Nuclear materials trafficking Essay Example for Free

Nuclear materials trafficking Essay Terrorism acts have of late been on the rise in the world a trend which is attributed to the high rates of nuclear material trafficking along the borders of different countries. Nuclear weapons are the major tools used by terrorist which have made the issue of nuclear material trafficking become a major concern of the United States government especially after the September 11 attack of the world trade centre. Nuclear threat was also a major concern to the United States during the time of cold war. The subsequent Soviet Union collapse increased threats of terrorism attacks to the United States making the country intensify its measures of ensuring that terrorists did not have access to nuclear materials which could be used for creation of nuclear weapons. Ever since the era of cold war, United States as well as other countries has put measures to make sure nuclear materials trafficking is reduced thus ensuring the security of the nations as well as the citizens (Williams Vlassis, 2001). Nuclear materials trafficking Nuclear materials trafficking refer to the illegal sale of materials used for making nuclear weapons. The trafficking of these materials is usually carried out though the borders of a country through highly concealed means that at times pass all the tests which may be in place in a country’s border. In some instances, cross border nuclear materials trafficking may be aided by citizens of a country and/ or people working in the migration departments. Due to sophistication in technology being used by terrorists, it has become very difficult to detect some of the nuclear materials being trafficked to a country. This has necessitated implementation of tough and advanced measures to detect nuclear materials. In the United States, the forensic department is the one which deals with analysis of and research on nuclear materials thus making their detection easier. While analyzing nuclear materials in the laboratories of the forensic department, both the chemical and physical characteristic of the materials are analyzed so as to gain all the possible clues of nuclear composition in different compounds. Also, environmental links are also analyzed for the purposes of tracing the place of origin which may help in determining how such products were illegitimated (Cameron, 1999). Nuclear materials are widely categorized into three basic groups which include the SNM an acronym for special nuclear material, reactor fuel and lastly those from commercial radioactive origins or sources. The special nuclear materials contains the basic materials which are used for making nuclear weapons which include the highly enriched uranium commonly referred to as HEU and plutonium. The reactor fuels on the other hand include LEU-low enriched uranium, grade plutonium of mixed oxide and also grade plutonium of reactor and fuel. The mixed oxide commonly abbreviated as MOX is a combination of uranium oxides which are depleted and plutonium. It is usually used as a substitute for low enriched uranium. Commercial radioactive origins or sources of nuclear materials are meant for medical diagnostics, food irradiators, thermoelectric generators and equipments for radiography (LAnnunziata, El Baradei Burkart, 2003). Special nuclear materials are usually targeted and used by terrorists since when they are in plenty, no uranium enrichment or plutonium acquisition is required. This makes these materials the most highly trafficked around the world. Reactor fuels unlike the special nuclear materials cannot be used to directly build or create nuclear devices. However, they are more commonly available especially because they are found in almost all parts of the world. Reactor fuels in conjunction with some of the radioactive materials can be used in the manufacture of dirty bombs as well as devices for radiological dispersals. Terrorists are the major traffickers of these nuclear materials and also some countries which support terrorism activities. Nuclear materials trafficking have been on the rise for the past ten years posing a great threat to the security of the United States and the world in general. Iran for example was believed to manufacture nuclear weapons which made America go to war with this country. Nuclear weapons are dangerous as they can result to mass destruction (Cameron, 1999). Cases of nuclear materials trafficking and the response of the international criminal bodies According to the international criminal law, illicit nuclear materials trafficking as well as trafficking of other radioactive materials are categorized as one crime unlike in many countries where such crimes are separated. The international criminal laws have different treaties which a local prosecutor can use against a person implicated in nuclear materials trafficking. However, most of the treaties used against a suspected nuclear materials trafficker can only be enforced if this trafficking is linked to intended acts of nuclear terrorism. These laws contrast sharply with the United Nations laws which states that a person can be sanctioned if he or she is a threat to the security and international peace. Usually, the trafficked nuclear materials are sold in nuclear black markets (Hossain Shahidullah, 2008). One of the major cases which has been brought to light is the one which occurred in Georgia in the year 2007 involving a Russian citizen by the name of Oleg Khintsagov who was sentenced for a jail term of 8years