Coast Guard on counter-terrorism patrol in Upper New York Bay. Verrazano-Narrows Bridge in distance spanning The Narrows between Brooklyn (left) and Staten Island (right).

Counter-terrorism (also spelled counterterrorism) is the practices, tactics, techniques, and strategies that governments, militaries, police departments and corporations adopt to attack terrorist threats and/or acts, both real and imputed.

The tactic of terrorism (used by terrorists) is available to insurgents and governments. Not all insurgents use terror as a tactic, and some choose not to use it because other tactics work better for them in a particular context. Individuals, such as Timothy McVeigh, may also engage in terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing.

If the terrorism is part of a broader insurgency, counter-terrorism may also form a part of a counter-insurgency doctrine, but political, economic, and other measures may focus more on the insurgency than the specific acts of terror. Foreign internal defense (FID) is a term used for programs either to suppress insurgency, or reduce the conditions under which insurgency could develop. Counter-terrorism includes both the detection of potential acts and the response to related events.

Anti-terrorism versus counter-terrorism[link]

Detentions following the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack

The concept of anti-terrorism emerges from a thorough examining of the concept of terrorism and includes those measures taken to protect society from terrorist acts. Terrorism is distinctly different from acts that are intended to terrorize. In military contexts, almost all acts are intended to create fear. But terrorism is the organized, premeditated use of violence by non-state groups against non-combatants on order to advance an ideological goal.

Counter-terrorism refers to offensive strategies intended to prevent, deter, preempt, and respond to terrorism."^[1] In other words, counter-terrorism is a set of techniques for denying an opponent the use of terrorism-based tactics, just as counter-air is a set of techniques for denying the opponent the use of attack aircraft.

Anti-terrorism is defensive, intended to reduce the chance of an attack using terrorist tactics at specific points, or to reduce the vulnerability of possible targets to such tactics. "Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and property to terrorist acts, to include limited response and containment by local military and civilian forces."^[1]

To continue the analogy between air and terrorist capability, offensive anti-air missions attack the airfields of the opponent, while defensive anti-air uses anti-aircraft missiles to protect a point on one's own territory. The ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict,^[2] Sri Lankan Civil War,^[3] and Colombian Civil War^[4] are examples of conflicts where terrorism is present, along with other tactics, so that participants use counter- and anti-terrorism to limit the opponent's use of terror tactics. Units engaged in counter-terrorism include the US Navy Seals and Delta Force.

Planning for, detecting and neutralizing potential terrorist acts[link]

United States Customs and Border Protection officers, fully armed and armored for a counter-terrorism operation

Building a counter-terrorism plan involves all segments of a society or many government agencies. In dealing with foreign terrorists, the lead responsibility is usually at the national level. Because propaganda and indoctrination lie at the core of terrorism, understanding their profile and functions increases the ability to counter terrorism more effectively.

See the series of articles beginning with intelligence cycle management, and, in particular, intelligence analysis. HUMINT presents techniques of describing the social networks that make up terrorist groups. Also relevant are the motivations of the individual terrorist and the structure of cell systems used by recent non-national terrorist groups.

Most counter-terrorism strategies involve an increase in standard police and domestic intelligence. The central activities are traditional: interception of communications, and the tracing of persons. New technology has, however, expanded the range of military and law enforcement operations.

Domestic intelligence is often directed at specific groups, defined on the basis of origin or religion, which is a source of political controversy. Mass surveillance of an entire population raises objections on civil liberties grounds. homegrown terrorists, especially lone wolves are often harder to detect because of their citizenship or legal alien status and better 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. Good intelligence is at the heart of such preparation, as well as political and social understanding of any grievances that might be solved. Ideally, one gets information from inside the group, a very difficult challenge for HUMINT because operational terrorist cells are often small, with all members known to one another, perhaps even related.^[5]

Counterintelligence is 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 can communications intercept, but both of these approaches need to be balanced against legitimate expectations of privacy.

Legal contexts[link]

In response to the growing legislation.

