How Is the War on Terror Different from Traditional Wars?
P. Williams argues that the War on Terror is a distinct kind of war since it does not fit into the classical model of warfare among states. Instead, it is:

Asymmetrical: Unlike the traditional wars in which two or more countries fight each other, the War on Terror is aimed at non-state actors (e.g., terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda) rather than a specific country.

Unending: Classical wars have clear goals and will usually conclude in a peace accord, but since the War on Terror lacks an identified enemy state, it can’t be easily declared won or ended.

Global & Nonlinear: Unlike conventional wars waged at a particular terrain, terrorism doesn’t have limitations of place because it can strike anywhere, implying that the arena of battle cannot be localized within a specific place.

Preemptive: Unlike responding to direct threats, the War on Terror is often fought through preemptive attacks based on intelligence about impending threats.

2. Roving Wiretaps & the Bill of Rights
The Patriot Act’s Roving Wiretaps allow the government to tap a person rather than a specific device (such as a telephone line). This allows the authorities to listen in on any form of communication the suspect is using—phones, emails, etc.—without specifying the specific device beforehand.

This would seem to suspend the Fourth Amendment Rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment requires warrants to be specific, that they define the property to be searched and the items to be seized. Roving wiretaps, however, permit sweeping eavesdropping without the required level of detail that the Fourth Amendment prescribes.

3. Sneak and Peek Warrants
“Sneak and Peek” Warrants (also known as delayed-notification warrants) allow the police to search a home or business without notifying the owner first. Police must normally notify the suspect when they execute a search using a search warrant, but Sneak and Peek warrants allow them to delay it for weeks or months.

This also seems to violate the Fourth Amendment, as it dismantles one’s ability to dispute a search. It’s also questionable under the First Amendment because it can permit clandestine entry into one’s private records, whether they are books, e-mails, or political beliefs.

These amendments were introduced on the basis that they were going to be used as anti-terrorism provisions, but they have been condemned for their grant of excess in government surveillance powers through erosion of constitutional protection.