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.

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?

What’s new about it and different from traditional wars, based on the reading from P. Williams, a war of terror is a war of mind, whereas the enemy reflects on anybody that makes us afraid, rather than a war of land, or other resources, that’s what makes it different. It focuses on the Ideology rather than the terror, our minds, thoughts and what we think that’s going to happen/ tale place it focuses on.

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?

Based on the reading and my understanding, The “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights by leading to privacy violations of anyone, which can lead to innocent communications because of a person comes into casual contact with the suspect. The amendment(s) it seem to violate would be Forth Amendment’s protection, reasons why it helps to protect the rights of someone and to secure that person from any form of unreasonable searches that’s being displayed.

3) What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

Based on the reading and my understanding, “Sneak and Peek” Warrants are known as delayed notice which allows FBI or any Law enforcements to conduct a home without notifying the target of the investigation/ that they searched or was there. This helps to gather any additional information needed without the suspect knowing or denying later on.

1. Patricia Williams explains that the war on terror is quite different from the traditional wars we usually study in history class. Instead of fighting against another country with clear borders and armies, this war targets terrorism, which is more like battling an idea or a feeling. Terrorists can be anywhere and might not belong to any specific nation, making it hard to identify exactly who the enemy is. This means the conflict isn’t just happening on battlefields but also in our minds, where fear and suspicion can make anyone seem like a potential threat. It’s a whole new way of thinking about conflict, where the lines between friend and foe aren’t as clear.
2. Roving wiretaps are a big topic of debate because they seem to clash with the Fourth Amendment, which is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches. Normally, if the government wants to listen in on your phone calls, they need a warrant that clearly states what they’re tapping. But with these roving wiretaps, they can tap multiple devices without being super specific about which ones. This could mean that people who aren’t even suspects might get caught up in the surveillance just because they happen to talk to someone under investigation. It feels like a slippery slope where our privacy might not be as protected as it should be.
3. The “sneak and peek” warrants are another tricky issue. They let the government search your home or business without telling you right away, which seems to go against the spirit of the Fourth Amendment. Usually, you’re supposed to know if someone’s going through your stuff. While the idea is to prevent suspects from destroying evidence, using these warrants for any crime, not just serious ones like terrorism, makes people nervous. It seems like there should be stricter rules so that this power isn’t used too freely. People worry that without limits, it could lead to abuses where innocent folks end up getting their privacy invaded for no good reason.

1. New Type of War in the War on Terror: The War on terror, according to P. Williams, is distinct because it is waged against non-state entities, such as terrorist organizations, rather than a particular nation-state or army, making it more challenging to define and combat. Unlike conventional conflicts with distinct foes and borders, this one is a worldwide, continuous fight with no end in sight
2. Robin Wiretaps and the Bill of Rights: According to the Fourth Amendment, which forbids arbitrary searches and seizures, the Patriot Acts “Roving Wiretaps” may be in violation. It violates the right to privacy and due process by enabling the government to listen on phone calls without identifying the subject.
3. Sneak and Peek Warrants : With these warrants, the government can examine a house or place of business without first informing the owner, which may be against the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unjustified searches and seizures. Delaying notice and carrying out searches without prompt supervision may be interpreted as violating privacy rights.

1. What is new about the war on terror compared to traditional wars is that it is not a war against an easily identifiable opponent like that of another government or land but a war on Terrorism which as she describes is “a war of the mind”. Unlike traditional wars fought against clearly defined nation-states, the war on terror targets a tactic or ideology rather than a specific government or territory. Williams characterizes it as a psychological conflict that operates on ideological and perceptual levels rather than just physical battlefields. Traditional wars had clear geographical boundaries, while terrorism operates across borders, in cells, and without conventional military structures. The conflict involves non-state actors using unconventional tactics against conventional military forces. Traditional wars typically end with surrender, peace treaties, or territorial gains, while the war on terror lacks definitive endpoints.
2. In accordance with the Patriot Act Provisions the Roving wire taps seem to violate the 1^st, 4^th and 5^th amendments. Fourth Amendment: By allowing surveillance to follow a person rather than being limited to specific communication devices, roving wiretaps potentially violate protection against unreasonable searches and seizures without particularized warrants. First Amendment: These surveillance powers could chill free speech and association if people fear their communications are being monitored. Fifth Amendment: Due process concerns arise when individuals aren’t notified of surveillance. Being able to just tap several phones of one person’s voice because you think they are planning a terrorist attack becomes a targeted attack like back in 9/11 so many Muslims and middle eastern Americans were investigated and arrested meanwhile Bush let all of Osama Bin Laden’s family members leave the country due to personal oil interest.
3. Sneak and Peek violate the 4, and 5^th amendments. Allowing authorities to walk into a person’s home while they aren’t there and not producing a signed warrant clearly violates the fourth Amendment without immediate notification to the property owner, potentially violating the traditional requirement that warrants be announced. Fifth Amendment: Due process questions arise when individuals aren’t promptly informed that their property has been searched.

