Counterterrorism

Counter-terrorism or counterterrorism refers to the practices, tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, militaries, police departments and other groups adopt in order to fight terrorism. Counterterrorism is not specific to any one field or organization; rather, it involves entities from all levels of society. For instance, businesses have security plans and sometimes share commercial data with the government.

Local firefighters, and emergency medical personnel (often called "first responders") have plans for mitigating the effects terrorist attacks. Local police can isolate the incident area, reducing confusion, and both specialized police units Armies conduct combat operations against terrorists, often using specialized counterterrorist tactical units.

Building a counterterrorism plan involves all segments of a society or many government agencies. Because propaganda and indoctrination lie at the core of terrorism, understanding their profile and functions increases the ability to counter terrorism more effectively. See the series of articles beginning with intelligence cycle management, and, in particular, intelligence analysis. HUMINT presents techniques of describing the social networks that make up terrorist groups. Also relevant are the motivations of the individual terrorist and the structure of cell systems used by recent non-national terrorist groups.

Counterterrorism tactical units

Today, many countries have special units designated to handle terrorist threats. Besides various security agencies, there are elite tactical units whose role is to directly engage terrorists and prevent terrorist attacks. Such units perform both in preventive actions, hostage rescue and responding to on-going attacks. Countries of all sizes can have highly trained counterterrorist teams.

Most of these measures deal with terrorist attacks that affect an area, or threaten to do so. It is far harder to deal with assassination, or even reprisals on individuals, due to the short (if any) warning time and the quick exfiltration of the assassins ^[1]. Of course, if the assassination is done by a suicide bomber, exfiltration becomes moot.

These units are specially trained in tactics and are very well equipped for CQB with emphasis on stealth and performing the mission with minimal casualties. The units include take-over force (assault teams), snipers, EOD experts, dog handlers and intelligence officers. See Counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism organizations for national command, intelligence, and incident mitigation.

The majority of counterterrorism operations at the tactical level, are conducted by state, federal and national law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies. In some countries, the military may be called in as a last resort. Obviously, for countries whose military are legally permitted to conduct police operations, this is a non-issue, and such counter-terrorism operations are conducted by their military.

See Counter-intelligence for command, intelligence and warning, and incident mitigation aspects of counter-terror.

Examples of actions

Some counterterrorist actions of the 20th century are listed below. See List of hostage crises for a more extended list, including hostage-taking that did not end vuolently.

Representative Hostage Rescue Operations
Incident	Main locale	Hostage nationality	Terrorists	Counterterrorist force	Results
1972 Munich Massacre	Munich Olympics, Germany	Israeli	Black September	German police	All 11 hostages, 1 rescuer, 5 terrorists killed. 3 terrorists captured.
1976 Entebbe raid	Entebbe, Uganda	Mixed. Israelis and Jews separated.	PFLP	Israeli mixed force	all 6 hijackers, 45 Ugandan troops, 3 hostages and 1 Israeli soldier dead. 100 hostages rescued
1980 Iranian Embassy Siege	London, UK	Iranian	Democratic Revolutionary Movement for the Liberation of Arabistan	Special Air Service	1 hostage, 5 terrorists dead, 1 captured
1985 Capture of Achille Lauro hijackers	International airspace and Italy	Mixed	PLO	US military, turned over to Italy	1 dead in hijacking, 4 terrorists convicted in Italy
1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis	Lima, Peru	Japanese and guests (800+)	Shining Path	Peruvian military & police mixed forces	1 hostage, 2 rescuer, all 14 terrorists dead.
2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis	Moscow	Mixed, mostly Russian (900+)	Chechen	Russian OZNAZ	129-204 hostages dead, all 39 terrorists dead. 600-700 rescued
2004 Beslan school hostage crisis	Beslan, North Ossetia-Alania, (an autonomous republic in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation).	Russian	Chechen	Mixed Russian	334 hostages dead and hundreds wounded. 10-21 rescuers dead. 31 hostage takers killed, 1 captured

Civilian Counterterrorist Organizations by Country

+ indicates military organization allowed to operate domestically Examples include:

Australia: State and Australian Federal Police Police Tactical Groups
Canada: RCMP Security Service
France: Police units GIPN and Recherche Assistance Intervention Dissuasion
Germany: Police SEK / MEK and Border Guard GSG 9
- Hong Kong Hong Kong Police Force Special Duties Unit
Iceland: Víkingasveitin
India: ATS
Israel: YAMAM
Russia: Alpha Group,Vympel
Spain: GEO and UEI
UK: Counter Terrorism Command
US: FBI HRT and state/local Police SWAT teams,
Taiwan: Thunder Squad

Military Counterterrorist Organizations by Country

Few military actually engage in domestic counter-terrorism operations, as they are largely prevented by either jurisdiction or laws like the US Posse Comitatus Act from operating in their own country. In cases such as the Iranian Embassy Siege, the British police formally turned responsibility over to the Special Air Service when the situation went beyond police capabilities

Australia: Tactical Assault Group (East and West)

Australian Special Air Service Regiment (TAG West)
4th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (TAG East)

