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?
Patricia Williams argues that the “war on terror” is fundamentally different from traditional wars because it lacks clear boundaries. There’s no specific nation, territory, or uniformed enemy to fight against. Instead, it’s a “war of the mind”, defined not by geography or armies but by fear and uncertainty. The enemy becomes anyone who makes us afraid, turning suspicion into a weapon and broadening the scope of government power without the usual checks. Unlike traditional wars, which involve battles between nation-states and are often governed by international law and treaties, this war justifies secret tribunals, surveillance, detentions without trial, and even discussions of torture. This is all in the name of preventing future attacks. Williams warns that this preventive, fear-driven approach undermines constitutional rights, erodes civil liberties, and opens the door to profiling, censorship, and unchecked executive power. In short, the war on terror is not just fought with weapons but with policy, secrecy, and the reshaping of law itself, often at the expense of the very freedoms it claims to defend.
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 appears to conflict with the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that warrants specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Roving wiretaps allow surveillance on a suspect across multiple devices (like phones, computers, or tablets) without needing a new warrant for each one. Critics argue that this lack of specificity can lead to surveillance of people who are not actually suspects, simply because they used the same device or network. This raises concerns that the government could spy on innocent individuals without proper judicial oversight. The vague targeting and potential for sweeping surveillance violate the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that a warrant must be based on probable cause and must be particular in its scope. Without those limitations, there’s a risk of broad, unchecked surveillance, which undermines the very protections the Fourth Amendment was designed to uphold.
What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants
“Sneak and Peek” warrants also raise serious concerns under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that people be notified when their property is searched—except under specific, justified circumstances.With a “sneak and peek” warrant, law enforcement can search someone’s home or belongings without notifying them right away, delaying the notice for days or even longer. While supporters argue this helps avoid tipping off suspects during sensitive investigations, critics warn that this kind of delayed notice can easily be overused or abused, especially since the Patriot Act allows it not just for terrorism cases, but for any federal crime, even minor offenses.This undermines the transparency and accountability that the Fourth Amendment was meant to ensure. People may never even know their privacy was violated, and courts may have fewer opportunities to review or challenge those searches. Without strict limits and oversight, “sneak and peek” warrants can essentially become a form of secret surveillance, eroding constitutional protections that are supposed to safeguard individuals from government intrusion.