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?

The fear that Americans are not safe creates this narrative that the government can violate human rights for the sake of safety. There is nothing being reported to citizens as to what is happening in battlefields and why the government is taking actions against certain countries. For example the Bush Administration created new laws, orders and policies that gives the American government too much power. Examples of this are, ” the disregard for international treaties and conventions; strict controls on media reports about the war; secret surveillance and searches of citizens* computers; widespread ethnic profiling; indefinite detention of non-citizens; offers of expedited American citizenship to those who provide evidence about terrorists; and military tribunals with the power to try enemies in secret, without application of the usual laws of evidence, without right of appeal, yet with the ability to impose the death penalty.”. These are blatant violations of laws set to protect citizens and people.

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 first amendment protects the activities of citizens. The “Roving Wiretaps” suggest that even if someone is not a suspect can too become a suspect and have thing about their intimate lives be known by other people. This reminds me of Snowden’s protest again the government’s overwatch on citizen’s devices and violation of their privacy.

3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

If a “Sneak and Peek” warrant occurred during the time weed was not legal, somebody who has not connection to the crime that is supposed to be investigated gets caught with weed can now be turned into a suspect simply because they were in possession of such. I don’t exactly think that its overkill but if someone was caught with a gun in the house that’s not registered to protect themselves things like that should be considered minor. This is two sides of the same coin so, if someone is caught for a minor crime it does help make things a little safer but it does not directly lead back to the purpose of the “Sneak and Peek” warrant. The warrant is to find terrorists and espionage. It can be beneficial if someone is genuinely breaking the law but it doesn’t fall under the same category for the purpose of the warrant.

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?

Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the US Government expands terrorism laws to include “domestic terrorism” which could subject political organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, harassment, and criminal action for political advocacy. They expands the ability of law enforcement to conduct secret searches, gives them wide powers of phone and Internet surveillance, and access to highly personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records with minimal judicial oversight. It allows FBI Agents to investigate American citizens for criminal matters without probable cause of crime if they say it is for “intelligence purposes.” Permits non-citizens to be jailed based on mere suspicion and to be denied re-admission to the US for engaging in free speech. Suspects convicted of no crime sometimes were detained indefinitely in six month increments without meaningful judicial review. Per Patricia Williams the Patriot Act is a war on terror. And this war is different from the other war because it is a war of the US government against the US citizens and their rights. In other war, other countries or non US citizens are considered as the enemies. The war on terror people living inside the US are seen as the enemies.

1. 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?

Under the Patriot Act, the government had the ability to obtain “roving wiretaps” or surveillance on multiple phones for ordinary crimes. This violated the Fourth Amendment’s requirements that warrants be issued only for “probable cause” and “particularly describing” the affected person. The Fourth says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Also, this violates the first clause of the Fifth Amendment which requires that serious crimes be prosecuted only after an indictment has been issued by a grand jury.

1. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

USA PATRIOT Act covered “sneak and peek” search warrants, which allowed law enforcement officers to search a home or business and seize material without the knowledge or consent of the owner or occupant. This violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime.

1. According to P. Williams, the war on terror is a new type of war because it is facing new kinds of enemies who have access to new weapons of mass destruction. The war on terror has been as one against “terror” against unruly if deadly emotionalism rather than as a war against specific bodies, specific land, and specific resources. (P. Williams). This is the difference that the war on terror has from traditional wars. 

2. To start off, the fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and outbreaks by the government, but if it is guaranteed that the person had done a crime, then the government is allowed to search. The Roving Wiretaps violated the fourth amendment which declares the government can not run a search without getting a contract and demonstrating possible reasons to think that the person has committed a crime. Citizens say that the language of the act could lead to privacy violations for anyone who comes into casual contact with a suspect. 

3. Sneek and peek is referred to as a police officer physically going into a private owner’s place and running a search and observing what they see. If it was a drug dealer or other criminal’s place, then, in this case, it would be a great act because the police are after the criminals in this case. However, if there are police officers who enter places to observe and search for minor crimes then it would obviously violate the fourth amendment.

1. P. Williams states that the war on Terror is a war of the mind rather then a war on specific bodies, land or resources. This is the first of its kind and because the war on Terror is a war on the mind it makes the enemy anybody who makes us afraid. Wars in the past have been very straight forward on who was the enemy. Country A is fighting country B and they eliminate each others armies. With a war on terrorism the enemy is never fully known.
2. The Roving wiretaps of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights by invading individuals privacy. People fear that act could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with a suspect. It seems to violate the Fourth amendment because the Fourth amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizures.
3. Sneek and Peak Warrants seem to violate the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights states that notice is required before a search. Now with Sneek and Peak warrants no notice beforehand is required. This also seems to violates the Fourth Amendment because the amendment states people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

1.) P. Williams essay revolves around an issue that has plagued the U.S.; terrorism. They begin by talking about the notorious September 11th terrorist attack, which was the bombing of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. While other attacks followed, it became evident that the country was dealing with a matter that posed as a threat to it and the citizens. The new type of war that Williams suggests is the way their way of dealing with terrorism. They became more fearful and with that, it made the U.S. start to move in a manner that exploited the Amendment’s that were made to protect individual’s basic rights. For example, according to paragraph 9 of the text, Williams states, “This brings me to the second aspect of our Constitutional crisis – that is, the encroachment of our historical freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. The establishment of the new Office of Homeland Security and the passage of the so-called USA Patriot Act has brought into being an unprecedented merger between the functions of intelligence agencies and law enforcement. What this means might be clearer if we used the more straightforward term for intelligence – that is, spying. Law enforcement agents can now spy on us, “destabilizing” citizens not just non-citizens.” This quote from the text shares how the government has chosen to breach citizens Amendment rights and justify it by declaring it is for their protection against terrorism. So, while the fight against terrorism is a war within itself-battling the violation of Amendments are another. Terrorism sparked a fear that made the U.S. want to have better security, a method that they felt was reasonable but exploited citizens right to having privacy.

