terror is a war of mind versus war against specific bodies, specific land, and specific resources. As P. Williams states within her essay, there is always a certain hypnosis to the language of war in which war means peace and peace-mothering invites war. It is different from traditional wars as with this being a war of mind, the enemy becomes anybody who makes us afraid.

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 of the Patriot Act seems to violate the Bill of Rights by the Justice Department has long complained about the restrictions that required separate court authorizations for each device used by the target of an investigation. However, the roving wiretaps are allowed against suspected spies and terrorists. This violates it as citizens believe that the language of the Patriot Act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with the suspect. The amendment it seems to violate is the Fourth Amendment as it sits at the boundary between general individual freedoms and the rights of those suspected of crimes.

What about “Sneek and Peek” warrants?

Sneek and peek of the Patriot Act as well seems to violate the Bill of Rights by critics saying the provision allows the use of “sneek and peek” warrants for even minor crimes, not just terror and espionage cases. The amendment that seems to be violated by the sneek and peek warrants is the fourth amendment as well.