1.In the essay, P.Williams discusses how the War on Terror is a different kind of conflict compared to traditional wars. Unlike regular wars that usually involve countries with clear borders and identifiable enemies, the War on Terror is more complex. It focuses on non-state groups like terrorist organizations that are spread out across various nations instead of being confined to one specific country. Furthermore, while traditional wars have specific goals and end points, often finishing with peace agreements or surrenders, the War on Terror doesn’t have a clear conclusion. This is because terrorism is more about an ideology and a method rather than a single enemy that can be defeated in a typical way. Additionally, this conflict includes a lot of government monitoring, limits on personal freedoms, and preemptive actions, which makes it quite different from past military engagements.

2.The USA PATRIOT Act allowed for “Roving Wiretaps,” which let law enforcement track a suspect’s communications on different devices without naming a specific phone or computer in the warrant. This was meant to help catch terrorists who often change devices, but it raises important questions about our rights. The Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, seems to be at risk here. Normally, wiretaps need a warrant that clearly states which device is being watched, ensuring that surveillance is focused and specific. However, roving wiretaps can follow a suspect without naming a device, which might lead to excessive monitoring and invasion of privacy. Additionally, some people worry that these wiretaps could violate the First Amendment, as they might make individuals hesitant to speak freely or associate with others if they think their conversations are being watched without proper rules.

3.The “Sneak and Peek” warrants, which were introduced by the USA PATRIOT Act, allow law enforcement to search a person’s property without telling them right away. Normally, the Fourth Amendment says that authorities must inform the suspect when they conduct a search. But with “Sneak and Peek” warrants, officers can wait a long time, sometimes forever, before notifying the person. This raises questions about whether it goes against the Fourth Amendment, which states that searches should be “reasonable” and usually done with prompt notice. If people don’t know their property has been searched, they can’t challenge the search or make sure that the law was followed properly. These warrants were initially meant for counterterrorism efforts, but they have been used in regular criminal cases too, which has led to worries about the government overstepping its boundaries and invading people’s privacy rights.