Editing Counterterrorism (section)

== Planning ==
=== Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance ===
{{See also|Intelligence cycle management|Intelligence analysis|HUMINT|Counterintelligence}}
[[File:Magav-Facebook--Yamam-0009.jpg|thumb|upright=1.1|[[Yamam]], one of Israel's counterterrorism units]]

Most counterterrorism strategies involve an increase in policing and domestic [[Military intelligence|intelligence]] gathering. Central techniques include [[Wiretapping|intercepting communications]] and [[Tracking system|location tracking]]. New technology has expanded the range of [[Manhunt (military)|military]] and [[manhunt (law enforcement)|law enforcement]] options for intelligence gathering. Many countries increasingly employ [[facial recognition system]]s in policing.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Lin |first=Patrick K. |date=2021 |title=How to Save Face & the Fourth Amendment: Developing an Algorithmic Auditing and Accountability Industry for Facial Recognition Technology in Law Enforcement |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4095525 |journal=SSRN Electronic Journal |doi=10.2139/ssrn.4095525 |s2cid=248582120 |issn=1556-5068|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Garvie |first=Clare |title=Face Recognition and the Right to Stay Anonymous |date=2022-05-26 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108775038.014 |work=The Cambridge Handbook of Information Technology, Life Sciences and Human Rights |pages=139–152 |access-date=2023-08-16 |publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/9781108775038.014 |isbn=9781108775038 |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-11-18 |title=Why facial recognition use is growing amid the Covid-19 pandemic |url=https://www.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3108742/what-facial-recognition-and-why-more-relevant-ever-during-covid-19 |access-date=2023-08-16 |website=South China Morning Post |language=en}}</ref>

Domestic intelligence gathering is sometimes directed to specific [[Ethnicity|ethnic]] or religious groups, which are the sources of political conversy. [[Mass surveillance]] of an entire population raises objections on [[civil liberties]] grounds. [[Domestic terrorism|Domestic terrorists]], especially [[Lone wolf attack|lone wolves]], are often harder to detect because of their citizenship or legal status and ability to stay under the radar.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/challenges-effective-counterterrorism-intelligence-2020s|title=The Challenges of Effective Counterterrorism Intelligence in the 2020s|date=June 21, 2020}}</ref>

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 a political and social understanding of any grievances that might be solved. Ideally, one gets information from inside the group, a very difficult challenge for [[Human intelligence (intelligence gathering)|human intelligence]] operations because [[Clandestine cell system|operational terrorist cells]] are often small, with all members known to one another, perhaps even related.<ref name="Feiler2007">{{cite journal
 | url = http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/MSPS74.pdf
 | title = The Globalization of Terror Funding
 | author = Feiler, Gil
 | date = September 2007
 | publisher = Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University
 | page = 29
 | id = Mideast Security and Policy Studies No. 74
 | access-date = November 14, 2007
 }}</ref>

[[Counterintelligence]] is a great challenge with the security of cell-based systems, since the ideal, but the nearly impossible, goal is to obtain a [[Clandestine human intelligence|clandestine source]] within the cell. Financial tracking can play a role, as a [[Signals intelligence|communications intercept]]. However, both of these approaches need to be balanced against legitimate expectations of privacy.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-12/key-issues/surveillance-and-interception.html|title = Counter-Terrorism Module 12 Key Issues: Surveillance & Interception}}</ref>

=== Legal contexts ===
{{Main|Anti-terrorism legislation}}

In response to the growing legislation.

; {{UK}}
* 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gill |first1=Paul |last2=Piazza |first2=James A. |last3=Horgan |first3=John |title=Counterterrorism Killings and Provisional IRA Bombings, 1970–1998 |journal=Terrorism and Political Violence |date=26 May 2016 |volume=28 |issue=3 |pages=473–496 |doi=10.1080/09546553.2016.1155932|s2cid=147673041 |url=https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1477465/ }}</ref>
* 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.

;{{US}}
* 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 [[United States Department of Homeland Security|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."''<ref>{{Cite web |title=USCENTCOM Seizes Iranian Advanced Conventional Weapons Bound for Houthis |url=https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PRESS-RELEASES/Press-Release-View/Article/3645241/uscentcom-seizes-iranian-advanced-conventional-weapons-bound-for-houthis/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.centcom.mil%2FMEDIA%2FPRESS-RELEASES%2FPress-Release-View%2FArticle%2F3645241%2Fuscentcom-seizes-iranian-advanced-conventional-weapons-bound-for-houthis%2F |access-date=2024-01-22 |website=U.S. Central Command |language=en-US}}</ref>
* 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. [[United States Department of Defense|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 Task Force|Countering Violent Extremism]] (CVE) to focus solely on Islamist extremism.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO Exclusive: Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam – sources], Reuters 2017-02-02</ref>