• United Kingdom
  • The United Kingdom has had anti-terrorism legislation in place for more than thirty years. The Prevention of Violence Act 1939 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 and 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.
  • 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 November 19, 2001 two months after the September 11, 2001 attacks in America. 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, but 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 offences 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.
• United States
  • U.S. legal issues surrounding this issue include rulings on the domestic employment of Deadly force by law enforcement organizations.
  • Search and seizure is governed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • The US passed the USA PATRIOT Act after the 9/11 attacks, as well as a range of other legislation and executive orders.
  • The Department of Homeland Security was established to consolidate domestic security agencies to coordinate anti-terrorism, as well as national response to major natural disasters and accidents.
  • The Posse Comitatus Act limits domestic employment of the United States Army, requiring Presidential approval prior to deploying the Army. Pentagon policy also applies this limitation to the United States Marine Corps, United States Navy, and United States Air Force. 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.

• Australia
  • Australia has passed several anti-terrorism 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 counter-terrorism 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
  • Israel monitors a list of designated terrorist organizations and has laws forbidding membership in such organizations, funding or helping them in any way.
  • On December 14, 2006 the Israeli Supreme Court ruled targeted killings were a permitted form of self defense.^[6]

Terrorism and human rights[link]

One of the primary difficulties of implementing effective counter-terrorist 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; 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.^[7] Examples include:

• In November 2003 Malaysia passed new counter-terrorism laws that were widely criticized by local human rights groups for being vague and overbroad. Critics claim that the laws put the basic 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.^[7]
• In November 2003 a Canadian-Syrian national, Maher Arar, alleged publicly that he had been tortured in a Syrian prison after being handed over to the Syrian authorities by U.S.^[7]
• 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.^[7]
• Images of unpopular treatment of detainees in US custody in Iraq and other locations have encouraged international scrutiny of US operations in the war on terror.^[8]
• Hundreds of foreign nationals remain in prolonged indefinite detention without charge or trial in Guantánamo Bay, despite international and US constitutional standards some groups believe outlaw such practices.^[8]
• Hundreds of people suspected of connections with the Taliban or al Qa'eda remain in long-term detention in Pakistan or in US-controlled centers in Afghanistan.^[8]
• China has used the "war on terror" to justify its policies in the predominantly Muslim Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region to stifle Uighur identity.^[8]
• 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.^[8]
• Until 2005 eleven men remained in high security detention in the UK under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.^[8]

Many would argue that such violations exacerbate rather than counter the terrorist threat.^[7] Human rights advocates argue for the crucial role of human rights protection as an intrinsic part to fight against terrorism.^[8] 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 8–11 March 2005):

"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 programmes and policies of national governments as well as international bodies."^[8]

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 international effort to cooperate to combat terrorism.^[7]

Preemptive neutralization[link]

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.

Another major method of preemptive neutralization is 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. Such methods may lead captives to offer false information in an attempt to stop the treatment, or due to the confusion brought on by it. These methods are not tolerated by European powers. In 1978 the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the Ireland v. United Kingdom case that such methods amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, and that such practices were in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights Article 3 (art. 3).

Non-military preventive actions[link]

The human security paradigm outlines a non-military approach which 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'.

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.

Foreign internal defense programs provide outside expert assistance to a threatened government. FID can involve both non-military and military aspects of counter-terrorism.

Another preventative action that has been used is the threat of and use of pork and pork products against radical religious groups that feel that contact with pork will render them unclean. The bodies of killed terrorists are daubed with lard and buried wrapped in pigskin.^[9]

Military intervention[link]

Terrorism has often been used to justify military intervention in countries like Pakistan and Iran where terrorists are said to be based. That was the main stated justification for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. It was also a stated justification for the second Russian invasion of Chechnya.

History has shown that military intervention has rarely been successful in stopping or preventing terrorism.^{[dubious – discuss]} Although military action can disrupt a terrorist group's operations temporarily, it rarely ends the threat.^[10]

Thus repression by the military in itself (particularly if it is not accompanied by other measures) usually leads to short term victories, but tend to be unsuccessful in the long run (e.g. the French's doctrine described in Roger Trinquier's book Modern War^[11] used in Indochina and Algeria). However, new methods (see the new Counterinsurgency Field Manual^[12]) such as those taken in Iraq have yet to be seen as beneficial or ineffectual.

Planning for response to terrorism[link]

Police, fire, and emergency medical response organizations have obvious roles. Local firefighters and emergency medical personnel (often called "first responders") have plans for mitigating the effects of terrorist attacks, although police may deal with threats of such attacks.

