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?

    P. Williams argues that the war on terror is different from traditional wars in a few ways. Unlike conventional wars, where you’re fighting a specific country or army with a clear beginning and end, the war on terror is against non-state actors, individuals and groups that don’t belong to a particular country. This means the war isn’t fought in the typical sense, with defined battlefields or enemy lines. Instead, it’s a global, ongoing conflict that doesn’t have a clear endpoint. The problem with this, Williams points out, is that it can blur the lines between wartime and peacetime, giving the government more power to act in ways that might infringe on individual rights. For example, actions like surveillance or detention may be justified in the name of national security even if we’re not officially at war, which could lead to abuses of power.
  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 Roving Wiretaps provision of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to tap a suspect’s communications even if they switch devices or phones without needing a separate warrant each time. This violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also requires that warrants be specific, meaning they need to list exactly what’s being searched and where. With roving wiretaps, there’s no need for that level of detail, which could lead to overreach. The government could potentially listen in on people who aren’t even suspects or gather information beyond what’s necessary, thus invading privacy rights. While it’s meant to help in national security, it opens the door to possible misuse and violates what the Fourth Amendment is meant to ensure.
  3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

    “Sneak and peek” warrants allow the government to enter a home or property and conduct a search without notifying the person being investigated until later. The concern here is that these kinds of searches violate the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right to be informed about searches and seizures. Normally, if the government wants to search your home, they need to tell you and provide a reason. But with “sneak and peek” warrants, you’re not aware that a search has even taken place. The idea behind them is that they help prevent suspects from fleeing or destroying evidence. But critics argue that it’s a slippery slope; if these warrants become too common, they could be abused, leading to unwarranted government invasions of privacy. It also kind of undermines the principle of due process, because you’re not being notified of the search in a timely manner.

Leave a Reply