P. Williams argues that the war on terror is a new kind of war because it doesn’t have clear boundaries, enemies, or an endpoint. Unlike traditional wars fought between nations, this one targets non-state actors and can happen anywhere, including within the United States. From the Patriot Act materials, it’s clear that this type of war expands government power inward, not just outward. I think what’s most different and concerning is that it blurs the line between national defense and domestic surveillance, making it easier to justify limiting civil liberties in the name of security.

“Roving wiretaps” under the Patriot Act seem to violate the Fourth Amendment because they allow surveillance without specifying exactly which device is being monitored. The OpenStax reading emphasizes that the Fourth Amendment requires warrants to be specific and based on probable cause. Roving wiretaps weaken that requirement, making it easier for the government to monitor individuals broadly, which risks abuse.

“Sneak and peek” warrants raise similar concerns. These allow law enforcement to search someone’s property without immediately notifying them. This also conflicts with the Fourth Amendment, since traditional warrants require notice and clear justification. In my view, both policies show how the war on terror has led to a shift where protecting security often comes at the expense of basic constitutional rights.