;
; {{AUS}}
* Australia has passed several counterterrorism acts. In 2004, a bill comprising three acts [[Australian anti-terrorism legislation, 2004|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&nbsp;– a task made more urgent following the recent tragic [[2004 Madrid train bombings|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 2005#The "Shoot to Kill" Clause|Australian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005]] included a "shoot-to-kill" clause. In a country with entrenched [[liberal democracy|liberal democratic]] traditions, the measures are controversial and have been criticized by [[civil libertarian]]s and [[Islam]]ic groups.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/archive/TerrorismLaws|title = Proposals to further strengthen Australia s counter-terrorism laws 2005}}</ref>

;
; {{ISR}}
* Israel monitors a list of designated [[terrorist organization]]s and has laws forbidding membership in such organizations and funding or helping them.
* On December 14, 2006, the [[Israeli Supreme Court]] ruled [[Israeli targeted killings|targeted killings]] were a permitted form of self-defense.<ref>[http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.htm Summary of Israeli Supreme Court Ruling on Targeted Killings] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130223012451/http://elyon1.court.gov.il/Files_ENG/02/690/007/a34/02007690.a34.htm |date=February 23, 2013 }} December 14, 2006</ref>
* 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.<ref name="Israel-ani-terror-law">{{cite news|title=Terror bill passes into law|url=http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Terror-bill-passes-into-law-456857|access-date=June 16, 2016|work=[[The Jerusalem Post]] |date=June 16, 2016}}</ref>

=== Human rights ===
[[File:John Walker Lindh Custody.jpg|thumb|upright|[[John Walker Lindh]] was captured as an enemy combatant during the United States' [[War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)|2001 invasion of Afghanistan]].]]

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.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://icct.nl/publication/accountability-and-transparency-in-the-united-states-counter-terrorism-strategy/ | title=Accountability and Transparency in the United States' Counter-Terrorism Strategy | date=22 January 2015 | publisher=The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague (ICCT) | access-date=6 September 2016 | archive-date=October 18, 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018080620/https://icct.nl/publication/accountability-and-transparency-in-the-united-states-counter-terrorism-strategy/ | url-status=dead }}</ref> At times, measures designed to tighten security have been seen as [[abuses of power]] or even violations of human rights.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fighting-terrorism-withou_b_9513034|title=Fighting Terrorism Without Violating Human Rights|date=March 21, 2016|website=HuffPost}}</ref>

Examples of these problems can include prolonged, incommunicado detention without judicial review or long periods of 'preventive detention';<ref>de Londras, Detention in the War on Terrorism: Can Human Rights Fight Back? (2011)</ref> 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.<ref name="Human Rights News 2004" /> 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.<ref name="Human Rights News 2004" />
* 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.<ref name="Human Rights News 2004" />
* 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.<ref name="Human Rights News 2004" />
* 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.<ref name="Amnesty International 2005" />
* 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.<ref name="Amnesty International 2005" />
* Hundreds of people suspected of connections with the [[Taliban]] or [[Al-Qaeda]] remain in long-term detention in Pakistan or in U.S.-controlled centers in Afghanistan without trial.<ref name="Amnesty International 2005" />
* China has used the "war on terror" to justify its policies in the predominantly Muslim [[Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region]] to stifle Uyghur identity.<ref name="Amnesty International 2005" />
* 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.<ref name="Amnesty International 2005" />
* Until 2005, eleven men remained in high security detention in the UK under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.<ref name="Amnesty International 2005" />
* United Nations experts condemned the misuse of counterterrorism powers by the Egyptian authorities following the arrest, detention, and designation of human rights activists Ramy Shaath and Zyad El-Elaimy as terrorists. The two activists were arrested in June 2019, and the first-ever renewal of remand detention for Shaath came for the 21st time in 19 months on 24 January 2021. Experts called it alarming, and demanded the urgent implementation of the Working Group's opinion and removal of the two's names from the "terrorism entities' list.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26739&LangID=E|title=UN experts call for removal of rights defenders Ramy Shaath and Zyad El-Elaimy from 'terrorism entities' list|access-date=11 February 2021|website=OHCHR}}</ref>

Many argue that such violations of rights could exacerbate rather than counter the terrorist threat.<ref name="Human Rights News 2004" /> Human rights activists argue for the crucial role of human rights protection as an intrinsic part to fight against terrorism.<ref name="Amnesty International 2005" /><ref>{{cite news | url=https://icct.nl/publication/preventive-counter-terrorism-measures-and-non-discrimination-in-the-european-union-the-need-for-systematic-evaluation/ |title=Preventive Counter-Terrorism Measures and Non-Discrimination in the European Union: The Need for Systematic Evaluation |date=2 July 2011 |publisher=The International Centre for Counter-Terrorism-The Hague (ICCT) | access-date= 6 September 2016}}</ref> 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 March 8–11, 2005):

{{Blockquote|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 programs and policies of national governments as well as international bodies."<ref name="Amnesty International 2005">Amnesty International (2005): "Counter-terrorism and criminal law in the EU. [https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior61/013/2005/en/ online]</ref>}}