after being in possession of 100 grams of highly enriched uranium in the republic of Georgia at a local black market. Oleg was detained for a period of one year before being sentenced. According to the report which was issued out from Georgia, Oleg confessed that he had faith that the uranium could received by a extremist Islamic group. He also claimed that he had large quantities of the highly enriched uranium which he said was kept somewhere in his apartment located at Vladikavkaz city, north Ossentia. An approximated 25 kilograms of this product which Oleg was in possession is required to manufacture of nuclear weapon. This estimate is according to the international atomic agency. By the fact that Khintsagov was a Russian and trading at Georgia as well as south Ossetia, this amounted to an international case thus raising international concern. However, by the time Oleg was being sentenced, the authorities in Georgia as well as those who were supporting the republic of Georgia had not established the origin of the materials. The international criminal justice bodies have set in to try and locate the origin of the materials in the quest of establishing how such sensitive nuclear materials could have been obtained by Oleg in such great quantities of more than 3 kilograms (Williams Vlassis, 2001). Another case which attracted international attention was the illegal sale of nuclear technology of Pakistan to Libya and Iran. Pakistan was the source of nuclear materials, weapons as well as technology which were designed in Iran, Libya and North Korea. This revelation has sparked different and troubling reactions in the international community especially the United States. This exchange of nuclear weapon manufacturing technology has contributed greatly to the increase in nuclear weapon manufacture in the world thus posing a greater threat of manufacture of mass destruction weapons. This ahs raised great concern in the international community as the security of the world is threatened and acts of terrorism have accelerated. In response to this discovery, the international community started carrying out investigation to establish the country’s role in this transfer of technology from Pakistan to the other countries. Despite the fact that these activities were carried long time ago and only came to light on the year 2003, Pakistan may face Charybdis situation and a classic Scylla which could be prompted by any foreknowledge by the past and the present governments concerning the above proliferation activities (Williams, 1989). An analysis of how international criminal bodies are tackling the above two cases of nuclear materials smuggling or trafficking The case in the republic of Georgia as well as the case of Pakistan mentioned above have attracted and increased international concerns on the ease by which an individual can acquire nuclear materials illegally. This has also raised the question of the measures and ability of the governments to ensure that nuclear materials as well as radioactive sources are well guarded and secured. The main task of the international criminal system since the revelation of the proliferation activities by Pakistan is to establish whether Pakistan was aware of such activities or not. Investigations were immediately launched to determine whether the countries which obtained this technology and nuclear materials were making or manufacturing mass destruction weapon (Angelo, 2004). After the 2003 revelations about nuclear weapon proliferation in Pakistan, the international criminal justice system apart from embarking on investigation, it formulated new policies to ensure that such actions were not repeated in the future by other countries. This policy was also meant to create avenues to deal with perpetrators who could have been found to have committed such crime. In the year 2004, resolution 1540 was adopted by the Security Council which sought to prevent any â€Å"non state actor† from acquiring or trafficking in any kind of NBC related weapons and equipment, delivery systems or materials. This term non state actor was used not only to refer to terrorists as it was under the earlier security code but also businesses or state officials who were unauthorized. In the nuclear proliferation in Pakistan, A. Q. Khan a nuclear metallurgist is believed to have coordinated this proliferation in which the government at of that time claimed it had no idea nor had it authorized Khan to carry out such activities. The government argued that nuclear proliferation by Khan was supported by different business networks around the world (Babcock, Chen Zhuang, 2004). The resolution 1540 which was included in the security code mandated all states in the world to ensure appropriate measures were put in place. Such measures included national criminal laws, border controls, export controls, efforts for law enforcement, physical security and also techniques of accounting for materials. This was meant to ensure that no non state actor acquired or even succeeded in trafficking NBC weapons and all other related weapons. Before this resolution was passed, there was no prior requirement which mandated the countries to criminalize acquisition as well as trafficking of biological and nuclear weapons (Williams, 1989). The United States also took stern measures against Pakistan after the nuclear proliferation saga was unfolded. When Pakistan started its nuclear weapon manufacture, it was deemed not to be harmful by the United States. United States under the leadership of Reagan