Deterring Terrorism

Terrorist Surveillance Techniques: An Overview The United States and most other major powers routinely engage in surveillance of terrorist groups and individuals likely to perpetuate terrorist activities. This was one of the rationales for founding the Department of Homeland Security: so the U.S. government could become more mindful of terroristic threats arising within the nation's borders as well as abroad. Yet terrorist organizations themselves also engage in surveillance before launching an attack for logistical reasons and to "assess the psychological impact of a successful attack" (Nance 2008:187).

Locations are not simply selected for strategic reasons but also because of the emotional resonance they have for the public. Law enforcement agencies must therefore be mindful of how to spot likely terrorist surveillance techniques as well as how to be well-versed in surveillance for their own purposes. Most major law enforcement agencies deploy two primary forms of surveillance: overt surveillance (such as when it is well-known that a particular nation or organization is engaged in watching over another entity) or discrete surveillance which is covert (Nance 2008: 189).

Overt surveillance can ideally act as a deterrence, preventing an attack before it occurs because of the awareness that the terrorist group (or rogue nation-state) is being actively watched; discrete surveillance is deployed to detect secret attacks. Terrorists themselves deploy both overt and covert surveillance -- sometimes inexpertly and sometimes reasonably well. Law enforcement agents have found that it is possible to detect terrorist surveillance with careful monitoring.

Suspicious-looking people who seem out-of-place watching in various public places; who are taking notes or photos in areas not normally of interest to tourists; who are taking photos of security cameras and guards; or who order food at restaurants and cafes but leave before eating are all considered suspicious and signs of potentially engaging in forms of terrorist surveillance (Characteristics of terrorist surveillance, 2014, LAPD). Being mindful of such actions is essential given that on-the-ground surveillance is considered a critical component of planning an attack.

A terrorist might know the location of the building but will need to engage in surveillance to have a clear plan: the terrorist must know the layout, security system, and patterns of traffic in terms of who guards the area and when it will be inhabited (Stewart 2012). Major terrorist attacks such as the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon can take years of planning.

"In general, those conducting surveillance as part of a terrorist plot are usually terrible at it" yet even very poorly concealed surveillance is often undetected (Stewart 2012). U.S. intelligence agencies have a specific acronym TEDD: time, environment, distance and demeanor. If a specific figure is seen for a lengthy duration of time in a suspicious environment at a distance with a troublesome demeanor, that individual is likely engaged in surveillance (Stewart 2012). Monitoring terrorist groups for activities cannot be relegated merely to federal law enforcement groups.

In fact, local law enforcement is often better poised to monitor on-the-ground activities given that they are more likely to be aware of who does not 'fit in' in terms of appearance and dress to the local area. They are also more likely to be aware of high-risk, highly desirable sites for terrorist attacks. Even before a formal, ongoing terrorist threat is identified it is important for local law enforcement agents to be able to identify likely high-risk sites for terrorist attacks.

A good example of a highly desirable time and area for a terrorist attack was the Boston Marathon, which tragically was not given high priority by local law enforcement. Given that the Marathon was a highly-trafficked event by spectators as well as runners and routinely is held on Patriot's Day, a very important holiday for the city of Boston, with 20/20 hindsight it seems odd that the attack was not detected. However, any potential law enforcement activity can involve screening with careful planning by officers.

"Evidence of terrorist surveillance can be and has been spotted by local law enforcement during unrelated incidents such as traffic stops and during calls for service for such as domestic and loud noise complaints" (Razzaq 2012).

Although terrorists may engage in covert surveillance in ways which parallel how legitimate law enforcement agencies engage in surveillance such as mapping and on-the-ground observation, they may also engage in activities called tests of security which involve "terrorist assessments of emergency response capabilities via hoax activities (e.g., unsubstantiated bomb threats, etc.)" thus allowing "terrorists to assess numbers, tactics, response time, and types of personnel and equipment used by first responders to quell emergencies" and better.