2.) The “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act violates appears to have violated the Bill of Rights in a number of ways, the Patriot Act gives the government the ability to strengthen federal anti-terrorism investigations. Removing Wiretaps was one of the many methods that was used, it aimed to stop terrorist that were technologically sophisticated by having access to an individual’s cell phone. Then, they would be able to see the calls and messages of the terrorist phone and anyone else who may have been associated with this individual. This would then violate one’s privacy if they had any connection with the accused suspect. This violates the Bill of Rights because it breaks certain Amendments that protect basic human rights. The Amendment that it would violate is the Fourth because it states that the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause in order to validate that the person did do the crime or had intention of doing so. They were tapping into people’s phone without consent, if they had a hunch that you were dealing with the suspected criminal-your phone would get exposed. I would also say that it violates the First Amendment, which is freedom of speech because people had a right to discuss what they wanted amongst each other yet they were being listened in on and sometimes, they’d share information amongst one another regarding the government’s vulgar behavior which would be used against them.

3.) “Sneak and Peek” Warrants is another method used within the Patriot Act that violated the Fourth Amendment. This is where a search warrant that is authorized by law enforcement, makes physical entry into private premises without the owner’s or residing occupants permission and knowledge. The Fourth Amendment prevents a law official the authority to walk in without a warrant or having proof of probable cause for accused crime.

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?
   1. The war on terror is a new type of war because it changes the way the government views and acts on human rights, the constitution of citizens, how authorities approach crimes, how authorities investigate crimes. The war on terror is a new type of war because it is never ending and violates human rights and encourages the violation of laws that were put in placed to protect basic civil rights. This is different from traditional wars because the civilian population is also targeted and there is a use of different tactics in order to receive information even it it compromises the US Constitution.
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?
   1. The “Rovering Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act violates the Fourth Amendment which states the government can not conduct a search without a warrant or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. It violates individuals rights to privacy
3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?
   1. The “Sneek and Peek” warrants gives authorities the right to search homes and observe individuals with a warrant without notifying the target of the search. This also violates the Fourth Amendment because its gives authorities the right to search for even low level crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism.

1. Traditional war is waged on groups, countries, unions, and resources. The War on Terror is different. The definition of terror, of course, can change from person to person. Terror is a concept, rather than something tangible like the things listed above. The war on terror, as the author puts it, is a “war of the mind, so broadly defined that the enemy becomes anybody who makes us afraid.” It is a war dedicated to the preventing and eliminating terrorism, which takes place both on and off U.S. land. The government searching for any suspects, even among U.S. residents, to root out and prevent terrorism.

2. Roving Wiretaps, as outlined in the Patriot Act, violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment guarantees citizens the right against unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. These warrants must describe the place being searched, or persons or things being seized. The Patriot Act’s Roving Wiretaps only require a specific description of the person being targeted, not the devices and how they are connected to that person.

3. Sneak and Peak Warrants, like Roving Wiretaps, violate the Fourth Amendment. As previously stated, the Fourth Amendment guarantees notification of a search and seizure. During normal searches or seizures, the suspect and a third party are there to ensure that law enforcement is acting appropriately and legally. The secret searches and seizures leave law enforcement on their own, getting rid of the checks and balances in place normally. While secret searches were allowed before, they were only used in extreme circumstances. The Patriot Act expanded its use to any crime, even minor ones. Additionally, law enforcement need only show that immediate notification will “jeopardize” their investigation, which is very flexible and easily manipulated.

• 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?

According to P. Williams, the war on terror is different from traditional wars because this war is the war “of the mind.” She further explains with this type of war anyone who does something that is out of our ordinary and makes us feel fearful becomes the targeted enemy. This war is based off of one’s emotion opposed to against an actual person like in traditional wars.

• 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?

Well when it comes to the roving wiretap it violates our fourth amendment right. The right against unreasonable search and seizures. This seems to violate our 4th amendment because with wiretaps the government is listening in on phone conversations, text messages, emails, etc. While doing this the other person is warranted to unreasonable search. For example, the government is wiretapping Tommy who is a known terrorist, but Tommy is talking to Jack who is not a known terrorist and not on the warrant for the wiretap. Jack tells Tommy a whole host of personal information while the tapping is occuring. Jack’s 4th amendment has now been violated.

• What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

Sneak Peek warrants is useful because it can help with thing such as drug bust but i do believe it still violates a person’s 4th amendment rights.

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. 

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?

According to P. Williams, the war on terror is more of a mental conflict than it is one that targets particular people, places, or things. This is the first of its sort, and since the war against terror is a mental conflict, everyone who instills fear in us is an enemy. In previous conflicts, it was extremely clear who the adversary was.  The opponent in the struggle against terrorism is never fully understood.

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 fourth amendment forbids the government from conducting irrational searches or raids on private property. However, if it is certain that a person has committed a crime, the government is permitted to conduct a search. The Fourth Amendment, which states that the government cannot conduct a search without a warrant and the provision of reasonable suspicion that the subject has committed a crime, was broken by the roving wiretaps. 

3. What about “Sneak and Peek” Warrants?”

Sneak and peek warrants differ from other types of warrants in that they take a more covert approach to a case. In this situation, officers who are looking for something show up unexpectedly at a suspect’s home or in a specified location to avoid any measures the defendant may take.