Austria: Austrian Jagdkommando (JaKdo)
Brazil: Projeto Talon and 1º Batalhão de Forcas Especiais
Canada: JTF-2
France: French army (gendarmerie) unit GIGN
Germany: German KSK
New Zealand: Special Air Service
Sri Lanka: Special Boat Squadron
Israel:

UK:

US: Units of the Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), principally of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) including:

Anti-terrorism

The concept of anti-terrorism emerges from a thorough examining of the concept of terrorism as well as an attempt to understand and articulate what constitutes terrorism in Western terms. Anti-terrorism was bound to emerge as the stakes for a concise definition of terrorism are raised. Unlike counterterrorism, the prefix "anti-" suggests a diplomatic and less confrontational line than counterterrorism. Like its mirror terminology, it is a broad term, though it is invoked far less often.

Examples of anti terrorism activity before the War on Terrorism include the ongoing conflicts in Israel, Sri Lanka and Colombia. Sri Lanka has been fighting a 20 year old war against one of the most deadliest terrorist groups in the world, the LTTE. Israel has been subject to numerous terrorist attacks from various Palestinian groups. Colombia has been fighting against numerous insurgent groups and also have been fighting to end the illegal drug trade.

Anti-terrorism legislation

The US passed the PATRIOT act after the 9/11 attacks, as well as a range of other legislation and executive orders. It formed the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate domestic anti-terrorism, as well as national response to major natural disasters and accidents.

In the wake of the London bombings of 7 July and 21 July 2005, the term has been used to describe legislative measures in both the United Kingdom and Australia which extend unprecedented powers to law enforcement. Such powers facilitate more aggressive methods of detainment and investigation of persons suspected of terrorism.

The legislation in Australia allows police to detain suspects for up to two weeks without charge, and to electronically track suspects for up to a year. In both countries, with entrenched liberal democratic traditions, the measures have been controversial and have been criticised by civil libertarians and Islamic groups.

Actions

To select the effective action when terrorism appears to be more of an isolated event, the appropriate government organizations need to understand the source, motivation, methods of preparation, and tactics of terrorist groups. Good intelligence is at the heart of such preparation, as well as political and social understanding of any grievances that might be solved. Ideally, one gets information from inside the group, a very difficult challenge for HUMINT because operational terrorist cells ^[2] are often small, with all members known to one another, perhaps even related (Feiler 2007 & pg. 29). Counterintelligence is a great challenge with the security of cell-based systems, since the ideal, but nearly impossible, goal is to obtain a clandestine source within the cell. Financial tracking can play a role, as can communications intercept, but both of these approaches need to be balanced against legitimate expectations of privacy.

Target-hardening

Whatever the target of terrorists, there are multiple ways of hardening the targets to prevent the terrorists from hitting their mark. One method is to place Jersey barrier or other sturdy obstacles outside tall or politically sensitive buildings to prevent car and truck bombing. Aircraft cockpits are kept locked during flights, and have reinforced doors, which only the pilots in the cabin are capable of opening. English train stations removed their waste bins in response to the Provisional IRA threat, as convenient locations for depositing bombs. Scottish stations removed theirs after the 7th of July bombing of London as a precautionary measure. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority purchased bomb-resistant barriers after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

A more sophisticated target-hardening approach must consider industrial and other critical industrial infrastructure that could be attacked. Terrorists need not import chemical weapons if they can cause a major industrial accident such as the Bhopal disaster or the Halifax explosion. Industrial chemicals in manufacturing, shipping, and storage need greater protection, and some efforts are in progress ^[3]. To put this risk into perspective, the first major lethal chemical attack in WWI used 160 tons of chlorine. Industrial shipments of chlorine, widely used in water purification and the chemical industry, travel in 90 or 55 ton tank cars.

To give one more example, the North American electrical grid has already demonstrated, in the Northeast Blackout of 2003, its vulnerability to natural disasters coupled with inadequate, possibly insecure, SCADA (system control and data acquisition) networks. Part of the vulnerability is due to deregulation leading to much more interconnection in a grid designed for only occasional power-selling between utilities. A very few terrorists, attacking key power facilities when one or more engineers have infiltrated the power control centers, could wreak havoc.

Preemptive neutralization

Some countries see pre-emptive attacks as a legitimate strategy. This includes capturing, killing, or disabling suspected terrorists before they can mount an attack. Israel, the United States, and Russia have taken this approach, while Western European states generally do not.

Another major method of pre-emptive neutralization is interrogation of known or suspected terrorists to obtain information about specific plots, targets, the identity of other terrorists, and whether the interrogation subjects himself as guilty of terrorist involvement. Sometimes more extreme methods are used to increase suggestibility, such as sleep deprivation or drugs. Such methods may lead captives to offer false information in an attempt to stop the treatment, or due to the confusion brought on by it.

Domestic intelligence and surveillance

Most counter-terrorism strategies involve an increase in standard police and domestic intelligence. The central activities are traditional: interception of communications, and the tracing of persons. New technology has, however, expanded the range of such operations. Domestic intelligence is often directed at specific groups, defined on the basis of origin or religion, which is a source of political controversy. Mass surveillance of an entire population raises objections on civil liberties grounds.

