Abstract
Abstract
The potential for nuclear and radiological terrorism is a concern for policy makers as the motives and methods of many modern terrorists have changed to embrace weapons of mass destruction. Because these threats likely involve malefactors who rely on a combination of preparation, cooperation, and technical data, it is important to examine how the law addresses preliminary criminal activity as well as access to potentially dangerous information. Although criminal and First Amendment legal sanctions are primarily oriented to address past activities, they do allow authorities to act prospectively in limited circumstances. These circumstances can include instances where nuclear or radiological terrorism is a possibility.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Law Institute. (1962 -2003). Model penal code. Philadelphia: Author.
2.
Anti-Hoax Terrorism Act of 2001. (H.R. 3209, 107th Cong.).
3.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 USC § 2284 (1954 and amendments).
4.
Black’s law dictionary (5th ed.). (1983). St. Paul, MN: West.
5.
Bush, G. (2001). Military order of November 13, 2002: Detention, treatment, and trial of certain non-citizens in the war against terrorism. Washington, DC.
6.
Civil Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 231 (1968).
7.
Conspiracy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 317 (1994).
8.
Crimes and Criminal Procedure Act, 18 U.S.C. § 794 (1998).
9.
Crimes and Criminal Procedure Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2332a (1998).
10.
Crimes and Criminal Procedure Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2332b (1998).
11.
Elliot, M. (2001, November 12). Hate club. Time Magazine, p. 59.
12.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 USC § 1801 et. seq. (1978 and amendments).
13.
Gardner, T., & Anderson, T. (1999 ). Criminal law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
14.
Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 815 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1987).
15.
Hoffman, B. (1998 ). Inside terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.
16.
Kaplan, F. (2002, June 9). Mobile teams on hunt for atomic threats. Boston Globe, p. A1.
17.
Knoll, E. (1994). Essay: The H-bomb and the first amendment. 3 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rights Journal.
18.
Kushner, H. W. (1998 ). Terrorism in America. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
19.
Kushner, H. W. (2003 ). The encyclopedia of terrorism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Lichtblau, E., Drogin, B., & Meyer, J. (2002, June 11). U.S. citizen accused of planning an attack using a “dirty” bomb. The Los Angeles Times, p. A1.
21.
Mueller, R. (2002, May 7). Remarks for the Anti-Defamation League’s 24th annual national leadership conference. Washington, DC.
22.
National Infrastructure Protection Center. (2002, November 14). Homeland security information update recent release of possible Usama Bin Laden audiotape message foreshadows potential alqa’ida attacks. Information Bulletin 02-010. Washington, DC.
23.
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
24.
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
25.
Prohibited Transactions Involving Nuclear Materials Act, 18 U.S.C. § 831 (1982).
26.
Rice v. Palladin Press, 128 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. Denied, 66 U.S.L.W. 3686 (U.S. Apr. 20,1998) (No. 97-1325).
27.
Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980).
28.
Stern, J. (1999 ). The ultimate terrorists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Tribe, L. (1988 ) American constitutional law. Mineola, NY: Foundation Press.
30.
U.S. Constitution Amendment I.
31.
U.S. Department of State. (2002 ). Patterns of global terrorism: 2001. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
United States ex. rel. Quirin v. Cox (Ex parte Quirin), 317 U.S. 1 (1942).
33.
United States v. Progressive, Inc. 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis. 1979), dismissed without opinion, 610 F.2d 819 (7th Cir. 1979).
34.
Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).
35.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Operations Unit, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1998, June).
36.
WMD: A domestic threat assessment. Police Chief, p. 63.
37.
William, D., & Munn, M. (2002, June 11). “Dirty” bombs’ greatest impact likely would be psychological. The Los Angeles Times, p. A16.