Target-hardening[link]

Whatever the target of terrorists, there are multiple ways of hardening the targets to prevent the terrorists from hitting their mark, or reducing the damage of attacks. One method is to place Jersey barrier or other sturdy obstacles outside tall or politically sensitive buildings to prevent car and truck bombing.

Aircraft cockpits are kept locked during flights, and have reinforced doors, which only the pilots in the cabin are capable of opening. English train stations removed their garbage cans in response to the Provisional IRA threat, as convenient locations for depositing bombs.

Scottish stations removed theirs after the 7th of July bombing of London as a precautionary measure. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority purchased bomb-resistant barriers after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

A more sophisticated target-hardening approach must consider industrial and other critical industrial infrastructure that could be attacked. Terrorists need not import chemical weapons if they can cause a major industrial accident such as the Bhopal disaster or the Halifax explosion. Industrial chemicals in manufacturing, shipping, and storage need greater protection, and some efforts are in progress.^[13] To put this risk into perspective, the first major lethal chemical attack in WWI used 160 tons of chlorine. Industrial shipments of chlorine, widely used in water purification and the chemical industry, travel in 90 or 55 ton tank cars.

To give one more example, the North American electrical grid has already demonstrated, in the Northeast Blackout of 2003, its vulnerability to natural disasters coupled with inadequate, possibly insecure, SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) networks. Part of the vulnerability is due to deregulation leading to much more interconnection in a grid designed for only occasional power-selling between utilities. A very few terrorists, attacking key power facilities when one or more engineers have infiltrated the power control centers, could wreak havoc.

Equipping likely targets with containers (i.e., bags) of pig lard has been utilized to discourage attacks by Islamist suicide bombers. The technique was apparently used on a limited scale by British authorities in the 1940s.^[14] The approach stems from the idea that Muslims perpetrating the attack would not want to be "soiled" by the lard in the moment prior to dying. The idea has been suggested more recently as a deterrent to suicide bombings in Israel.^[15] However, the actual effectiveness of this tactic is probably limited as it is possible that a sympathetic Islamic scholar could issue a fatwa proclaiming that a suicide bomber would not be polluted by the swine products.

Command and control[link]

In North America and other continents, for a threatened or completed terrorist attack, the Incident Command System (ICS) is apt to be invoked to control the various services that may need to be involved in the response. ICS has varied levels of escalation, such as might be needed for multiple incidents in a given area (e.g., the 2005 bombings in London or the 2004 Madrid train bombings, or all the way to a National Response Plan invocation if national-level resources are needed. National response, for example, might be needed for a nuclear, biological, radiological, or large chemical attack.

Damage mitigation[link]

Fire departments, perhaps supplemented by public works agencies, utility providers (e.g., gas, water, electricity), and heavy construction contractors, are most apt to deal with the physical consequences of an attack.

Local security[link]

Again under an incident command model, local police can isolate the incident area, reducing confusion, and specialized police units can conduct tactical operations against terrorists, often using specialized counter-terrorist tactical units. Bringing in such units will normally involve civil or military authority beyond the local level.

Medical services[link]

Emergency medical services will bring the more seriously affected victims to hospitals, which will need to have mass casualty and triage plans in place.

Public health agencies, from local to national level, may be designated to deal with identification, and sometimes mitigation, of possible biological attacks, and sometimes chemical or radiologic contamination.

Counter-terrorism tactical units[link]

Royal Malaysian Police Pasukan Gerakan Khas officers

Today, many countries have special units designated to handle terrorist threats. Besides various security agencies, there are elite tactical units, also known as special mission units, whose role is to directly engage terrorists and prevent terrorist attacks.

Such units perform both in preventive actions, hostage rescue and responding to on-going attacks. Countries of all sizes can have highly trained counter-terrorist teams. Tactics, techniques and procedures for manhunting are under constant development.

Most of these measures deal with terrorist attacks that affect an area, or threaten to do so. It is far harder to deal with assassination, or even reprisals on individuals, due to the short (if any) warning time and the quick exfiltration of the assassins.^[16]

These units are specially trained in tactics and are very well equipped for CQB with emphasis on stealth and performing the mission with minimal casualties. The units include take-over force (assault teams), snipers, EOD experts, dog handlers and intelligence officers. See Counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism organizations for national command, intelligence, and incident mitigation.

