I agree with the gentleman very strongly that, when we have a State-sponsored terrorism where assets and resources are funneled to terrorists to kill people around the world, in many cases Americans, it only makes sense to deter that type of State action, whether it is Iraq or Iran or Libya or others, to deter those States from putting the full force and effect of their State treasury into terrorist activities. The way we do that is by hitting them in the pocketbook. That means when we have a judgment, taking assets; that means freezing assets where you can; that means hurting them economically around the world. We do need to have the full cooperation of our own State Department to do that. That is really the only way we can establish a policy of deterrence.
Andrew P. Hunter: “I agree with the gentleman very strongly that, when we have a State-sponsored terrorism where assets and resources are…”
On the recordAugust 7, 1998
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the need for economic measures against state-sponsored terrorism.
Share
More from Andrew P. Hunter
Feb 28, 2017
I think what today's hearing and what this situation and NATO's eastern flank highlights is the fact that we don't have a tremendous amount of time to wait around for the next great Army to show up in 10 to 15 to 20 years.
May 18, 2022
It is concerning; and, of course, it fits a pattern, a long-term pattern of efforts by China to obtain intellectual property and technology from the United States.
Feb 28, 2017
It is my belief that, collectively, NATO is not yet at a maturity level sufficient to effectively incorporate cyber technologies that exploit critical Russian infrastructure.





