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.

1. P. Williams discusses how the war on terror is different from traditional war because it doesn’t involve two countries fighting each other directly. Instead, it’s often against non-state groups or terrorists in conflict with one another. Traditional wars usually have clear sides; for example an army of a specific country. In contrast, war on terror involves fighting groups that may be spread out around the world. Traditional wars also focus more on preventing attacks rather than just winning battles.
2. The “Roving Wiretaps” from the Patriot Act can seem to violate the Bill of Rights. It is particularly in violation of the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This amendment says that the government needs a warrant based on probable cause to wiretap someone’s phone. Roving wiretaps allow law enforcement to track multiple phones without getting a new warrant each time. Some people believe takes away personal privacy rights.
3. “Sneak and Peek” warrants allow law enforcement to search a person’s property without notifying them right away. This can seem to violate the Fourth Amendment because it allows searches without immediate notice. Some argue that this is an abuse of power and invasion of privacy. People should be informed about searches in a timely manner, but these warrants let the government delay that notification until after the fact.

1. The war on terror differs from classic wars in several ways. A key distinction is the type of adversaries; instead of being fought between countries, this conflict targets non-state entities and terrorist groups. Additionally, the scope of this war extends beyond particular areas, covering numerous nations and regions. Moreover, terrorists employ unconventional methods, like suicide bombings and cyber-attacks, which diverge from the usual tactics seen in military confrontations.

2. The Patriot Act’s “Roving Wiretaps” appear to contravene the Bill of Rights, possibly also infringing on the Fourth Amendment, which safeguards against unwarranted searches and seizures. The broad wording of the Patriot Act could lead to the privacy infringements of innocent individuals not implicated in criminal behavior.

3. The “Sneak and Peek” warrants breach the Bill of Rights. These warrants also pose issues under the Fourth Amendment, as they permit searches without immediate alert, potentially violating the right to be secure in one’s home and belongings against unreasonable searches.

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?
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?
3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?