had cooperated with Pakistan on military matters. However, after the nuclear weapon manufacture was realized to be potentially harmful, the country conditioned its support for the Pakistan government. This was meant to force Pakistan abandon the nuclear manufacture project. In year 2001, Pakistan was forced to make Khan retire and military was also tightened over the KRL where Khan had been working from. Khan’s network however has not been closed as investigations are still being carried out. Most of the countries where Khan had networks have so far taken interest in the case with most of these networks being closed (Williams, 1989). In the case of republic of Georgia, though the case is not as big as that of Pakistan, it has still attracted attention of international criminal justice. Non proliferation experts launched their investigations to ascertain the origin of the uranium which Oleg was in possession. However, this has not been identified so far especially because Oleg changed his initial confession which he had said he had obtained the materials form Russia. Russian officials were also involved in the investigation owing to cooperate with Georgia in fighting nuclear materials trafficking. According to Russian authorities, the uranium could have been obtained from the country but ten years earlier before it was confiscated in Georgia a finding the United States conferred with the findings of Russia. Although this case was publicized by the Georgian government, it did not attract much attention from the international criminal agencies and only as it did not amount to heavy charges of proliferation. Also, the publicity of this case was met with skepticism from different opinion group with the move to publicize the case by the republic of Georgia being seen as a political provocation on Russia. Also, the possibilities that later emerged that the uranium could have been stolen from a physics lab which had reported loss of about 2 kilograms of uranium in the 1990s made the case not to attract much international attention (Kelly, Maghan Serio, 2005). While conducting the investigation for the above two cases, the international criminal society was faced with several difficulties. In the case of Oleg in the republic of Georgia, it was difficult to obtain accurate information regarding the origin of the uranium. Also, Georgia lacked sufficient resources to help in the analysis of the uranium and had to rely on the findings of Russia and United States. Lack of resources and cooperation form the perpetrators were the main hindrance of this case. Also, politicization of the nuclear materials trafficking was also another reason which hindered compete investigation of the case by the international criminal justice. Georgia was seen like its only motive was to destroy the Russian reputation especially because of the timing of publication of the case. In the case of Pakistan, lack of willing witnesses was a major hindrance for the international criminal justice team. Also, the laws which were in place during that time were limited and could not thus cover the proliferation issue fully (Williams Vlassis, 2001). Conclusion Globalization which has been on the rise in the past few decades have led to improvement in technology for weapon manufacture. With rise in globalization, terrorism threats have also become more complicated and sophisticated necessitating creation of avenues to ensure and enhance global security. Nuclear materials are widely used for the manufacture of nuclear materials which are usually used by terrorists. Guarding these nuclear materials has thus become a vital task for all countries which have them and laws have been formulated by the international law society to ensure that nuclear proliferation does not occur. Nuclear trafficking has however been a major concern for most countries means of trafficking them continue becoming more complicated and high tech. however, it is the duty of a government to ensure that all its nuclear reserves are well guarded and that no unauthorized persons are allowed to possess them. Nuclear materials trafficking from a country whether knowingly or unknowingly may lead to devastating effects to the diplomatic relationships with such a country as well as heavy measures being undertaken by the international criminal law against such a country. To reduce incidences of nuclear weapon trafficking, it is important for all the governments to cooperate as well as establishment of stringent laws regarding this issue. Recommendation While dealing with issues of nuclear materials trafficking, it is vital to have the necessary equipment to enable a government track the origin and contents of such materials. One of the major recommendations is that all government should establish a research institute and a laboratory equipped with necessary machines to enable in easier analysis as well as identification of nuclear materials. Countries should also ensure that the immigration department is closely manned to eliminate chances of collaboration and collusion of terrorists and immigration officers. All individuals entering or leaving a country should be thoroughly checked and screened to reduce chances of nuclear materials trafficking (Babcock, Chen Zhuang, 2004). The government should also take the initiative of training its forensic team, militants, border controllers as well as individuals involved in nuclear materials analyses so as to help cases of nuclear weapon smuggling in a country. All departments involved in the fight