1. P. Williams views the War on Terror as a fundamentally different type of conflict. Unlike most other wars which are fought between specific countries with identifiable armies, the War on Terror has opened up a kind of borderline warfare with no defined enemy. Neither the enemy nor the endpoint of the conflict are discernible. Most importantly, because of the indefinite nature of the conflict without a defined beginning or ending, the scope of government authority expands into areas where the boundary between everyday life and warfare are increasingly vague such as civilian surveillance and detention. The redefining of the enemy as “unlawful combatants” post 9/11 has also meant that the U.S. can detain such enemies without affording them the protections of due process.
  2. The government can use a single warrant to tap a number of different types of devices through roving wiretaps. This includes devices like computers or phones, Thus, they can bypass specifications on which device exactly will be tapped. This raises issues of the Fourth Amendment, which protects from unreasonable searches, as well as requirements for warrants. Their lack of specificity raises the risk of wider surveillance than intended. There are also arguably impacts on the First Amendment as people may be more reluctant to exercise their right to free speech when they feel they may be watched. It expands surveillance power in a way that appears to violate the Constitution.
  3. With “sneak and peek” warrants, police can search a person’s home or business, and delay any notification for as long as possible. This practices impacts the Fourth Amendment. People have the right to be notified of searches, and defend their right to be searched. Under-the-radar searches bypass transparency and accountability mechanisms; and expand government search and surveillance authority without scrutiny. Such searches violate protections against unreasonable searches and show people that protecting their rights is futile.

Leave a Reply