Posted on by Heaven Taylor

Discussion 9.2

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.

Posted on by Michelle Lee Thompson

DiscussionBoard 9.2

1.P. Williams describes the War on Terror as a new kind of war because it doesn’t follow the traditional rules of warfare. The War on Terror differs from conflicts that were confined to specific battlefields and had clear start and end dates, as it is a global and continuous effort without a definitive endpoint.

The dynamics of the War on Terror focus on terrorist organizations rather than traditional armies, complicating the identification of a singular adversary or battleground. Another significant difference lies in the ways this war is fought. For instance, rather than engaging in conventional warfare with organized military forces, as seen in past conflicts, terrorist organizations often prefer ambush attacks and quick hit-and-run maneuvers, often combined with a heightened level of violence for added impact.

Attempts to prevent terrorist acts involve military action, intelligence gathering, law enforcement, and diplomatic efforts to find solutions. A major challenge in the ‘War on Terror’ is identifying who is a fighter and who is a civilian. This type of warfare often results in attacks on innocent people, and when the military responds, there is always a risk of harming civilians by mistake

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?

The use of “roving wiretaps” under the Patriot Act has raised significant concerns regarding potential violations of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This silent clause  allows government agencies to monitor phone calls and emails without specifying what information they seek. It is controversial because it enables law enforcement to track a suspect’s communications across multiple devices without needing additional warrants for each one. Unlike traditional search warrants, which clearly specify the subject of an investigation and its purpose, mobile wiretapping lacks sufficient oversight, raising significant privacy concerns. This can be seen as a potential violation of Fourth Amendment rights, as it allows broad surveillance without proper justification, increasing the risk of government overreach in the name of national security. Additionally, this lack of oversight could result in innocent individuals who communicate with suspects being unfairly targeted

3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

“Sneak and Peek” warrants, introduced by the USA Patriot Act, allow law enforcement to search someone’s property without notifying them right away. This raises serious concerns about the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. Critics argue that the delayed notification—sometimes lasting months—violates the rights of those being investigated.

The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement, before they can conduct an active search, to get a warrant, that the communication must clearly explain what they’re searching for, where they’re searching, and why it’s necessary. The regulation order is that the person being investigated is informed at the time of the search, but with “Sneak and Peek” warrants, the authorities can search a home or business, leave, and not tell the property owner right away. This process raises privacy concerns and makes people worry about government overreach and secretive searches. One of the risk factors that can be looked at as a violation, the warrants could be abused, leading to innocent people being unfairly implicated. Since the individual isn’t notified, there’s a chance that evidence could be planted or belongings tampered with to make it look like the person is involved in criminal activity. The person won’t even know about it until much later, making it harder for them to prove their innocence.

In addition, these types of searches might weaken the “exclusionary rule,” which usually keeps illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. The lack of transparency with “Sneak and Peek” warrants could lead to wrongful accusations or convictions based on evidence the person never knew was collected.

Posted on by Chevanise Smith

1) P. Williams writes in her essay that the War on Terror is a new type of war. What’s new about it, and how is it different from traditional wars?
According to Patricia Williams, the War on Terror is a “new type of war” because it doesn’t follow the traditional model of conflict between nations with defined armies, borders, and timeframes. Instead, it targets a vague, ever-present enemy terrorism which can be anywhere and involve individuals rather than governments. This war has no clear endpoint or geographic boundary, and it justifies extraordinary measures that would typically only be used during declared wars. Because of this, it allows the government to expand its powers under the justification of national security, often at the expense of civil liberties.

2) In what ways does the “Roving Wiretaps” provision of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights? Which amendment(s) does it seem to violate and why?
“Roving Wiretaps” allow surveillance to follow a suspect across multiple devices without the government needing to specify which devices will be tapped. This seems to violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and requires a specific warrant based on probable cause. The broad and vague nature of these wiretaps undermines the requirement that warrants must be particular in describing the place to be searched or the items to be seized. As a result, it gives law enforcement the ability to monitor people without clear judicial oversight or accountability.

3) What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?
“Sneak and Peek” warrants allow law enforcement to enter a person’s home or property without immediately notifying them, delaying the usual requirement to inform someone of a search. This also raises serious Fourth Amendmentconcerns, as it bypasses the individual’s right to know that their private space is being searched. Traditionally, the Fourth Amendment requires transparency and timely notice so individuals can challenge the legality of a search. With these warrants, people might never know they were searched unless it leads to charges, which threatens due process and the right to privacy.

Posted on by Arto Artinian

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?