The majority of counter-terrorism operations at the tactical level, are conducted by state, federal and national law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies. In some countries, the military may be called in as a last resort. Obviously, for countries whose military are legally permitted to conduct police operations, this is a non-issue, and such counter-terrorism operations are conducted by their military.

See Counter-intelligence for command, intelligence and warning, and incident mitigation aspects of counter-terror.

Examples of actions[link]

Some counterterrorist actions of the 20th century are listed below. See List of hostage crises for a more extended list, including hostage-taking that did not end violently.

Designing Anti-terrorism systems[link]

The scope for Anti-terrorism systems is very large in physical terms (long borders, vast areas, high traffic volumes in busy cities, etc.) as well as in other dimensions, such as type and degree of terrorism threat, political and diplomatic ramifications, and legal issues. In this environment, the development of a persistent Anti-terrorism protection system is a daunting task. Such a system should bring together diverse state-of-the-art technologies to enable persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions, and enable potential actions. Designing such a system-of-systems comprises a major technological project.

A particular design problem for this system is that it will face many uncertainties in the future. The threat of terrorism may increase, decrease or remain the same, the type of terrorism and location are difficult to predict, and there are technological uncertainties. Yet we want to design a terrorism system conceived and designed today in order to prevent acts of terrorism for a decade or more. A potential solution is to incorporate flexibility into system design for the reason that the flexibility embedded can be exercised in future as uncertainty unfolds and updated information arrives. And the design and valuation of a protection system should not be based on a single scenario, but an array of scenarios. Flexibility can be incorporated in the design of the terrorism system in the form of options that can be exercised in the future when new information is available. Using these ‘real options’ will create a flexible Anti-terrorism system that is able to cope with new requirements that may arise.^[20]

Law enforcement counter-terrorist organizations by country[link]

Assault car of the French GIGN.

+ indicates military organization allowed to operate domestically.

Examples include:

