1.P. Williams writes in her essay, that the war on terror is a new type of war. What’s new about it, how is it different from traditional wars?

Terrorism is a means for a weaker faction to attack a stronger faction. In the case of the United States, it is difficult to defend from unpredictable terrorist attacks, while The US military has no target to capture or cities to occupy. Traditional war often has a tangible target, either a piece of territory or a finite natural resource, terrorism aims to install fear among the enemy instead. Therefore a terrorist organization can take on a form of a network instead of an army because there is no need to hold a front line. This new type of war is not only about military power but more about information and counter-infiltration.

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?

“Roving Wiretaps” refers to the permission to wiretap and eavesdrop on a suspect for all of his/her communication devices without the need to apply for a new wiretap for each new device. This may sound proper enough however it seems to violate the Fourth Amendment right. The fourth Amendment protects one’s property from unreasonable searches and seizures. Any unlawfully acquired evidence can not be used to testify in court unless the search is authorized by the court which must be within a specific time frame, location and item. Knowing that the special authority is given by “Roving Wiretaps” doesn’t specify the item to be searched. Which is Unconstitutional.

3.What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?

“Sneak and Peek” Warrant allows the law enforcement investigator to perform a warranted search before noticing the subject that is being searched. It allows the investigator to obtain evidence with minimal chance of the suspect destroying the evidence upon notice. This gives the crime investigator a powerful tool to fight crime however the constitutionality of it is debatable. The Fourth Amendment stated the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches. I don’t think searching first noticing later falls under the realm of reasonable. It depends on the subjectivity of “reasonable.” Maybe in the investigator’s view, the reasonable doubt is established so the search is justified. However, it is not reasonable to have strangers all of a sudden breaching into your house rampage through everything.

Leave a Reply