These provisions exemplify the tension between national security interests and constitutional protections.

1- P. Williams writes about the war on terror being different from other wars because it was a modern tragedy impacting the way airport and security is in our country. With the events of 911, emergency phone contacts to the police and fire departments were made more essential. The rise in airport and transport security as well has impacted our lives today. Citizens who had recalled events before 911 reported feeling unaware of crimes that could go undetected. Again, this tragedy as one of many that have followed in our country’s history.

2- The “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights through several Amendments. The Fourth; unreasonable searches and seizures protection, The Fifth; right against self-incrimination and, Fourteenth; due process and equal protection. Since wiretaps are used as spying tools to hear in secrecy as a microphone device it can be processed against those speaking privately. With that said, these three amendments are technically in accordance to protection of privacy.

3- “Sneak and Peek” Warrants are also violating the previously stated Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments due to Privacy. Specifically the Fourth Amendment since it counts towards unreasonable searches and seizures. Without the individual present inside of their residence with a warrant seems counterintuitive in a way. Tampered evidence could be delt with and kept secret from the court of law as a high probability that could send the suspected individual into deeper punishment. Therefore violation of privacy in general.

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. Willams mentioned in her essay that the war on terror is a new type of a war which separates it from traditional wars by which she describes as “the war has been framed as one against “terror”- against unruly if deadly emotionalism- rather than add a war again specific bodies, specific land, specific resources” and therefore, a war that terrifies and causes fear, “the enemy becomes anybody who makes us afraid. Indeed what is conspicuous about American public discourse right now is how hard it is to talk about facts rather than fear.”

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” of the Patriot Act seems to violate the Bill of Rights which could lead to privacy violations of anyone who comes into casual contact with the suspect therefore,  they want Congress to require investigators to specify just which device is going to be tapped, or that the suspect be clearly identified, in order to protect the innocent from unwarranted snooping. 

3. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants?

“Sneek and Peek” warrants which is also called the “delayed notice” of search warrants therefore, the FBI can search a home or business without notifying the target of the investigation. 

1. The war on terror is a war of the mind. Something that can very easily be twisted that the enemy becomes anybody who makes us afraid. It makes it hard to talk about facts rather than fear by which one is overridden by. The damage in this sense comes from craven sympathies that amount to naive and treacherous self-delusion. This leaves us poised to an even more fearsome world where we subject ourselves to a totalitarian system of life for the sake of safety and trust in the government. This type of war is not so much in the frontlines as in traditional wars. It can be said as more of an inside job that occurs within the government and its citizens.  

2. The roving wiretaps seem to violate the 4th amendment which is the boundary between general individual freedoms and the rights of those suspected of crimes. The fourth amendment secures the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures and only upon probable cause that roving wiretaps can be used lawfully. Government officials are required to apply and receive a search warrant prior to a search or seizure that must be supported by oath or affirmation. Roving wiretaps are essential to flexibly investigate sophisticated technology terrorists. The problem that arises is that this can lead to privacy violations when anyone comes into contact with a suspect. There isn’t protection against unwarranted snooping from proceeding. 

3. Sneak and Peek warrants also seem to violate the 4th amendment in which without a warrant, seizures and searches are unreasonable to do. In cases where there is a reasonable expectation that evidence may be destroyed or tampered with before a warrant can be issued or if evidence in question is in the plain sight of government officials then home searches without notifying the target are deemed appropriate. However officials are still to explain why they were to delay the warrant and eventually later on inform the target about the search in this manner. The problem is that this act may apply to any crime no matter how minor it is even though it is ideal and appropriate to apply this act on terror and espionage cases preferably.