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?
In Patricia William’s essay she expresses “that a war against terrorism is a war of the mind” (Williams 1). This means that because a war against terrorism is a civilian enemy and not a military organization a terrorist can be found anywhere and can be anyone. A terrorist is a civilian who is not associated with any political group. Terrorist use violence to accomplish any task they strive to complete. This presents a problem in the government, particularly after the 9/11 attacks. The government’s goal is to find out who these people are and how to find them. However, terrorists can be anyone that makes us fearful and therefore the enemy is not clear. If a military war against another government takes place you make be able to overpower them and conquer their land which will make the losing side surrender. A battle fought in this manner is easy to point out the winning and losing side. A war on terror is about being suspicious of everyone around you. Consequently, it can end up being a battle we are fighting forever because you are not able to indicate when you have won, and that makes it extremely dangerous.
In the war on terrorism, fear is the driving force which is why it tends to be such a successful strategy. Continuous accusations and bold declarations stir up feelings of concern making it impossible to see an end in sight. However, according to Williams we should be careful of this panic because it can begin to infringe on human rights. By living in fear, we are essentially inviting war to our doorstep, making it a never-ending cycle of dread and alarm. Therefore, people begin to live in fearful delusion and take these bold and carefully chosen statements literally. This is used as an excuse to remain in the fight against terrorism and basic human rights of those accused are ignored. Williams uses the phrase “the constitution is not a suicide pact” to explain that people’s desperate need for survival at any cost. This quote means that the constitutional restrictions on government power must be equal to the protection of the state as well as its citizens.
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?
Roving Wiretaps allows the government to tap several devices which removes the need for multiple warrants for a suspect’s cellphone. It states in the 4th Amendment that the government is not allowed to search your property without a warrant. To get this warrant police are required to go to court and explain that there is a person of interest who they believe is breaking the law, occasionally supplies them with further evidence and asks if they could look at the person’s devices. When the judge is convinced, they will sign the warrant, and the police can go into their home and seize the suspect’s computer, cellphone, and other incriminating technology. However, the issue with this is that they are dealing with a terrorist who is also a civilian, so they do not know who they are before they act. This person can look like any ordinary individual.
The government argues that they must be able to listen into wiretaps of potential terrorists through several cellphone conversations. These people can have multiple burner phones with different numbers which are disposed of several times a day. Suspects do this to make it hard for police to get a warrant because by the time they get one on a particular phone number they have already purchased a new phone. The government tries to avoid this by saying that they only care about the person’s voice, not the phone numbers they use. Therefore, any phone that picks up their voice is subject to the Roving Wiretap. You can listen to several cellphones but only need one warrant not several separate ones.
The government says that roving wiretaps are required to deal with terrorists who are technologically advanced, but a lot of people are against this. They believe that it violates their privacy rights. This makes it easy for the government to listen in to conversations of people who are not suspected of terrorism. They don’t have the right to listen to these people and therefore are violating the 4th Amendment.
3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?
Sneak and Peek warrants allow police to search a home or business without immediately notifying a subject. Prior to this, in order to do a legal search in someone’s home you are required to have a warrant and must be certain that the person or any other occupant of the home is present before they search it. Police are not permitted to have searches in secret or search anyone’s premises without them at home. Someone must be there to prevent police from planting evidence or exercising any other possible abuse of power. In the sneak and peak warrant authorities go into a suspect’s home, look through their things and then leave. This warrant makes it possible for police to have secret searches in a suspect’s home. It allows the police to look through someone’s private property without them being present, even though they took the proper steps to acquire a warrant. By doing this it violates the 4th Amendment because authorities can enter a premises and look through someone’s things without their knowledge. Due to this act being predominantly used on terrorists it shows how the Bill of Rights can be disregarded in times of war.
