1. Patricia Williams points out that the war on terror is distinct from conventional wars in that it targets non-state actors (such as Al-Qaeda) instead of nation-states, does not have distinct geographical boundaries, and uses indefinite, preemptive strategies such as drone attacks and bulk surveillance. In contrast to conventional wars, which end with treaties or surrenders, this war is ongoing, addressing asymmetric threats and emphasizing intelligence over traditional military combat.

2. Section 206 of the Patriot Act provides for “roving wiretaps,” under which surveillance can be permitted on several devices without specifying each in the warrant. This violates the Fourth Amendment which mandates warrants to specify the place, person, or things to be searched with specificity. The extremely broad scope potentially monitors innocent parties who incidentally communicate with targets, which negates privacy protection against unreasonable searches.

3. Under Section 213, these warrants allow authorities to search property without giving the subject timely notice, sitting on it for weeks or months. Critics argue this is an abrogation of the Fourth Amendment’s timeliness requirement of notice in the execution of searches, traditionally to allow individuals to challenge warrants. While justified as necessary to avert destruction of evidence or investigation, the practice erodes openness and accountability of government searches.