The war on terror, as described by P. Williams, is not like the wars of the past. Traditional wars typically involved two states facing off, with declared armies, battlefields, and clear fronts. In the essay, Williams observes that the war on terror is carried out in many places physically, but also in the realm of intelligence, surveillance, media, and civilian life. Because the war on terror operates under these new parameters, it raises unique concerns: erosion of civil liberties, permanent states of emergency, continual expansion of executive power, and a permanent “warlike” mindset. Williams warns of how such a war can change us, not just the enemy.
“Roving wiretaps” possibly violates The Forth Amendment which protects people against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and requires that warrants be specific in naming the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. “Roving wiretaps” often don’t specify which devices or accounts will be monitored, violating the requirement for particularity and they allow surveillance on anyone a suspect contacts, even if that person has no involvement in a crime. whats even more worrying is that, the secrecy of these wiretaps means that we, the people, may never know that we were monitored.
“Sneak and Peak” warrants raise the same concerns as well. The Fourth Amendment requires that searches be reasonable, supported by probable cause, and it also assumes that citizens are informed when their property is searched, so they can challenge it if it’s unlawful. “Sneak and Peak” warrants however delays the notice requirement, meaning you might not even know your home was searched until long after it happened. It allows for secret government intrusion, removing your ability to challenge an unlawful search in real time and the delay can extend to a unreasonable amount of time, undermining the basic idea of transparency and accountability.
