Counterterrorism, also spelled counter-terrorism and sometimes referred to as anti-terrorism, encompasses the laws, policies, and operational measures used to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism. These efforts involve a range of tactics and strategies employed by governments, law-enforcement agencies, intelligence services and, in some contexts, private-sector organisations.
When acts of terrorism occur within a broader insurgency—an activity that some definitions of terrorism include—counterterrorism efforts may incorporate counterinsurgency measures.
History The first dedicated counterterrorism unit was the Special Irish Branch of the Metropolitan Police, established in 1883 to counter the Fenian bombing campaign. It was later renamed the Special Branch as its remit expanded beyond Irish republican activity. Police forces across the United Kingdom and in other countries subsequently created similar units.
The International Conference of Rome for the Social Defense Against Anarchists, held in 1898, is widely regarded as the first international conference convened to address terrorism, bringing together 54 delegates from 21 countries to coordinate measures against anarchist violence.
The first modern police tactical counterterrorism unit is widely considered to be GSG 9, established within West Germany's Federal Border Guard (), on 26 September 1972 in response to the Munich Olympic massacre. The Bundesgrenzschutz was later reorganised as the Federal Police () in 2005, with GSG 9 continuing as its elite counterterrorism and hostage‑rescue unit.
Counterterrorist capabilities expanded during the late twentieth century as governments responded to a perceived rise in terrorist activity. After the September 11 attacks in 2001, Western governments made counterterrorism a central national‑security priority, introducing major institutional reforms, increasing international cooperation, and adopting new operational approaches such as red team analysis and a wider range of preventive measures.
Although terrorist attacks in Western countries tend to receive disproportionately high levels of media coverage, most terrorist incidents occur in less developed regions. Scholars have noted that government responses to terrorism can sometimes produce unintended consequences, including operational failures or escalation of violence. The failed rescue attempt during the Munich massacre is a widely cited example, prompting major reforms in crisis‑response capabilities.
Planning Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
Most counterterrorism strategies involve an increase in policing and domestic intelligence gathering. Central techniques include intercepting communications and location tracking. New technology has expanded the range of military and law enforcement options for intelligence gathering. Many countries increasingly employ facial recognition systems in policing.
Domestic intelligence gathering is sometimes directed to specific ethnic or religious groups, which are the sources of political controversy. Mass surveillance of an entire population raises objections on civil liberties grounds. Domestic terrorists, especially lone wolves, are often harder to detect because of their citizenship or legal status and ability to stay under the radar.
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. Rational judgement is at the heart of such preparation, as well as a political and social understanding of any grievances that might be solved. Ideally, one gets information from inside the group, which can be a very difficult challenge for human intelligence operations because operational terrorist cells are often small, with all members known to one another, perhaps even related.
Counterintelligence is considered 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 a communications intercept. However, both of these approaches must be balanced against legitimate expectations of privacy.
Legal contexts
In response to the growing legislation.
The United Kingdom has had counterterrorism legislation in place for more than thirty years. The Prevention of Violence Act 1938 was brought in response to an Irish Republican Army (IRA) campaign of violence under the S-Plan. This act had been allowed to expire in 1953. It was repealed in 1973 to be replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Acts, a response to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. From 1974 to 1989, the temporary provisions of the act were renewed annually. Their original counterterrorism legislation was used to predict future IRA attacks and respond accordingly based on their predictions. For example, if British Security Forces attacked, they predicted the IRA would target civilian areas as a response. In 2000 the Acts were replaced with the more permanent Terrorism Act 2000, which contained many of their powers, and then the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was formally introduced into the Parliament on November 19, 2001, two months after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. It received royal assent and went into force on December 13, 2001. On December 16, 2004, the Law Lords ruled that Part 4 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998, it remained in force. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was drafted to answer the Law Lords ruling and the Terrorism Act 2006 creates new offenses related to terrorism, and amends existing ones. The act was drafted in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 London bombings and, like its predecessors, some of its terms have proven to be highly controversial.
Since 1978 the UK's terrorism laws have been regularly reviewed by a security-cleared Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, whose often influential reports are submitted to Parliament and published in full.
U.S. legal issues surrounding this issue include rulings on the domestic employment of deadly force by law enforcement agencies. Search and seizure is governed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The U.S. passed the Patriot Act after the September 11 attacks, as well as a range of other legislation and executive orders relating to national security. The Department of Homeland Security was established to consolidate domestic security agencies to coordinate counterterrorism and national response to major natural disasters and accidents. The United States Coast Guard's mission, only military branch with law enforcement jurisdiction to board and seize "The direct or indirect supply, sale, or transfer of weapons to terrorist organizations violates U.N. Security Resolution 2216 (as extended and renewed by resolutions 2675 and 2707) and international law." The Posse Comitatus Act limits domestic employment of the United States Army and the United States Air Force, requiring Presidential approval before deploying the Army or the Air Force. Department of Defense policy also applies this limitation to the United States Marine Corps and the United States Navy, because the Posse Comitatus Act does not cover naval services, even though they are federal military forces. The Department of Defense can be employed domestically on Presidential order, as was done during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, Hurricane Katrina, and the Beltway Sniper incidents. External or international use of lethal force would require a Presidential finding. In February 2017, sources claimed that the Trump administration intends to rename and revamp the U.S. government program Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) to focus solely on Islamist extremism.Exclusive: Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam – sources, Reuters 2017-02-02
Australia has passed several counterterrorism acts. In 2004, a bill comprising three acts Anti-terrorism Act, 2004, (No 2) and (No 3) was passed. Then Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, introduced the Anti-terrorism bill, 2004 on March 31. He described it as "a bill to strengthen Australia's counter-terrorism laws in a number of respects – a task made more urgent following the recent tragic terrorist bombings in Spain." He said that Australia's counterterrorism laws "require review and, where necessary, updating if we are to have a legal framework capable of safeguarding all Australians from the scourge of terrorism." The Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 supplemented the powers of the earlier acts. The Australian legislation allows police to detain suspects for up to two weeks without charge and to electronically track suspects for up to a year. The Australian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005 included a "shoot-to-kill" clause. In a country with entrenched liberal democratic traditions, the measures are controversial and have been criticized by civil libertarians and Islamic groups.
Israel monitors a list of designated terrorist organizations and has laws forbidding membership in such organizations and funding or helping them. On December 14, 2006, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled targeted killings were a permitted form of self-defense.Summary of Israeli Supreme Court Ruling on Targeted Killings December 14, 2006 In 2016 the Israeli Knesset passed a comprehensive law against terrorism, forbidding any kind of terrorism and support of terrorism, and setting severe punishments for terrorists. The law also regulates legal efforts against terrorism.
Human rights
One of the primary difficulties of implementing effective counterterrorist 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 or long periods of 'preventive detention';de Londras, Detention in the War on Terrorism: Can Human Rights Fight Back? (2011) 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. Examples include:
In November 2003, Malaysia passed new counterterrorism laws, widely criticized by local human rights groups for being vague and overbroad. Critics claim that the laws put the fundamental 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. In November 2003, a Canadian-Syrian national, Maher Arar, publicly alleged that he had been tortured in a Syrian prison after being handed over to the Syrian authorities by the U.S. 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. Images of torture and ill-treatment of detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq and other locations have encouraged international scrutiny of U.S. operations in the war on terror. Hundreds of foreign nationals remain in prolonged indefinite detention without charge or trial in Guantánamo Bay, despite international and U.S. constitutional standards some groups believe outlaw such practices.