• Argentina: GEOF (Special Group of Federal Operations, Federal Arg Police) Falcon Commando (Comando Halcon, State Buenos Aires Police)
• Australia: State and Australian Federal Police, Police Tactical Groups, Australian Protective Service (APS), Tactical Assault Group (TAG East & TAG West), and Australian Security and Intelligence Organization (ASIO)
• Austria: EKO Cobra; Austrian Military Police+ (Kommando Militärstreife & Militärpolizei — Kdo MilStrf&MP)
• Bangladesh: Rapid Action Battalion+; Police Swat; Bangladesh Paracommandos; Bangladesh Navy Special Warfare Diving and Salvage (BN SWADS)
• Brazil: State/local Police SWAT teams: BOPE, COE, GATE, COT
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: SIPA
• Bulgaria:SOBT
• Canada: Joint Task Force 2
• Chile: GOPE (Police Special Operations Group, Chilean Carabineros) ERTA (Tactic Reaction Team, PDI Chilean Civil Police)
• China: Snow Leopard Commando Unit+, Beijing SWAT, Special Police Unit and Immediate Action Unit+
• Croatia Lučko Anti-Terrorist Unit, RH Alfa
• Czech: URNA National Police Rapid Response Unit or Útvar rychlého nasazení
• Denmark: Politiets Aktionsstyrke
• Dominican Republic: Anti-terrorism Special Command — Comando Especial Contra Terrorismo
• Egypt: Unit 777
• Estonia: K-Commando
• Finland Karhu-ryhmä, Utti Jaeger Regiment, Guard Jaeger Regiment
• France: Police units GIPN, RAID and Gendarmerie GIGN+
• Germany: Police SEK / MEK, USK (Bavarian State Police), ZUZ and Bundespolizei GSG 9+
• Greece: Anti-Terror Division, Greek Police and Special Anti-Terrorist Unit.
• Hong Kong: Police Force Special Duties Unit, Airport Security Unit and Counter Terrorism Response Unit.
• Hungary: Commando Neutron I-II.
• Iceland: Víkingasveitin
• India: NSG, Force One.
• Indonesia: Detachment 88
• Iran: NAJA Iranian Police, NOPO Team Anti-terror special force
• Iraq: Iraqi Hillah Swat
• Ireland: Emergency Response Unit (Garda), Irish Army Ranger Wing
• Israel: YAMAM – elite Israeli Police anti-terror unit (counter-terror, foiling terrorism, hostages rescue etc.), "Mistaaravim" – IDF and Border Guard undercover units for foiling terrorism, Shin Bet - counter-terrorism intelligence and security agency
• Italy: NOCS, GIS
• Japan: Special Assault Team, Special Security Team
• Korea, South: 707th Special Mission Unit+
• Latvia: OMEGA police unit
• Lithuania: ARAS (Force) Lithuanian Police force of antiterrorism operations
• Malaysia: Royal Malaysia Police Special Task Force (Operations / Counter Terrorism), Royal Malaysia Police Pasukan Gerakan Khas, UNGERIN, Rapid Actions Troops, STAR APMM
• Netherlands:DSI+ (Dutch: Dienst Speciale Interventies, Special Interventions Service) and police special arrest teams Royal Marechaussee(Dutch: Brigade Speciale Beveiligingsopdrachten, Special Security Task Brigade)Dutch marines BBE
• New Zealand: Special Tactics Group, NZSAS Tactical Assault Group (TAG)
• Norway: Beredskapstroppen, FSK+
• Poland: GROM, SPAP
• Portugal: GOE and COE
• Pakistan: Special Service Group, Pakistan Army Rangers, and Elite Police Commandos
• Philippines: PNP-Special Action Force, Philippine Navy-Naval Special Warfare Group, Coast Guard-Special Operations Group and police SWAT teams
• Romania: Brigada Antiteroristă, (counter-terrorist brigade)
• Russia: Spetsgruppa A, Vympel, OMON, Spetsnaz GRU, Vityaz (MVD), Rus (special forces)
• Serbia: SAJ, PTJ, Cobras MP, MP-CT Battalion
• Sri Lanka: Special Task Force
• Spain: GEO and UEI
• Sweden: National Task Force (Nationella Insatsstyrkan) and Särskilda Skyddsgruppen (Special Protection Group)
• Taiwan: Thunder Squad
• Turkey: Özel tim-Özel Harekat Timi (Special Team) and Maroon Berets
• Tunisia: BAT and USGN
• UK: Counter Terrorism Command
• Uruguay: GEO (Uruguayan Police) and Escorpión Commando Group (Uruguayan Army)
• U.S.: FBI Hostage Rescue Team, Federal Air Marshal Service, U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations Anti-Terrorism Specialty Teams, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, BORTAC, state/local Police SWAT teams

Military counter-terrorist organizations by country[link]

Given the nature of operational counter-terrorism tasks national military organizations do not generally have dedicated units whose sole responsibility is the prosecution of these tasks. Instead the counter-terrorism function is an element of the role, allowing flexibility in their employment, with operations being undertaken in the domestic or international context.

In some cases the legal framework within which they operate prohibits military units conducting operations in the domestic arena; United States Department of Defense policy, based on the Posse Comitatus Act, forbids domestic counter-terrorism operations by the U.S. military. Units allocated some operational counter-terrorism task are frequently Special Forces or similar assets.

In cases where military organisations do operate in the domestic context some form of formal handover from the law enforcement community is regularly required, to ensure adherence to the legislative framework and limitations. such as the Iranian Embassy Siege, the British police formally turned responsibility over to the Special Air Service when the situation went beyond police capabilities.

See also[link]

	Book: Counterterrorism Handbook
Wikipedia books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print.

• Civilian casualty ratio
• Counterinsurgency
• Explosive detection
• Extrajudicial execution
• Extraordinary rendition
• Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism
• Informant
• Irregular warfare
• Manhunt (law enforcement)
• Manhunt (military)
• Preventive State
• Security increase
• Special Activities Division, Central Intelligence Agency
• Targeted killing
• Terrorism Research Center

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Counter-terrorism

Notes[link]

Further reading[link]

