Thesis (M.A.)--Bowling Green State University, 2007. / Document formatted into pages; contains iv, 82 p. Includes bibliographical references.

No description available.

Since 9/11, the fight against the financial sources of terrorism has become a major arena for international co-operation. <br>In the first part, the paper highlights the borderline between security studies and international political economy. The second part of the paper asks how successful the international community is in this fight. <br>The authors show that the idea of seizing terrorist funds and denying access to the international financial system is not a very promising one. They conclude that, so far, results have been mixed and that only a political approach to the problem promises a solution.

No description available.

Attitudes of guilt, deserved punishment, and character of terrorists and mass murderers are examined in a hypothetical written scenario of a murder involving several casualties. The researcher hypothesizes that terrorists will be given harsher punishments. It is also hypothesized that White suspects will receive the least harsh punishments compared to the other suspects. The researcher also hypothesized that terrorists would be found guiltier than mass murderers. Results found that there were no significant differences in the punishments given to terrorists and mass murderers or between the races of the suspects. Results show no significant differences in the levels of guilt assigned by participants. Limitations and future research suggestions are discussed.

Cyber-crime, terrorism and hacking is a topic discussed widely and many independent groups as for example Wikileaks and Anonymous are often taken into consideration when discussing cyber-crime. When researching cybercrime and  it is important to first research the legal background as to the purpose of the creation of the internet, and to what extend state control is an issue in the matter of both cybercrime being carried out and the establishment of cyber activist groups. How shall the law be interpreted in the case of internet hacking and under what category do these fit, terrorists, cybercriminals or hackers.

In response to terrorism as one of the major challenges of our time, developments in anti-terrorism law have led to laws that infringe on democratic rights. The author addresses two key questions in relation to such legislation, namely how the development of such laws is influenced by rights instruments, and whether such laws can be justified as a proportionate response to the terrorist threat. The examination focuses on the key rights of expression and association. It takes place within a comparative jurisprudence structure, considering the treatment of these rights in the UK, Canada, Australia and the USA. The assessment is undertaken in the context of the definition of terrorism and in particular reflects on the thought/act distinction, and whether the motive element of the definition leads to a normative response that is justified or is particularly severe to these democratic rights.

This comparative legal analysis evaluates the issue of terrorism and how it has been dealt with respectively by the United States and Israeli Supreme Courts. Since the events of 9/11, combating terrorism has become one of the primary concerns of the US government while it is a matter that has pervaded Israeli policy since its birth as a nation-state. The analysis is centered on examining how each state‘s Supreme Court has confronted the issue with the Israeli Supreme Court using a ―Business as Usual‖ model and the US taking an ―Emergency Powers‖ approach. It is argued that terrorism is an ongoing issue that cannot be justified as an emergency and the US Court would do better in adopting Israel‘s method of adjudication in these matters. It is also suggested that the US could learn from Israel‘s policy towards torture as the US policy has largely been cruel and unsuccessful.

This comparative legal analysis evaluates the issue of terrorism and how it has been dealt with respectively by the United States and Israeli Supreme Courts. Since the events of 9/11, combating terrorism has become one of the primary concerns of the US government while it is a matter that has pervaded Israeli policy since its birth as a nation-state. The analysis is centered on examining how each state‘s Supreme Court has confronted the issue with the Israeli Supreme Court using a ―Business as Usual‖ model and the US taking an ―Emergency Powers‖ approach. It is argued that terrorism is an ongoing issue that cannot be justified as an emergency and the US Court would do better in adopting Israel‘s method of adjudication in these matters. It is also suggested that the US could learn from Israel‘s policy towards torture as the US policy has largely been cruel and unsuccessful.

This thesis sought to understand how specific print media and wire news services in Georgia framed the Georgia General Assembly’s response to terrorism after September 11, 2001. The study concluded that the most detailed coverage came from the Morris News Service, a wire service subscribed to by statewide newspapers, followed by the Associated Press state newswire, then The Atlanta-Journal Constitution and The Macon Telegraph. In general, the media in this study chose to cover security bills in terms of "issues," as opposed to the "game frame" or the "leadership frame." While "patriotism" and "security" also emerged as frames, they were more likely to be in quotations from lawmakers or other elites. Surprisingly, only two citizens were quoted in the 39 articles in this study, despite the fact that several controversial bills were among the 21 considered by the Georgia legislature in the 2002 session.