High-tech Terrorism: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Technology and the Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundredth Congress, Second Session ... May 19 and September 15, 1988, Volume 4

Front Cover
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988 - 145 pages
0 Reviews
Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified

From inside the book

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 117 - To this end, the study is sponsored jointly by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (OASD/SO/LIC) and the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (DOS/R).
Page 75 - Chairman, this concludes my prepared testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions you or members of your subcommittee may have.
Page 101 - ... Director shall recommend to the President alternative methods of providing Federal planning, management, mitigation, and assistance. 2-103. The Director shall be responsible for the coordination of efforts to promote dam safety, for the coordination of natural and nuclear disaster warning systems, and for the coordination of preparedness and planning to reduce the consequences of major terrorist incidents.
Page 116 - It is, of course, a question of fact — a prime consideration to the validity of every claim for exemption as a conscientious objector. The Act provides a comprehensive scheme for assisting the Appeal Boards in making this determination, placing at their service the facilities of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and hearing officers. Finally, we would point out that in Estep v. United States, 327 US 114 (1946), this Court held that: "The provision making the...
Page 2 - ... counsel would clearly impose an additional financial burden on the litigant. Clearly these burdens are unnecessary since, as set forth above, the primary difficulties in patent litigation do not occur at the appellate level. Accordingly, I strongly urge that you vote against HR 2405, both in your role as a member of the Judiciary Committee and as a member of the House of Representatives. Sincerely Yours, X
Page 19 - deficiencies in planning and preparedness" for emergencies at various facilities operated by the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Defense.
Page 71 - ... Commission such that the Commission's decisions were weighted in favor of promoting the nuclear weapons testing program over controlling the safe production and use of nuclear energy. Still further, the Subcommittee found that this conflict has continued to this day in the AEC's successor agencies — the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As the primary responsibility and funding authority for radiation health research remains within these...
Page 96 - ... nuclear material, fissionable material, or nuclear weapons or devices in ERDA custody; participate in the conduct, direction or coordination of search and recovery operations for nuclear materials, weapons or devices; assist in the identification and deactivation of improvised nuclear devices; and render advice on radiation and damage probabilities in the event of the detonation of an improvised nuclear device.
Page 101 - But we do have responsibility in ascertaining that the executive branch can respond in an efficient and coordinated fashion to mitigate the damage, injuries, and disruptions that may result from a severe terrorist incident.
Page 85 - This may portend more effective actions against power systems in the future. 20-146 0-89-4 -9Energy-related terrorism in the United States would be a particularly significant threat in a time of national defense mobilization.

Bibliographic information