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 global effort to cooperate to combat terrorism.<ref name="Human Rights News 2004">Human Rights News (2004): "Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism", in the Briefing to the 60th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. [http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/29/global7127.htm online]</ref>

=== Preemptive neutralization ===
Some countries see preemptive attacks as a legitimate strategy. This includes capturing, killing, or disabling suspected terrorists before they can mount an attack. Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia have taken this approach, while Western European states generally do not.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}}

Another major method of preemptive neutralization is the [[interrogation]] of known or suspected terrorists to obtain information about specific plots, targets, the identity of other terrorists, whether or not the interrogation subjects himself is guilty of terrorist involvement. Sometimes more extreme methods are used to increase [[suggestibility]], such as [[sleep deprivation]] or drugs.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}} Such methods may lead captives to offer false information in an attempt to stop the treatment, or due to the confusion caused by it.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}} In 1978 the [[European Court of Human Rights]] ruled in the [[Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978)|Ireland v. United Kingdom]] case that [[five techniques|such methods]] amounted to a practice of [[inhuman or degrading treatment|inhuman and degrading treatment]], and that such practices were in breach of the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] Article 3 (art. 3).{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}}

==== Non-military ====
[[File:Transparent garbage bins at Central station.jpg|thumb|upright|Transparent [[Waste container|garbage bin]] installed at [[Central railway station, Sydney|Central Station]] in [[Sydney]], Australia. The bin's transparency allows police to easily examine its contents, discouraging the placement of bombs or weaponry inside.]]

The [[human security]] paradigm outlines a non-military approach that 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 people. Such activities empower citizens, providing "freedom from fear" and "freedom from want".{{citation needed|date=January 2022}}

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 characterized by the participation of a diverse group of actors, including governments, [[NGOs]], and citizens.{{citation needed|date=January 2022}}

[[Foreign internal defense]] programs provide outside expert assistance to a threatened government. FID can involve both non-military and military aspects of counterterrorism.{{citation needed|date=January 2022}}

A 2017 study found that "governance and civil society aid is effective in dampening domestic terrorism, but this effect is only present if the recipient country is not experiencing a civil conflict."<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Foreign Aid as a Counterterrorism Tool – Burcu Savun, Daniel C. Tirone|journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution |volume=62 |issue=8 |pages=1607–1635 |language=en |doi=10.1177/0022002717704952 |year=2018 |last1=Savun |first1=Burcu |last2=Tirone |first2=Daniel C. |s2cid=158017999}}</ref>
{{further|Violent extremism#Prevention of radicalization and deradicalization}}

==== Military ====
[[File:3RAR Afghanistan patrol Aug 08.jpg|thumb|[[Australian Army]] soldiers under the [[International Security Assistance Force]] interacting with a civilian in [[Tarinkot]], [[Afghanistan]] in 2008 during the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)|War in Afghanistan]], part of the [[war on terror]]]]
Terrorism has often been used to justify [[military intervention]] in countries where terrorists are said to be based. Similar justifications were used for the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)|U.S. invasion of Afghanistan]] and the [[Second Chechen War|second Russian invasion of Chechnya]].

Military intervention has not always been successful in stopping or preventing future terrorism, such as during the [[Malayan Emergency]], the [[Mau Mau uprising]], and most of the campaigns against the [[Irish Republican Army|IRA]] during the [[Irish Civil War]], the [[S-Plan]], the [[Border campaign (Irish Republican Army)|Border Campaign]], and [[the Troubles]] in Northern Ireland. Although military action can temporarily disrupt a terrorist group's operations temporarily, it sometimes does not end the threat completely.<ref>{{cite book
 | author = Pape, Robert A.
 | year = 2005
 | title = Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
 | publisher = Random House
 | pages = 237–250
}}</ref>

Repression by the military in itself usually leads to short term victories, but tend to be unsuccessful in the long run (e.g., the French doctrine used in colonial [[Mainland Southeast Asia|Indochina]] and [[Algeria]]<ref name="Trinquier">{{cite web
 |url         = http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/trinquier/trinquier.asp
 |title       = Modern Warfare: A French View of Counterinsurgency
 |first       = Roger
 |last        = Trinquier
 |year        = 1961
 |quote       = 1964 English translation by Daniel Lee with an Introduction by Bernard B. Fall
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20080112132017/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/trinquier/trinquier.asp
 |archive-date = January 12, 2008
 |df          = mdy-all
}}</ref>), particularly if it is not accompanied by other measures. However, new methods such as those taken in [[Iraq]] have yet to be seen as beneficial or ineffectual.<ref name="FM3-24">{{cite journal | publisher = US Department of the Army | first1 = John A. | last1 = Nagl | first2 = David H.| last2 = Petraeus | first3 = James F. | last3 =Amos |first4 = Sarah | last4 = Sewall
  | title = Field Manual 3–24 Counterinsurgency
  | quote = While military manuals rarely show individual authors, [[David Petraeus]] is widely described as establishing many of this volume's concepts.
  | date = December 2006
  | url = https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24.pdf
  | access-date = February 3, 2008 }}</ref>