of nuclear proliferation and trafficking should also be given adequate funding especially with the current rise in terrorism threats. In cases of nuclear materials trafficking, non proliferation expert teams from various countries should be sent to the countries affected to ensure that results obtained are not biased or prejudiced. A joint and independent team of experts should be formed to help in proliferation cases as well as other related nuclear materials trafficking cases (Wallenius, Peerani Koch, 2000). Cooperation by all countries around the world is vital in helping in the fight of nuclear materials trafficking. One of the ways that the countries can do to ensure cooperation is by instituting stringent measures and laws to cub this vice. The internationals criminal laws should impose heavy penalties on countries from which the materials originate. By imposing heavy penalties, countries may become keener in guarding their nuclear materials from being smuggled out of the country. Stringent measures should also be taken on individuals found to the trafficking nuclear materials. As it stands today, countries are more severely punished while perpetrators are only given to serve a short jail term which cannot act as a deterrent agent. Heavier punishment should be imposed on individuals who are caught trafficking nuclear materials (Williams, 1989). An international court to deal with nuclear materials trafficking and proliferations should also be established to ensure that all individuals and countries prosecuted with such crimes get uniform penalties (Phillips, 2007). Reference: Angelo, J. A. (2004): Nuclear technology. ISBN 1573563366, Published by Greenwood Publishing Group Babcock, H. P. , Chen, C. Zhuang, X. (2004): Using single-particle tracking to study nuclear trafficking of viral genes. Biophysical Journal Cameron, G. (1999): Nuclear terrorism: a threat assessment for the 21st century. ISBN 0312219830, Published by Palgrave Macmillan Hossain, M. Shahidullah, S. M. (2008): Global-Local Nexus and the Emerging Field of Criminology and Criminal Justice in South Asia: Bangladesh Case. Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology Volume 5 Kelly, R. J. , Maghan, J. Serio, J. (2005): Illicit trafficking: a reference handbook. ISBN 1576079155, Published by ABC-CLIO LAnnunziata, m. F. , El Baradei, M. M. Burkart, W. (2003): Handbook of Radioactivity Analysis: Second Edition. ISBN 0124366031, Published by Academic Press Phillips, M. (2007): Uncertain Justice for Nuclear Terror: Deterrence of Anonymous Attacks through Attribution. Journal article of Orbis Volume 51 Wallenius, M. , Peerani, P. Koch, L. (2000): Origin determination of plutonium material in nuclear forensics. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry Williams, P. (1989): Russian organized crime: the new threat? ISBN 0714647632, Published by Routledge Williams, P. Vlassis, D. (2001): Combating transnational crime: concepts, activities, and responses. ISBN 0714651567, Published by Routledge

Drug Policy :: essays research papers

Drug Policy Colloquium Reflection   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The war on drugs and the violence that comes with it has always brought around a hot debate about drug legalization. The amount of violence that is associated with drugs is a result from harsher drug laws and prohibition.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The business of buying and selling drugs comes with high transactions costs. The dealer cannot risk being caught or scammed so he buys a gun to defend himself from the police and other dealers. The buyer of the drugs does not to be killed for his money if the dealer gets greedy so he buys a gun for himself. Now we have two people that if it came down to it, would kill for their crack rocks. Also, if a buyer got a bad crack rock or got less than he paid for, he cannot go the police or file a complaint. He must take matters into his own hands resulting in violence. If drugs were legalized, they would be safer in the sense that the crack-head that needs his daily crack rock would not have to deal directly with dangerous drug dealers and criminals and risk getting shot for his money. Instead, he can go down to the local â€Å"drug store† and get his drugs safely.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Drugs will even become safer for those who are willing to use them. Government regulations on drug quality will make the drugs more pure, and potent, taking the harmful additives that some drug makers put in. Like cigarettes, warnings would probably be posted on drug packages stating â€Å"The use of crack may be harmful to your health.† As well as on windows of the stores that sells the drugs. An age limit to buy drugs would probably be 21. Clean, sterile needles would also be provided to heroin users and stop the spread of diseases such as AIDS from contaminated and dirty needles.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I think that if drugs were legalized, use of legal drugs would tend to rise because it would be easier to obtain them and it may encourage people to try them out. However, the increase would only be for a short time period. In the long run, drug use would decrease because all the users that are using more drugs because they are easier to get would overdose and kill themselves and set an example for other people thinking about trying drugs. Another reason why drug use would decrease is that the reason why some people use drugs is because they are illegal.

