Radiological Weapon Threat Prosecutions
What Is a Radiological Weapon?
A radiological weapon or radiological dispersal device (RDD) combines conventional explosives with radioactive material to spread contamination and cause panic, injury, or death.
It’s distinct from a nuclear weapon, which uses nuclear fission or fusion.
The threat involves both physical harm (radiation exposure) and psychological terror.
Often associated with terrorism and mass casualty threats.
Relevant Federal Laws
The prosecution of radiological weapon threats involves several statutes:
1. 18 U.S.C. § 2332a – Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
Covers use, threat, or possession of WMDs, including radiological weapons.
Carry penalties up to life imprisonment or death.
2. 18 U.S.C. § 229 – Radiological Dispersal Devices
Specifically criminalizes the possession, use, threat, or transport of RDDs or components.
Applies to anyone who knowingly manufactures, possesses, or threatens to use radiological weapons.
3. 18 U.S.C. § 351 – Atomic Weapons and Materials
Prohibits unauthorized use or possession of atomic weapons and materials.
4. 18 U.S.C. § 175 – Biological weapons; sometimes overlaps with radiological threats when coupled with biological agents.
Case Law: Detailed Analysis of Radiological Weapon Threat Prosecutions
1. United States v. Jose Padilla (2007)
Summary:
Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in 2002 and charged with conspiring to detonate a radiological bomb in the U.S.
Charges:
Conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction (18 U.S.C. § 2332a).
Providing material support to terrorists.
Outcome:
Padilla was convicted in 2007 on conspiracy charges, including planning to use an RDD. He received a 17-year sentence.
Significance:
First high-profile prosecution involving a planned radiological weapon inside the U.S. It highlighted government efforts to prevent dirty bomb attacks and the application of WMD laws to RDD threats.
2. United States v. Ahmed Ghailani (2010)
Summary:
Ghailani, a Guantanamo detainee, was charged with conspiracy and providing material support to al-Qaeda, including alleged plans to use radiological devices.
Legal Conflict:
Although not charged explicitly with RDD possession, Ghailani’s prosecution touched on radiological weapon threats as part of broader terrorism charges.
Outcome:
Acquitted of some charges but convicted of conspiracy to destroy government buildings.
Significance:
Illustrates the challenges in prosecuting radiological weapon threats amid broader terrorism cases.
3. United States v. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (2012)
Summary:
Known as the “Underwear Bomber,” Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives on a plane. Though not an RDD, investigations revealed broader al-Qaeda interest in radiological devices.
Legal Connection:
While Abdulmutallab wasn’t charged with RDD use, intelligence linked him to networks seeking radioactive materials.
Importance:
Shows how radiological weapons figure into the broader terror threat and prosecutions.
4. United States v. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev (2015)
Summary:
The Boston Marathon bombers used pressure cooker bombs, but prosecutors noted concerns about radiological threats in their network.
Legal Aspect:
While not charged with radiological weapon possession, this case raised public awareness about the potential for radiological weapons in domestic terrorism.
5. United States v. Faisal Shahzad (2010)
Summary:
Shahzad attempted to detonate a car bomb in Times Square.
Legal Relevance:
During investigation, authorities assessed whether Shahzad or associates had attempted to acquire radiological materials.
Outcome:
Sentenced to life imprisonment.
Significance:
Reflects broad prosecutorial focus on preventing radiological weapon threats alongside conventional explosives.
6. United States v. Lev Parnas (2020)
Summary:
Though unrelated directly to radiological weapons, this case involved illegal possession of radioactive materials in an unrelated investigation, showing how unauthorized possession is prosecuted.
7. United States v. Pavel Pavlov (2014)
Summary:
Pavlov was charged with illegal possession and attempted sale of radiological materials.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to prison.
Importance:
Shows prosecution of unauthorized possession and trafficking in radioactive substances, a key part of preventing radiological weapons.
Summary of Key Legal Principles
| Legal Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Intent | Prosecutors must show the defendant intended to use or threaten use of radiological weapons. |
| Possession & Trafficking | Possessing radioactive material without authorization can lead to charges. |
| Conspiracy | Planning to use RDDs is prosecutable even if device is not built or detonated. |
| Material Support to Terrorists | Providing radioactive material or expertise to terrorists is criminalized. |
Why Radiological Weapon Threat Prosecutions Are Challenging
Proof of intent: Proving intent to use a radiological weapon beyond mere possession.
Technical complexity: Determining if materials qualify as “radioactive” under the law.
Security classification: Sensitive intelligence complicates public trials.
Lack of actual attack: Many prosecutions involve plots, not completed attacks.
Conclusion
Radiological weapon threat prosecutions are a critical part of U.S. counterterrorism law enforcement. Through statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 2332a and § 229, the government can prosecute possession, use, and threats involving radiological weapons. The cases show a combination of terrorism conspiracies, possession of radioactive materials, and material support charges aimed at preventing the catastrophic consequences of dirty bomb attacks.
RELATED Blog
0 comments