Richard Levernier: Difference between revisions
Closedmouth (talk | contribs) adding Category:Living people and other cat fixes (please help!) using AWB |
m Date maintenance tags and general fixes |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Context|date=October 2009}} |
|||
{{context}} |
|||
'''Richard Levernier''' had 23 years of experience as a nuclear security professional and identified security problems at U.S. nuclear facilities as part of his job. Specifically, after 9/11, he pointed out problems with contingency plans to protect US nuclear plants from [[nuclear terrorism|terrorist attacks]], mainly that the plans assumed attackers would both enter and exit from facilities, whereas suicide terrorists would not need to exit. In response, the [[U.S. Department of Energy]] withdrew Levernier's security clearance and relegated him to administrative work. Levernier sought the assistance of the [[United States Office of Special Counsel]] (OSC), which handles US federal [[whistleblower]] matters. It took four years for the OSC to vindicate Levernier, ruling that the Department's retaliation was illegal - but the OSC could not reinstate Levernier's security clearance, so he was unable to regain work in nuclear security.<ref>[http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/whistle.pdf National Security Whistleblowers in the Post-September 11th Era] pp.177-178.</ref><ref>[http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/07prometheus.html Nuclear power and antiterrorism: obscuring the policy contradictions]</ref> |
'''Richard Levernier''' had 23 years of experience as a nuclear security professional and identified security problems at U.S. nuclear facilities as part of his job. Specifically, after 9/11, he pointed out problems with contingency plans to protect US nuclear plants from [[nuclear terrorism|terrorist attacks]], mainly that the plans assumed attackers would both enter and exit from facilities, whereas suicide terrorists would not need to exit. In response, the [[U.S. Department of Energy]] withdrew Levernier's security clearance and relegated him to administrative work. Levernier sought the assistance of the [[United States Office of Special Counsel]] (OSC), which handles US federal [[whistleblower]] matters. It took four years for the OSC to vindicate Levernier, ruling that the Department's retaliation was illegal - but the OSC could not reinstate Levernier's security clearance, so he was unable to regain work in nuclear security.<ref>[http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/whistle.pdf National Security Whistleblowers in the Post-September 11th Era] pp.177-178.</ref><ref>[http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/07prometheus.html Nuclear power and antiterrorism: obscuring the policy contradictions]</ref> |
||
Revision as of 01:21, 5 October 2009
 | This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. (October 2009) |
Richard Levernier had 23 years of experience as a nuclear security professional and identified security problems at U.S. nuclear facilities as part of his job. Specifically, after 9/11, he pointed out problems with contingency plans to protect US nuclear plants from terrorist attacks, mainly that the plans assumed attackers would both enter and exit from facilities, whereas suicide terrorists would not need to exit. In response, the U.S. Department of Energy withdrew Levernier's security clearance and relegated him to administrative work. Levernier sought the assistance of the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which handles US federal whistleblower matters. It took four years for the OSC to vindicate Levernier, ruling that the Department's retaliation was illegal - but the OSC could not reinstate Levernier's security clearance, so he was unable to regain work in nuclear security.[1][2]