Counter-Terrorism Plans, Essay Example

Introduction

The term counter-terrorism or counterterrorism is used to refer to the practices, strategies, techniques, methodologies and tactics adopted by government agencies, militaries and police departments across the world to respond to acts or threats of terrorism. This covers preemptive, responsive and preventive actions taken against real or imputed acts or threats from terrorists. In this role, counter-terrorism practices include the process of detecting potential acts of terror and then responding aptly to prevent their execution.

In simple terms, these are actions and tactics taken to protect civilians from any act of terrorism. Such acts may be work of insurgents organized into groups like al Qaeda or individuals like Timothy McVeigh, who perpetrated the Oklahoma City bombing. In most cases, counter-terrorism usually approaches terrorism threats not from isolated incidences of terror point of view but from the perspective of analyzing doctrines that build, motivate and commission insurgents (Pastor, 2009). This means that counter terrorism is not only interested in preventing terrorism attacks, but also in suppressing insurgency. Further, it also involves actions of reducing conditions under and with which insurgency develops across the globe.

Counter-Terrorism Plans Development

Having seen how complex the role of counterterrorism is to national and global security, it is evident that the planning and development of effective counter-terrorism practices is in itself a complex mandate. This is beyond domestic crime prevention. The demands stretch far beyond single law enforcement agencies and national borders. In most cases, building effective counter-terrorism plans requires the involvement of all segments and units of the society as well as numerous government agencies. The problem is usually complicated when a nation is dealing with foreign terrorists. At this level, lead responsibility of counter-terrorism gains significance as a national interest. Counter terrorism plans are categorized into two, namely intelligence and criminal investigations. Intelligence plans deals with ways of gathering all information that may help in detecting threats of terrorism while the criminal investigations are the plans on how to respond to such threats when detected. The intelligence gathering plans are the primary basis on which counter-terrorism is built.

In criminal investigations, we have three distinct categories of plans that every counter-terrorism unit must address. First, the unit must plan how to prevent planned threats from being executed, then they have to take pre-emptive action towards potential threats that although they are not planned, there is proof that some will hatch with time. Finally, criminal investigations are also engaged in seeking persons who have already committed acts of terrorism for punitive measures. As such, the structure of a good counter-terrorism plan must always feature these twin objectives, each with its sub-departments.

Counter-Terrorism Methodologies Used

Counter-terrorism today includes methods of intelligence gathering (interrogation of suspects, surveillance etc), warning systems of impending threats and incident mitigation if a terror act is implemented. The widely used counter-terrorism methodologies include increasing domestic intelligence. This is done in such traditional ways as intercepting communications between suspected persons and tracing of persons with any terrorism links (Pape, 2005).  However, new technologies have evolved and been adopted such that the military and law enforcement agencies can now use satellites to track and monitor persons involved in terrorism. Espionage remains one of the most reliable ways of gathering counter-terrorism intelligence. To do this, law enforcement agencies recruit a reliable source from within a group or people suspected to have terrorist aims. Such sources are called clandestine implants.

The most important thing when planning counter–terrorism strategies is highlighting all potential threats, sources and history of occurrences. From there on, it becomes easy to determine the cause of such threats. A good example is the fact that most terrorism acts are born out of propaganda and indoctrination (Pastor, 2009). This makes it easy to track the possible sources of terrorism acts if you can monitor the sources and recipients of negative propaganda. Since at the very core of terrorism, is misinformation, the basis of a good counter terrorism plan is a proper understanding and monitoring of the information transfer circles.

A nation’s counter-terrorism unit must thus implement comprehensive plans of carrying through the counter-terrorism cycle successfully. Instead of waiting for incidences of terror to happen and then to build a case against the terror suspects there after, it has become essential to regard counter-terrorism as a fundamental enhancement of  a nation’s ability to detect, predict and successfully prevent acts of terrorism before they are executed.

