Thesis (M.A. in Security Studies (Homeland Security and Defense))--Naval Postgraduate School, September 2009. / Thesis Advisor(s): last name, first name ; "September 2009." Description based on title screen as viewed on November 03, 2009. Author(s) subject terms: Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR), information sharing, intelligence-led policing, DC Metropolitan Police Depart, eGardian, Federal Bureau of Investigation, dissemination of intelligence, program management information sharing environment (PM-ISE), information sharing environment (ISE), British police service, Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), Joint, Terrorism Analysis Center (JTAC), domestic intelligence Includes bibliographical references (p. 83-88). Also available in print.

Thesis (M.S. in Defense Analysis)--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2007. / Thesis Advisor(s): Peter J. Gustaitis II. "June 2007." Includes bibliographical references (p. 95-104). Also available in print.

Thesis (M.A. in Security Studies (Homeland Security and Defense))--Naval Postgraduate School, March 2010. / Thesis Advisor(s): Woolman, Lauren F. Second Reader: Gordon, Ellen M. "March 2010." Description based on title screen as viewed on April 26, 2010. Author(s) subject terms: Advisory system, Education, Homeland Security, Intelligence, Politics, Psychology, Public Warning, Risk Commpunication, Sociology, Technology, Terrorism. Includes bibliographical references (p. 47-59). Also available in print.

Thesis (M.A. in Security Studies (Homeland Security and Defense))--Naval Postgraduate School, March 2008. / Thesis Advisor(s): Bellavita, Christopher. "March 2008." Description based on title screen as viewed on May 12, 2008. Includes bibliographical references (p. 85-91). Also available in print.

While the US-presidency comprises the most powerful office of leadership in the world and has also been investigated at various angles in personal, biographical approaches as well as comparative studies, this research paper specifically lays focus and compares the two presidencies of President Bush and President Obama in regard of their leadership qualities and counter-terrorism strategies. Because counterterrorism seems to be a good example of how presidents perform crises-management and because the subject by itself is critical in the perspective of human rights and security concerns, the research paper has chosen to focus on President Bush and President Obama who are known to have chosen different routes and strategies in countering terrorism. However, when comparing the two presidents’ leadership qualities regarding their counter-terrorism strategies, this paper concludes that on this matter the strategies of the two presidents were not quite so different as expected and a possible path of continuity runs through this realm of US-foreign affairs and presidents’ leadership decisions.

L’évolution des technologies de l’information et du transport a favorisé l’action transnationale du terrorisme, exigeant une réponse étatique qui prenne en considération le mouvement transfrontalier des terroristes. Cette réponse s’est traduite dans le cas les États‐Unis et de l’Espagne par l’introduction de dispositifs de lutte antiterroriste dans le droit migratoire et d’asile. Les dispositifs de lutte antiterroriste insérés aux États‐Unis sont cohérents avec la tradition migratoire interne tandis que ceux introduits par l’Espagne sont cohérents avec le droit international, par le biais de l’introduction des règles de l’UE. La doctrine internationale a aussi justifié l’adoption de ces dispositifs, invoquant les théories du contrat social et de l’exceptionnalisme souverain. Pourtant, l’introduction de ces dispositifs de lutte antiterroriste par les pays étudiés répond à un processus de confusion des buts et des moyens de lutte contre la criminalité et la migration illégale ou crimmigration. Ces dispositifs ne sont pas très efficaces pour lutter contre le terrorisme, malgré leur présence continue pendant le contrôle migratoire et le traitement des demandeurs d’asile, mais ils sont utiles pour lutter contre l’immigration illégale et préserver la «stabilité culturelle». De fait, ces dispositifs font partie d’un système sélectif de surveillance qui a impliqué la création d’un droit migratoire et d’asile «de l’ennemi», qui conçoit l’étranger comme une source de danger justifiant l’octroi d’un traitement qui le dépersonnalise, permettant à l’État d’atteindre symboliquement ses buts et, éventuellement, d’obtenir de la légitimité vis‐à‐vis de la population autochtone. / Advances in information and transportation technology support transnational terrorist action and require a state response which takes into account the transnational terrorist movement. This response resulted in, for the United States and Spain, immigration and asylum measures that are part of counter‐terrorism strategies. American migratory and asylum measures to combat terrorism are consistent with American migratory tradition and foreign policy, while Spanish measures are consistent with international law, though in conformity with European law. The international doctrine has also justified the adoption of these measures on the basis of social contract and sovereign exceptionalism theories. However, the adoption of migratory and asylum measures to combat terrorism is part of a process of criminalization of migratory law also known as crimmigration. The migratory and asylum measures undertaken to combat terrorism have not been effective in eradicating terrorism, despite their continuous presence during migration control and treatment of asylum‐seekers, though they are valuable instruments for action against illegal migration and preserving cultural "stability". In fact, they are part of a surveillance system of alien people. The construction of this system implies the creation of an "Enemy" migratory and asylum law that considers the alien as a risk to security and consequently gives the alien an exceptional treatment which results in the loss of its legal personality. This "Enemy" migratory and asylum law enables the State to symbolically achieve its goals and obtain a new source of legitimacy.