• Zusman, Lynn, Editor, "The Law of Counterterrorism" (2012, ISBN 978-1-61438-037-5, American Bar Association).
• Wyn Rees and Richard J. Aldrich, "Contending Cultures of Counter-terrorism: Transatlantic Convergence or Divergence?", International Affairs, Vol.81, No.5 (October 2005): 905-23.
• Vandana Asthana, "Cross-Border Terrorism in India: Counterterrorism Strategies and Challenges," ACDIS Occasional Paper (June 2010), Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security (ACDIS), University of Illinois
• Ivan Arreguín-Toft, "Tunnel at the End of the Light: A Critique of U.S. Counter-terrorist Grand Strategy," Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2002), pp. 549–563.
• Ivan Arreguín-Toft, "How to Lose a War on Terror: A Comparative Analysis of a Counterinsurgency Success and Failure," in Jan Ångström and Isabelle Duyvesteyn, Eds., Understanding Victory and Defeat in Contemporary War (London: Frank Cass, 2007).
• Ariel Merari, "Terrorism as a Strategy in Insurgency," Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 5, No. 4 (Winter 1993), pp. 213–251.
• James Mitchell, "Identifying Potential Terrorist Targets" a study in the use of convergence. G2 Whitepaper on terrorism, copyright 2006, G2. Counterterrorism Conference, June 2006, Washington D.C.
• Marc Sageman, Understanding Terror Networks (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), ISBN 0-8122-3808-7.
• Ishmael Jones, The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture (2008, revised 2010) ISBN 978-1-59403-382-7, Encounter Books.
• Kuriansky, Judy, Editor, "Terror in the Holy Land: Inside the Anguish of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" (2006, ISBN 0-275-99041-9, Praeger Publishers).
• The Manual of Life - CounterTerrorism
• James F. Pastor, "Terrorism and Public Safety Policing:Implications for the Obama Presidency" (2009, ISBN 978-1-4398-1580-9,Taylor & Francis).
• Darko Trifunovic, "Islamic Fundamentalist's Global Network-Modus Operandi-Model Bosnia" The Center for Documentation of the Government of Republic of Srpska and The Secretariat of the Government of RS for relation with ICTY, Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, 2002. (136 pages + maps in addition)
• Darko Trifunovic, "TERRORISM – Global Network of Islamic Fundamentalist's – Part II – Modus operandi-Model Bosnia" The Government of Republic of Srpska and The Secretariat of the Government of RS for relation with ICTY, Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, 2004 (275 pages)
• Gagliano Giuseppe, Agitazione sovversiva,guerra psicologica e terrorismo (2010) ISBN 978-88-6178-600-4, Uniservice Books.

External links[link]

This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (August 2010)

• Insurgency Research Group – Multi-expert blog dedicated to the study of insurgency and the development of counter-insurgency policy.
• Counterterrorism.nl: An academic research project aimed at investigating the effectiveness of past counter-terrorism campaigns to derive some constant features from their analysis in order to empirically inform policy makers.
• HLSWatch.com: Homeland Security Watch policy and current events resource
• Counter Terrorism Articles: Counter Terrorism Magazine
• Faculty of Security Studies. "Faculty of Security Studies University of Belgrade". http://www.fb.bg.ac.rs. Retrieved June 19, 2006. 
• Ali Khan. "A Legal Theory of International Terrorism". http://classes.washburnlaw.edu/khan/publications/19CLR945.htm. Retrieved June 19, 2006. ^{[dead link]}
• Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. "The Institute for Counter-Terrorism". http://www.ict.org.il. Retrieved June 19, 2006. 
• International Security Instructors. "Countering Global Terrorism". http://www.isi-team.com/. Retrieved June 19, 2006. 
• RAND Corporation. "Terrorism and Homeland Security". http://www.rand.org/research_areas/terrorism/. Retrieved June 19, 2006. 
• Agentura. Ru Studies and Research Centre Terrorism prevention in Russia: one year after Beslan Retrieved September 3, 2005.
• SpecEncyclopaedia. "The World's Specialists Online". http://www.specencyclopaedia.com/. Retrieved June 19, 2006. 
• Special Forces Search Engine. "Categories". http://www.sfahq.com/. Retrieved June 19, 2006. 
• SpecWarNet. "Your Source for Special Warfare". http://specwarnet.com/. Retrieved June 19, 2006. 
• Wired. "Can Math Help in Terror War?". http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,65299-0.html. Retrieved October 10, 2004. 
• Dan Sommer. "Counter Terrorism Manual". http://www.dansommer.biz/Surveillance_Detection.html/. Retrieved November 3, 2006. 
• U.S. Department of State Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. Retrieved November 21, 2006.
• Counter-Terrorism Training. "Guerrero De Sombra Academia". http://guerrerodesombra.blogspot.com/. Retrieved December 25, 2006. 
• Athena Intelligence Advanced Research Network on Insurgency and Terrorism
• National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism
• The European Union counterterrorism policy before and after the 9/11 attacks
• The International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence

