Discussion Board 9.2

  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?

D.B 9.2 – Justine Lazdina

  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 on Terror is a new type of war, because it is not a war with a distinct target, land or resources. Unlike that of a traditional war that has two or more armies fighting each other, this type of a war is fighting an idea, it is a “war of the mind” as the author put it. The War on Terror is a “preventative” war, but in its attempt to prevent the actions of “terrorists” it diminishes/tramples on the rights of its citizens.
  1. 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” allow for one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices without the need for new/additional court authorizations. This violates The Fourth Amendment which protects an individual against unreasonable searches and seizures. Not only does it violate the rights of the suspect, but also the privacy of anyone the suspect comes into contact with regardless how casual said contact.
  1. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?
  • “Sneak and Peek” warrants, also, violate The Fourth Amendment by bypassing informing the individual whose property is going to be searched PRIOR to said search. This makes the warrants/law unconstitutional.

Ignacio Salas on Patriot Act

1. It was a new type of war, usually meant to be fought in the minds of the population, aiming to your emotions and reasoning. In P. Williams words “the war has been framed as one against “terror” – against unruly if deadly emotionalism – rather than as a war against specific bodies, specific land, specific resources.”, where anybody could be the enemy, and attack at any moment, as they would usually be dressed as civilians, therefore, whoever made you afraid, was the enemy. In previous traditional wars, the enemy had a face, a very specific name or nationality, and had a very specific goal. When you have an enemy that is not tangible, the “war on terror” can go forever, because any time you feel afraid that someone might hurt you, it means the war hasn’t ended, the terror is still there.

2. The “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act mainly violates the 4th amendment, by not respecting the individuals belongings, person, home or documentation, as any federal agent through this act, could have a blank warrant to search and seize anything while acting under this procedures, secondly, it would also violates the 1st amendment, because individuals would be restricted of their freedom of expression, and, in any case that a suspect of terrorism might have been taken to court, any information seized while wiretapping it could be used against them, having violated the right of protection against self-incrimination, and not having a due process, violating the 5th amendment.

3. The “Sneak and Peek” warrants, as the “Roving Wiretaps” violate the 4th amendment, by letting federal agents use their power to do unreasonable searches at an individual’s home or business without notifying them and without their permission, they are also called “delayed notice” warrants, and jeopardizes the rights of the individual to have security over his belongings, home, person or documentation.

Zhongquan

  1. Traditional warfare has a clear enemy, and in the war on terrorism, anyone can be defined as an “enemy”.
  2. The Patriot Act allows intelligence or law enforcement agencies to monitor new communication tools without re-obtaining authorization after they change communication tools. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that investigators must apply for and obtain a search warrant before searching and detaining a suspect to confirm that the suspect has committed a crime. Therefore The “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment.
  3. Sneek and peek” warrants authorize its enforcement officers to physically enter private premises and secretly search the premises without the permission or knowledge of the owner or occupier。

DB 9.2/Terrorism

  1. Traditionally, war would be waged against a certain targets like an enemy. According to P. Williams, the ‘war on terror’ was more mind warfare. The special thing about this war was that the enemy had no specific identity. Anyone in America would be a potential target. Also the thing with terror and mind warfare is it tends to make people act out of fear and emotion and ultimately prejudice. 
  2. The ‘Roving Wiretaps’ seems to violate the fourth amendment. There seems to be a contradiction. The way it’s supposed to work it federal agents need to apply and get a approval for wire taps before recording. In the case of suspected terrorists, this does not apply. 
  3. “Sneak and Peek” warrants also seem to violate the Fourth Amendment. This allows agents to suddenly enter suspects homes without warning to the suspect. This validate unreasonable searches and seizing of property without proper documentation. Granted, if you warn a suspect that they are being investigated, chances are they may try to run. This should only be used in extreme cases. 

War on Terror and the Patriot Act

  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 on terror is a different type of war because it is a war grounded only in our fears rather than reality. Thus it is possible to find fault or an enemy in anyone who we see as playing into our fears; they are the enemy not because they wish us malice, but because our fears overpower our reason. We also begin to dehumanize each other even more when we indulge our fears, which makes this kind of warfare more personal and even more dangerous.

  1. 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 seem in contradiction to the first amendment, which protects freedom of speech, even when it is speech critical of the government. The roving wiretaps allow for anonymous surveillance, and encourage retribution against those who are found to be “a threat” to the government, even though speech critical of the government is protected.

  1. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?

