Counterterrorism

Oh, you want to talk about combating terrorism. How… earnest. Fine. Don't expect me to hold your hand through it.

Activity to Defend Against or Prevent Terrorist Actions

So, you want to know about stopping the bad guys. It’s a whole elaborate dance, really. Governments, the people who wear badges, the ones who pretend to be logical in boardrooms, and the shadowy figures in intelligence agencies—they all have their little routines. It’s about tactics, techniques, the whole shebang, all aimed at, what? Eliminating terrorism and violent extremism. Such grand words.

If this whole terrorism thing is just a sideshow to a bigger insurgency, then the counterterrorism playbook gets a bit messier, incorporating counterinsurgency measures. The United States Armed Forces, bless their hearts, call it "foreign internal defense." It’s all about supporting other countries trying to keep their own houses in order, stamping out lawlessness, subversion, or just the general rot that can fester and become a threat to national security.

History

They say the first dedicated unit was some branch of the Metropolitan Police in Ireland, later renamed Special Branch, initially focused on Fenian nonsense. Then everyone else scrambled to do the same.

The world’s first international get-together about this particular unpleasantness? The International Conference of Rome for the Social Defense Against Anarchists. Anarchists. Quaint.

And the first tactical unit, specifically for this? GSG 9 in West Germany. Born from the ashes of the 1972 Munich massacre. A horrific event, of course, but it spurred… action.

The late 20th century saw more of these units pop up, as if the threat was somehow a novelty. Then came the September 11 attacks, and suddenly, everyone in the West decided counterterrorism was the hot new priority. More collaboration, more elaborate drills with red teams, more preventive measures.

It’s amusing, though, isn’t it? The media fixates on the attacks that happen in Western countries, but most of this ugliness happens elsewhere, in places that don't make the front page. And the responses? Sometimes they create more problems than they solve, like a poorly bandaged wound.

Planning

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

You want to stop something before it happens? You need to know things. So, more police, more domestic intelligence gathering. Intercepting calls, tracking movements. Technology opens up a whole new playground for military and police. They’re even using facial recognition systems now. Because nothing says "freedom" like being constantly scanned.

This intelligence gathering sometimes gets… specific. Targeting certain ethnic or religious groups. It’s controversial, naturally. Mass surveillance of everyone? That’s a direct assault on civil liberties. And the domestic terrorists, the lone wolves? They’re the hardest to catch. They blend in. They’re citizens. They know how to stay off the radar.

To figure out what to do, especially when it’s just a ripple, not a tsunami, the right people need to understand who’s doing it, why, how they’re preparing, and their methods. Good intelligence is the foundation. And you need to understand the grievances, the festering wounds that might actually be solvable. The dream is getting information from inside the group. Extremely difficult. These operational terrorist cells are usually small, everyone knows each other, maybe even related. It's a closed system.

Counterintelligence is a nightmare with these cell structures. Getting a clandestine source inside is the holy grail, but it’s almost impossible. Financial tracking, communications intercepts—they help. But you have to balance it with people’s expectations of privacy. A delicate, often ignored, balance.

Legal Contexts

Main article: Anti-terrorism legislation

The laws… oh, the laws. They’re always playing catch-up.

United Kingdom They’ve had this legislation for decades. The Prevention of Violence Act 1938, a response to the Irish Republican Army and their S-Plan. Expired, then back in 1973 with the Prevention of Terrorism Acts because of the Troubles. Renewed annually for years. They used it to predict attacks, to react. If the security forces hit hard, they expected civilian targets. Predictable, really.

Then came the Terrorism Act 2000, supposedly more permanent. Followed by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 dropped right after the September 11, 2001 attacks. It was a rush job, really. Some parts got struck down later for being incompatible with human rights, but they kept them in force. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was an attempt to fix that. And the Terrorism Act 2006, born from the 7 July 2005 London bombings, created new offenses. Controversial, like its predecessors.

Since 1978, an Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has been looking at these laws. Their reports are supposed to be influential. We’ll see.

United States Domestic issues include the use of deadly force by law enforcement. And the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution about search and seizure.

The Patriot Act was the big one after 9/11, along with a slew of other laws and executive orders. The Department of Homeland Security was born, consolidating everything. The United States Coast Guard got some interesting new powers.

Then there’s the Posse Comitatus Act, which basically says the Army and Air Force can't be used for domestic law enforcement unless the President says so. Same for the Marines and Navy, technically. They’ve been deployed domestically, though, for riots or disasters. For international action, a Presidential finding is needed.

And in 2017, some people claimed the Trump administration wanted to rebrand the Countering Violent Extremism program to focus only on Islamist extremism. Because that's always a nuanced approach.

Australia They’ve passed a few acts. The Anti-terrorism Act, 2004 (No 2 and No 3). The Attorney-General at the time, Philip Ruddock, said it was urgent after the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Needed to update the legal framework. The Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 beefed things up. Police can hold suspects for two weeks without charge, track them for a year. And a "shoot-to-kill" clause. All very liberal democratic, of course. Criticized by civil libertarians and Islamic groups. Shocking.

Israel They keep lists of designated terrorist organizations. Membership or funding is illegal. In 2016, their Knesset passed a big law against terrorism. And the Israeli Supreme Court ruled targeted killings were a form of self-defense. Efficient, I suppose.

