Thesis (M.A. in Security Studies (Homeland Security and Defense)--Naval Postgraduate School, September 2005. / AD-A439 375. Includes bibliographical references (p.57-60). Also available online.

Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, September 2002. / Thesis advisor(s): H. Lyman Miller, Gaye Christoffersen. Includes bibliographical references (p. 97-100). Also available online.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Toledo, 2008. / Typescript. "Submitted as partial fulfillments of the requirements for The Master of Arts in Sociology." "A thesis entitled"--at head of title. Bibliography: leaves 208-216.

Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, March 2003. / Thesis advisor(s): H. Lyman Miller, Peter R. Lavoy. Includes bibliographical references (p. 59-62). Also available online.

Thesis (M.A.), Political Science--University of Central Oklahoma, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 43-46).

Thesis (M. S.)--International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006. / Molly Cochran, Committee Chair. Includes bibliographical references.

This thesis tests the necessity of terrorism in articulating Homeland Security citizenship. Chapter 1 orients the study, reviewing relevant literature. Chapter 2 examines the USDHS Ready Kids program's Homeland Security Guide, mapping a baseline for how Homeland Security citizenship is articulated with the overt use of terrorism. Chapter 3 investigates the USDHS Ready Kids program, charting the logic of Homeland Security citizenship when the threat of terrorism is removed from sense making about preparedness. Chapter 4 compares the findings of Chapters 2 and 3, evaluating the similarities and differences between these two articulations of Homeland Security citizenship and concluding that the logic that cements Homeland Security into American society does not depend on the threat of terrorism against the United States.

Did the terrorist attacks of September 11th change the way the United States ought to contain, confront, or neutralize threats abroad? Or, can the US use the same set of tools and responses in crafting a response to terrorist threats, present and future? These are the questions that underlie the debates, discussions, critiques, and conclusions throughout this work on the US war on terror. After Al Qaeda attacked the US on September 11th 2001, the US launched its war on terror. This global war builds upon the premises of the just war tradition while using the policies of the American neoconservative movement. In essence, the neoconservative movement takes a piecemeal approach to just war theory in order to meet its various goals. This is embodied by politicians from both the left and right that represent this movement, particularly those that run the current American administration. The reason is that the neo-conservative agenda has become a pervasive part of American foreign policy and any discussion of the US execution of the war on terror must necessarily include a discussion of neoconservative practices within its literature review. The question posed with regard to the war on terror as it is currently executed is whether it is just against measures of just war theory and other normative measures. The measurement of the successes and failures of the war on terror is grounded in the overarching framework of just war theory because it represents the prevailing norms and the international community understandings with regard to the conduct of war and armed conflict. The thesis of this work believes that the US, despite its policy of preemption, has been successful in working within just war theory on the short term (tactical) level. However, in the long term (strategic) sense, where the goal is to ferret out the root causes of terrorism, the US has failed in the four years since September 11th.

This project focuses on the Incident Management System (IMS) and how it was used to manage the Oklahoma City, World Trade Center, and Lafayette, IN terrorism incidents. The Incident Management System is used by emergency response agencies to manage the scene of a disaster and consists of eight management components which are: Modular Organization, Integrated Communications, Common Terminology, Unified Command Structure, Consolidated Action Plans, Manageable Span of Control, Designated Incident Facilities, and Comprehensive Resource Management. Through journal articles and interviews, this project assesses observations that occurred during the response phase of each terrorism incident. These observations are then categorized under each of the IMS components to determine whether unique, or more complex procedures occurred with terrorism, as compared to other types of emergency disasters. This study further explores why the IMS is important to communities, and why a community's comprehensive plan should include goals and risk management studies that affect a community's ability to effectively respond to a terrorism incident. / Department of Urban Planning

Thesis (M.A.)--Naval Postgraduate School, 2002. / Cover title. "December 2002." AD-A411 150. Includes bibliographical references. Also available via the World Wide Web.