According to the US Dept. of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation 2001 report (US Dept. of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation), such a new role of counterterrorism has meant that the planning includes five core steps. It begins with prioritization of threats, mobilization of counter terrorism agents, national forces and international allies towards a particular priority threat, centralization of information intelligence integration so that information can be shared and finally coordination of the counter-terrorism actions.

Most nations such as Russia, Israel, USA and Britain adopt preemptive counterterrorism strategies such as killing, capturing or disabling any suspected terrorist before he or she mounts an attack (Kuriansky, 2006). Interrogation is used on suspected terrorists in a bid to obtain essential information about an identified plot, potential threat or identity of other terrorists. Interrogation is however not tolerated by most human rights organizations and conventions, particularly the European convention of Human Rights.

Counter-Terrorism Participants

Most governments have set apart departments to deal with terrorism after the vice has become a real threat to national security. Police departments are all trained in gathering of intelligence related to terrorism and forwarding it to the relevant counter-terrorism agency. The information generated from the entire country is synthesized by the agency.

Many nations now have designated specialized counter-terrorism tactical operations units that are immediately deployed against terrorists and terrorist attacks alongside civil and military personnel. The role of these special units and elite tactical teams exclusively designated for counter-terrorism is to engage terrorists directly if threats are deciphered. Most tactical counter-terrorism operations are the responsibility of federal or national law enforcement agencies or even intelligence agencies. The military only comes in as a last resort.

At the lowest level, fire departments and the emergency medical response organizations (first responders) have a role in reacting to a terrorist act if one is executed. In North American countries and Europe, when a threatened or even completed terrorist act is discerned, Incident Command System (ICS) comes into force. This is a standard response system that is invoked to coordinate and control the essential measures of preventing or neutralizing terrorist threats or acts. ICS is scaled to varied levels such that national resources are always at standby from the military to the lowest law enforcement agency.

Governments usually have the utility providers, public works agencies, heavy construction contractors and other key players briefed on how to respond to physical consequences and emergencies of a terrorist attack. Most hospitals conduct regular drills to gauge how able they are to deal with medical emergency services if an act of terrorism is executed.

Impediments/Roadblocks to Planning Counter-Terrorism

Effective prevention of terrorism acts has been hindered in the past by poor intelligence sharing among the participants (Kuriansky, 2006). Gathering and transmission of intelligence between all relevant counter-terrorism agencies has hampered many nations in preventing attacks, since every agency worked on its own and on partial information. Currently though, integration of departments in sharing counter-terrorism intelligence and centralizing the responsibility of pre-emptive, preventive and responsive actions has made a difference.

Terrorism has caused a stir in human rights advocacy since most of the methodologies used to gather intelligence in counter-terrorism usually overstep basic human rights. Interrogation of terror suspects has been the major cause of criticism, as has been the case of Guantanamo Bay. Mass surveillance is usually opposed due to invasion of personal privacy and civil liberties. This has made it impossible to monitor and track people with links to terrorism effectively. Even more, counter terrorism usually targets a group of people based on their race and religion, as the only lead to those with terrorism links. This becomes a human rights debacle, with most people convinced that such actions are a violation of equality.

What Need To Be Included In Counter-Terrorism Plans

Taking a holistic process through from intelligence to successful prevention of terrorism is what we call the counter-terrorism management cycle (Sageman, 2004). The cycle begins with effective collection of intelligence, synthesis of the information, interpretation and then drawing of recommendations for the criminal investigation department of a counter terrorism unit to act on. The criminal investigation arm then takes up the recommendations, which can be preemptive, preventive or punitive actions towards the threats and acts of terrorism.

References

Kuriansky, J. (Ed). (2006). Terror in the Holy Land: Inside the Anguish of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Kansas: Praeger Publishers.

Pape, R. (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. London: Random House.

Pastor, J. (2009). Terrorism and Public Safety Policing: Implications for the Obama Presidency. London: Taylor & Francis.

Sageman, M. (2004). Understanding Terror Networks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

US Dept. of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation (2004). Report to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States: The FBI’s Counterterrorism Program Since September 2001.. Retrieved 18 Feb. 2004. From http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=205266