Military intervention

Terrorism has often been used to justify military intervention in countries where terrorists are said to be based. That was the main stated justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. It was also a stated justification for the second Russian invasion of Chechnya.

History has shown that military intervention has rarely been successful in stopping or preventing terrorism. Although military action can disrupt a terrorist group's operations temporarily, it rarely ends the threat^[4]/. Provoking repression is actually a key goal of terrorism, as most of the time it increases the popularity of the terrorist cause (source?)as well as furthers the motivation for continuing terrorism. Most probably such a strategy against terrorism is not successful and cannot be as the structural causes of terrorism are not addressed: Relative deprivation that leads to frustration, aggressive foreign policy that leads to ´hate`, and psychosocial effects of globalization (as well as other causes) are not solved. Thus repression by the military in itself - particularly if it is not accompanied by other measures - usually leads to short term victories, but tend to be unsuccessful in the long run (e.g. France and the National Liberation Front). However, new methods such as those taken in Iraq have yet to be seen as beneficial or ineffectual.

Non-military Intervention

The human security paradigm outlines a non-military approach which aims to address the enduring underlying inequalities which fuel terrorist activity. Causal factors need to be delineated and measures implemented which allow equal access to resources and sustainability for all peoples. Such activities empower citizens providing 'freedom from fear' and 'freedom from want'. This can take many forms including the provision of clean drinking water, education, vaccination programs, provision of food and shelter and protection from violence, military or otherwise. Successful human security campaigns have been characterised by the participation of a diverse group of actors including governments, NGOs, and citizens.

Terrorism and human rights

One of the primary difficulties of implementing effective counter-terrorist measures is the waning of civil liberties and individual privacy that such measures often entail, both for citizens of, and for those detained by states attempting to combat terror. At times, measures designed to tighten security have been seen as abuses of power or even violations of human rights.

Examples of these problems can include prolonged, incommunicado detention without judicial review; risk of subjecting to torture during the transfer, return and extradition of people between or within countries; and the adoption of security measures that restrain the rights or freedoms of citizens and breach principles of non-discrimination. ^[5] Examples include:

In November 2003, Malaysia passed new counter-terrorism laws that were widely criticized by local human rights groups for being vague and overbroad. Critics claim that the laws put the basic rights of free expression, association, and assembly at risk. Malaysia persisted in holding around 100 alleged militants without trial, including five Malaysian students detained for alleged terrorist activity while studying in Karachi, Pakistan. ^[5]
In November 2003, a Canadian-Syrian national, Maher Arar, alleged publicly that he had been tortured in a Syrian prison after being handed over to the Syrian authorities by U.S. ^[5]
In December 2003, Colombia's congress approved legislation that would give the military the power to arrest, tap telephones and carry out searches without warrants or any previous judicial order. ^[5]
Images of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in US custody in Iraq and other locations have jeopardized the legitimacy of the US war on terrorism and brought on international scrutiny. ^[6]
Hundreds of foreign nationals remain in prolonged indefinite detention without charge or trial in Guantánamo Bay, despite international and US constitutional standards outlawing such practices. ^[6]
Hundreds of people suspected of connections with the Taliban or al Qa'eda remain in long-term arbitrary detention in Pakistan or in US-controlled centres in Afghanistan. ^[6]
China has used the "war on terror" to justify its repression policies in the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region to stifle Uighur identity. ^[6]
In Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen and other countries, scores of people have been arrested and arbitrarily detained in connection with suspected terrorist acts or links to opposition armed groups. ^[6]
Until 2005, 11 men remained in high security detention in the UK under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. ^[6]

Many would argue that such violations exacerbate rather than counter the terrorist threat. ^[5] Human rights advocates argue for the crucial role of human rights protection as an intrinsic part to fight against terrorism. ^[6] This suggests, as proponents of human security have long argued, that respecting human rights may indeed help us to incur security. Amnesty International included a section on confronting terrorism in the recommendations in the Madrid Agenda arising from the Madrid Summit on Democracy and Terrorism (Madrid 8-11 March 2005):

"Democratic principles and values are essential tools in the fight against terrorism. Any successful strategy for dealing with terrorism requires terrorists to be isolated. Consequently, the preference must be to treat terrorism as criminal acts to be handled through existing systems of law enforcement and with full respect for human rights and the rule of law. We recommend: (1) taking effective measures to make impunity impossible either for acts of terrorism or for the abuse of human rights in counter-terrorism measures. (2) the incorporation of human rights laws in all anti-terrorism programmes and policies of national governments as well as international bodies.". ^[6]

While international efforts to combat terrorism have focused on the need to enhance cooperation between states, proponents of human rights (as well as human security) have suggested that more effort needs to be given to the effective inclusion of human rights protection as a crucial element in that cooperation. They argue that international human rights obligations do not stop at borders and a failure to respect human rights in one state may undermine its effectiveness in the international effort to cooperate to combat terrorism. ^[5]