Civilian Complaint Review Board

Established in its current incarnation in 1993 under the leadership of former New York City Mayor David N. Dinkins, the Civilian Complaint Review Board asserts to be the largest civilian oversight agency of its kind within the United States, and investigates thousands of civilian complaints each year. Even though it has only existed in its current form for a little over a decade, the conception of a board delegated power to investigate complaints about potential police misconduct predates the administration of Robert Wagner, who was responsible for investing the nascent Civilian Complaint Review Board-which was then comprised solely of three deputy police commissioners-with new powers in 1955. However, it remained a province of the NYPD, with all investigations being conducted by police officers, and their findings forwarded to the deputy commissioners for recommendation. In 1965, Mayor John Lindsay would ask former federal judge Lawrence E. Walsh to conduct an investigation into the role of the review board. He would recommend that members of the general public, non-police officers, be given substantial authority in any new civilian complaint review board. Subsequently, Lindsay designed a search committee tasked with finding civilians fit to serve on this new review board, which was chaired by former Attorney General Herbert Brownell. After much debate-and opposition to the proposal from the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association-Mayor Lindsay decided to appoint four civilians to the reconstituted board. This prompted opponents of the newly redesigned board to campaign for a city ballot proposal that would have forbidden any direct civilian oversight of uniformed police officers in New York City. The measure was enacted by an overwhelming margin, and the review board once again came under the sole purview of the New York Police Department. In 1986, the New York City Council enacted a piece of legislation that called for imposing some degree of civilian oversight once again, which led to the appointment of six new members by the mayor-with the advice and consent of the City Council-and six by the police commissioner. The Civilian Complaints Investigative Bureau then began to hire civilians to investigate complaints lodged against the NYPD, but did so with the oversight of police department investigators and employees. The incident that galvanized some members of the political body politic and certain segments of the public behind the movement for an all-civilian supervisory board occurred on August 6, 1988, where individuals protesting a curfew imposed over Tompkins Square Park were forcibly removed from the premises. The Civilian Complaint Review Board commissioned an investigation into this incident, and published a report that was extremely critical of NYPD conduct during that confrontation. Critics of internal police procedures used the Tompkins Square â€Å"riots† in order to press for an all-civilian review board. In 1993 Mayor Dinkins and the New York City Council created the Civilian Complaint Review Board in its current incarnation and invested it with subpoena authority, and gave it the ability to recommend disciplinary measures in cases where police misconduct were verified and substantiated. Over the years, NYPD officers have come under public scrutiny with allegations of corruption, brutality, excessive use of force, and poor firearm discipline. [1] Individual incidents have tended to receive more publicity; a portion of which have been substantiated while others have not. The Knapp Commission in the 1970s, and the Mollen Commission in 1994 have led to reforms within the NYPD aimed to improve police accountability. However in recent years, likely due to low salaries and declining morale, many more off-duty NYPD officers are being arrested and charged in and outside the city for crimes ranging from drunk driving to homicide. [2] One of the department's most spectacular cases of corruption was that of Lt. Charles Becker, who holds the dubious distinction of being the only NYPD officer to die in the electric chair. Due to repeated public outcry over these and many other incidents, specifically, the Tompkins Square Riot of the 1988, and the Crown Heights Riot, prompted the creation of the Civilian Complaint Review Board[3] (known commonly by its acronym, the CCRB) in 1993, an independent investigative unit of entirely civilian investigators (with some being former members of the NYPD), who investigate allegations of Force, Discourtesy, Offensive Language and Abuse of Authority made by members of the public against members of the NYPD. Complaints are made directly to the CCRB, through the city's 311 information system, online at