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?
    • In her essay “The War on Terror and Human Rights,” Patricia J. Williams contends that the War on Terror represents a fundamental shift in the nature and framing of armed conflict. Unlike traditional wars-which are typically fought between identifiable nation-states or organized militant groups with defined geographic boundaries and strategic objectives-the War on Terror lacks a clear enemy or endpoint. Williams emphasizes the psychological and amorphous nature of this new form of warfare, writing that “a war against terrorism is a war of the mind, so broadly defined that the enemy becomes anybody who makes us afraid” (Williams, par. 6). This formulation signals a dangerous expansion of governmental power, where fear rather than concrete intelligence becomes the justification for military and domestic actions. Traditional wars are constrained by international law and specific military targets; the War on Terror, by contrast creates a framework in which suspicion alone can render individuals or communities subject to surveillance, detention, or violence. The indistinct definition of the “enemy” destabilizes not only foreign policy but also domestic civil liberties, allowing the state to erode constitutional protections in the name of security.
  2. In what ways do the “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights? Which amendment(s) do they seem to violate and why?
    • The “Roving Wiretap” provision of the USA PATRIOT Act is a particularly troubling element when evaluated through the lens of constitutional law. It permits law enforcement agencies to monitor an individual’s communications across various devices without specifying in advance which devices will be tapped. This broad and nonspecific surveillance authority appears to violate two key constitutional protections: the First and Fourth Amendments. The First Amendment, which safeguards freedom of speech, is jeopardized when individuals feel that their private conversations are subject to government scrutiny without due cause. Even the potential for surveillance can chill free expression, particularly among dissenting voices or minority communities who may already be vulnerable to profiling. More directly, the Fourth Amendment is compromised by the implementation of roving wiretaps. This amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and mandates that warrants be issues upon probable cause, with clear identification of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Roving wiretaps bypass these requirements by not tethering surveillance to a specific location or device, undermining judicial oversight and individual protections. In essence, the government is granted sweeping discretion to conduct ongoing, generalized monitoring-a direct affront to the amendment’s original intent to limit arbitrary state intrusion.
  3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?
    • “Sneak and Peek” warrants, also authorized under the PATRIOT Act, allow federal agents to enter and search an individual’s property without immediate notification to the owner. This mechanism significantly undermines constitutional protections under both the Fourth and Firth Amendments. Under the Fourth Amendment, government agents must obtain a warrant based on probable cause and must specify what is to be searched and seized. Equally important is the expectation that the subject of the search be notified, which allows them to contest the legality of the action and to hold law enforcement accountable. “Sneak and Peek” warrants subvert this process by delaying notification, sometimes for extended periods, thus nullifying the subject’s ability to respond in real time to potential constitutional violations. In addition, the Fifth Amendment-which guarantees due process of the law-is weakened by the use of these covert searches. Due process entails the right to know the charges or evidence brought against oneself in a timely manner so as to prepare an adequate defense. When individuals are unaware that a search has taken place, and are not promptly informed of the evidence collected, they are placed at a distinct disadvantage in legal proceedings. This lack of transparency directly conflict with the foundational principles of procedural justice.

Leave a Reply