“Sneak and Peek” warrants violate the fourth amendment, which says that people are free from unlawful search without reasonable suspicion. These warrants allow the government to provide reasonable suspicion after the fact, which is unjust and a direct violation to the bill of rights. The idea behind these warrants is that they prevent people from compromising legitimate searches, but in reality, people are pursued without reasonable suspicion, and have been arrested because of minor crimes of which there was no previous suspicion.

Discussion Board 9.2 Hongtao Fu

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.

9.2

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? 

What is new about the war of terror is that anyone can be anyone around you anyone can be a threat. Many incidents have happened due to terrorism, and this causes fear in people, having them feel like they are not safe. 

  1. 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 appears to violate the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution because the Patriot Act’s “Roving Wiretaps” regulations allow authorities to listen in on suspected spies and terrorists.

  1. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

A sneak and peek search warrant authorizes law enforcement officials executing it to get physical access to private property without the owner’s or occupant’s permission or knowledge and search the property secretly.

Discussion Board 9.2 SaiLungCash Jeung

1.The war on terrorism is a war of ideas. There is no clear enemy in that war. It makes people sensitive and fears that those around them may become terrorists. Moreover, the new laws formulated by the government could easily violate the rights of the people. Traditional wars are wars that have clear enemies and are launched against these territories and resources.

2.The “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seems to violate the Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution. Because the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that investigators must apply for and obtain a search warrant before searching and detaining suspects, and the “Roving Wiretaps “Of the Patriot Act allows investigators to allow wiretapping of suspicious spies and terrorists, and they do not need to apply for a search warrant.

3.Sneak and Peek” Warrants means that the FBI can search homes or businesses without immediately notifying the investigative target. This violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Because the Fourth Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. And Sneak and Peek” Warrants allow investigators to search the houses of suspicious persons without providing notice that may jeopardize the investigation, which violates the people’s houses and wealth.

Nikita Vasilyev – D.B. 9.2

  1. While a traditional war would be declared and led against a specific entity, such as an enemy or a territory, the war on “terror”, in P. Williams’ view, was a war of the mind. The newness of that war was that no enemy was defined, which made it possible to wage a war against anybody who made America or Americans feel afraid. State of panic and fear that followed the events of September 2001 was such that fear, not facts, was a predominant subject of discourse and most Americans did not see war, torture, and human rights abuse as unusual or wrong.
  2. Surveilling suspects using roving wiretaps was aimed at technologically-savvy terrorists who could use multiple media channels to remain as invisible as possible and to make tracing them complicated. However, this practice could violate the First and the Fifth Amendments in the following way. Wiretapping assumes that a suspect will come into contact with other people and, through their communication, provide the necessary proof of their guilt. Since the information collected makes little sense out of context, innocent people’s privacy, freedom of expression and protection from self-incrimination will be at risk. If we think about it – it is a direct violation of the Bill of Rights: today an innocent person is talking to a stranger or an acquaintance, tomorrow – they are a suspect in an investigation through no fault of their own.
  3. “Sneak and Peek” warrants seem to directly violate the Fourth Amendment which grants people security in their homes and provides for protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. While “Sneak and Peek” warrants might be an indispensable tool for fighting terrorism, law enforcement officers will have an unconstitutional way of conducting investigations on minor crimes. 

Discussion post- Jasmin Amigon

  1. The war against terrorism is a war against civilians because a terrorist can be anyone which created fear and distrust. It is unclear who the enemy can be and you can be fighting this war for a long time. The war against terrorism can be long-term because it’s a war of the mind and it’s troublesome to talk about facts rather than fear. It’s dangerous to be kept in the loop of fear because one never feels safe. This new war is similar to oppression in communities because receiving information about terrorism many Americans wouldn’t oppose torturing methods. The war on terror is different than traditional wars because unlike traditional wars in which is a war against specific bodies, land, and resources. War on terror is one against terror/fear.
  1. Roving wiretaps are useful because it allows the government to deal with technologically sophisticated terrorists. This provision of the Patriot Act specifically permits roving wiretaps against suspected terrorists. However, The Roving Wiretaps of the Patriot Act violates the bill of rights by violating the defendant’s constitutional rights.
  1. Sneak and Peek allow search warrants in which authorities search a building without immediately notifying the target. Additionally, it can not only be applied exclusively to acts of foreign and domestic terrorism but, any federal crime including misdemeanors. Although, the “Sneak and Peek” has been useful in catching criminals such as drug dealers without jeopardizing an investigation still some people think that this warrant allows searches for minor crimes.