nyc. gov/ccrb, or at any Precinct within the city limits. This was the third iteration (after an attempt by Mayor Lindsay and Mayor Koch before to create â€Å"mixed† review boards), but was the first to employ an all civilian Board and investigative staff. [4] [edit] Today The CCRB exits today as a fully independent civil department, staffed with 100 investigators and about a dozen miscellaneous employees. Additionally, three officers from the NYPD's Monitoring and Analysis Section of the Department Advocate's Office work with the CCRB at their office at 40 Rector Street. Their role is to provide the Investigators with access to certain restricted NYPD documentation quickly and efficiently without having to wait the lengthy processing period document requests normally take (sometimes outlasting the course of an investigation). The agency is headed by the 13 board members, who defer day-to-day operational command to an Executive Director (currently Ms. Joan Thompson, as of September 18, 2007, formally Ms. Florence Finkle, Esq. , who is then followed by the First Deputy Executive Director, which was formerly known as the Assistant Deputy Executive Director before that position was transformed into its new form (this later position remains unfilled). The Agency then separates into several divisions, the largest being the Investigative division led by a Deputy Executive Director of Investi gations, followed by four Assistant Deputy Executive Directors of Investigations. However, due to budget cuts in 2009, the Deputy Executive Director of Investigations and three of the Assistant Deputy Executive Directors of Investigations were eliminated, leaving the Investigations division under direction of the First Deputy Executive Director and one Assistant Deputy Executive Director of Investigations. [5] The division is then broken down into 8 Investigative Teams, led by an Investigative Manager, along with a Supervising Investigator and an Assistant Supervising Investigator. Initially, there had been 7 Investigative Team Managers, with two teams sharing one manager, but in early 2010, budget cuts have forced the agency to restructure under 6 Investigative Managers. Promotions to Assistant Supervising Investigator and Supervising Investigator are not necessarily granted to Investigators based on tenure or rate or result of investigations. [5] The remaining Investigators fall into Level I and Level II, which simply denotes tenure, experience and pay grade. The agency is also broken down into an Administrative Division, which includes Human Resources, Information Management Unit and the Case Management Unit (which stores all records of past cases), amongst others, which is led by the Deputy Executive Director of Administration. 5] There are then four other directorships, the Research and Strategic Initiatives Director, Mediation Unit Director, Director of Intergovernmental and Legal Affairs, and the Press Secretary. However, 2009 budget cuts have also caused the Press Secretary and Outreach Unit to be eliminated. There is also an attorney, Mr. Grahram Daw, Esq. , who serves as the Agency's legal counsel. These units compliment and serve the Invest igations Unit, which acts as the main focal point of the Agency. [5]

The Reformation Of The King s Romance With Anne Boleyn Or...

An Introduction to the History of Christianity in England Name: Institution: Course: Date: Introduction The Henrician Reformation followed and Protestant Reformation and led to the Church of England breaking away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. The purpose of this essay is to argue that the most decisive feature of the Henrician reformation was the King’s determination to conceive a male heir, in order to prevent another succession crisis, like those of 1453 and 1461. In doing so, the essay will provide evidence that supports the prominence of this claim over the claims that religious differences with the Catholic Church, the King’s romance with Anne Boleyn or popular discontent with the Roman Catholic Church are the decisive factors of the revolution. Firstly, the essay sheds light onto the events that led to the reformation under the stewardship of King Henry VIII. In doing so it will contest the claim that the King supported the Protestant Reformation. Secondly, the nature of the Henrecian reformation will be discussed high lighting that it was caused by personal and political grievances by the king as opposed to the theological faith of the masses. Lastly, the beheading of Anne Boleyn and the King’s subsequent marriages highlight his fixation on producing an heir. King Henry VIII was not the heir to apparent to the throne because he was the second son of his father, Henry VII. In this regard, he was afforded first-rate