Human Rights

This is where it gets… complicated. The measures taken to combat terrorism often erode civil liberties and individual privacy. For everyone. Sometimes, these security measures are seen as abuses of power or outright human rights violations.

Think prolonged detention without review, torture during transfers, extradition. Measures that restrict freedoms and smack of discrimination.

Malaysia passed vague laws in 2003, criticized for threatening free expression. They held people without trial. Maher Arar alleged torture in Syria after being handed over by the U.S. Colombia’s congress gave the military power to arrest, tap phones, search—no warrant needed. Images of torture in U.S. custody in Iraq brought international scrutiny. Hundreds languish in Guantánamo Bay without charge. Pakistan and U.S. centers hold suspects without trial. China uses the "war on terror" to justify its actions in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, suppressing Uyghur identity. Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen—arrests, arbitrary detentions. In the UK, eleven men were held without trial until 2005. And just recently, UN experts condemned Egypt for misusing counterterrorism powers against human rights activists.

Many argue that violating rights only fuels the problem. Human rights activists insist that protecting rights is crucial to fighting terrorism. It’s about human security—freedom from fear and want. Amnesty International recommended treating terrorism as criminal acts, with full respect for human rights and the rule of law. Impunity for either terrorism or abuse of human rights in counter-terrorism measures. Incorporate human rights into all anti-terrorism programs.

International cooperation is key, they say. But if states don’t respect human rights, it undermines the whole effort. It’s a messy feedback loop.

Preemptive Neutralization

Some countries believe in striking first. Capturing, killing, disabling suspected terrorists before they act. Israel, the UK, the US, Russia—they’ve done it. Western Europe generally… not so much.

Interrogation is another method. Trying to get information about plots, targets, other terrorists. Sometimes, they use… extreme methods to make people more “suggestible.” Sleep deprivation, drugs. The problem is, people might lie just to make it stop, or because they’re disoriented. The European Court of Human Rights ruled such methods amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Apparently, some things are considered breaches of human rights. Who knew.

Non-Military

The human security approach. It’s about tackling the root causes, the inequalities that breed terrorism. Equal access to resources, sustainability. Empowering people. "Freedom from fear" and "freedom from want." Clean water, education, food, shelter, protection. It requires a broad coalition: governments, NGOs, citizens.

Foreign internal defense programs offer expert help to struggling governments. A mix of non-military and military aspects. A 2017 study suggested governance and civil society aid helps dampen domestic terrorism, but only if there isn't a civil conflict raging. Go figure.

Military

Further information: Violent extremism § Prevention of radicalization and deradicalization

Terrorism is often used as a justification for military intervention. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the second Russian invasion of Chechnya. Military action can disrupt, yes. But it rarely ends the threat. Think of the Malayan Emergency, the Mau Mau uprising, the endless campaigns against the IRA. Short-term victories, perhaps. But long-term? Not so much, especially if it's just repression without other measures. The French tried it in Indochina and Algeria. The results were… mixed. New methods in Iraq are still being evaluated.

Preparation

Target Hardening

Making targets less vulnerable. Blocking off vehicles with hostile vehicle mitigation to keep them away from sensitive buildings. Designing structures for quick evacuation. Locking aircraft cockpits, reinforcing doors. Removing garbage bins from railway stations because they were convenient spots for bombs. Australia did it after the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Bomb-resistant barriers for transport systems.

Israel, dealing with constant rocket fire, has bomb shelters everywhere. And active defense systems like Arrow ABM, Iron Dome, and David's Sling. Iron Dome has a pretty good track record.

Then there’s industrial infrastructure. Terrorists don’t need to import chemical weapons if they can cause an industrial accident like the Bhopal disaster or the Halifax Explosion. Protecting chemicals in manufacturing, shipping, storage is crucial.

And the… interesting ideas. Like lining areas with pig lard to deter suicide bombers. The theory is, devout Muslims wouldn’t want to be soiled by it. Apparently, the British did this in the 1940s. It’s been suggested for Israel. The effectiveness is… questionable. A fatwa could easily dismiss it.

Command and Control

When an attack happens, or is about to, an Incident Command System might kick in. It coordinates all the various services involved. Depending on the scale—multiple incidents, a national-level response for something like a nuclear or biological attack—the system escalates.

Local Security

Local police cordon off the area. Specialized units move in. Sometimes, you need forces beyond the local level.

Medical Services

Emergency medical services handle the injured, getting them to hospitals equipped for mass casualty events. Public health agencies get involved if it’s biological, chemical, or radiological.

Tactical Units

GSG 9 troopers. One of the first units designed specifically for this.

Counterterrorism Agencies

Many countries have their own dedicated units. Security agencies, police tactical units. They prevent attacks, rescue hostages, respond to ongoing incidents. These units are trained in military tactics, equipped for close-quarters combat. Stealth is key. Minimal casualties. They have assault teams, snipers, EOD experts, dog handlers, intelligence officers. Most of this is for situations that unfold over time—shootouts, standoffs. It’s harder to deal with quick assassinations or bombings.

The bulk of tactical counterterrorism falls to state, federal, and national law enforcement or intelligence agencies. The military might get involved as a last resort, or if their legal framework allows domestic operations.

Counterterrorist Operations

A few notable examples from the 20th and 21st centuries.