Barack Obama
44th President of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office January 20, 2009
Vice President	Joe Biden
Preceded by	George W. Bush
Personal details
Born	Barack Hussein Obama II[1] (1961-08-04) August 4, 1961 (age 50) Honolulu, Hawaii, United States[1]
Nationality	American
Political party	Democratic
Spouse(s)	Michelle Robinson (m. 1992)
Children	Malia (b.1998) Sasha (b.2001)
Residence	The White House
Alma mater	Occidental College Columbia University (B.A.) Harvard Law School (J.D.)
Profession	Community organizer Attorney Author Constitutional law professor United States Senator President of the United States
Religion	Christian,[2] former member of United Church of Christ[3][4]
Signature
Website	WhiteHouse.gov

	This article is part of a series on Barack Obama
Background Illinois Senate US Senate Political positions Public image Family 2008 primaries Obama–Biden campaign Transition Inauguration Electoral history Presidency Timeline '09 '10 '11 '12 First 100 days Nobel Peace Prize Re-election campaign

Barack Obama being sworn in as President of the United States.

The Presidency of Barack Obama began at noon EST on January 20, 2009, when he became the 44th President of the United States. Obama was a United States Senator from Illinois at the time of his victory over Arizona Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Barack Obama is the first African-American president of the United States, as well as the first born in Hawaii.

His policy decisions have addressed a global financial crisis and have included changes in tax policies, legislation to reform the United States health care industry, foreign policy initiatives and the phasing out of detention of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. He attended the G-20 London summit and later visited U.S. troops in Iraq. On the tour of various European countries following the G-20 summit, he announced in Prague that he intended to negotiate substantial reduction in the world's nuclear arsenals, en route to their eventual extinction. In October 2009, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Transition period[link]

The presidential transition period began following Obama's election to the presidency on November 4, 2008. The Obama-Biden Transition Project was co-chaired by John Podesta, Valerie Jarrett, and Pete Rouse. During the transition period, Obama announced his nominations for his Cabinet and administration. Shortly after the election on November 4, Obama chose Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois as White House Chief of Staff.^[5]

Cabinet nominations included former Democratic primary opponents Hillary Rodham Clinton for Secretary of State and Bill Richardson for Secretary of Commerce (although the latter withdrew on January 4, 2009). Obama appointed Eric Holder as his Attorney General, the first African-American appointed to that position. He also nominated Timothy F. Geithner to serve as Secretary of the Treasury.^[6] On December 1, Obama announced that he had asked Robert Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense, making Gates the first Defense head to carry over from a president of a different party.^[7] He nominated former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice to the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, which he restored to a Cabinet-level position.^[8]

During his transition, he maintained a website Change.gov, on which he wrote blogs to readers and uploaded video addresses by many of the members of his new cabinet.^[9] He announced strict rules for federal lobbyists, restricting them from financially contributing to his administration and forcing them to stop lobbying while working for him.^[10] The website also allowed individuals to share stories and visions with each other and the transition team in what was called the Citizen's Briefing Book, which was given to Obama shortly after his inauguration.^[11] Most of the information from Change.gov was transferred to the official White House website whitehouse.gov just after Obama's inauguration.^[12]

Inauguration[link]

Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. He officially assumed the presidency at 12:00 noon, EST,^[13] and completed the oath of office at 12:05 PM, EST. He delivered his inaugural address immediately following his oath. After his speech, he went to the President's Room in the House Wing of the Capitol and signed three documents: a commemorative proclamation, a list of Cabinet appointments, and a list of sub-Cabinet appointments, before attending a luncheon with congressional and administration leaders and invited guests.^[14] To commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of former President Abraham Lincoln, the same Bible that was used for Lincoln's inauguration was used in Obama's inauguration.^[15]

In administering the oath, Chief Justice John G. Roberts misplaced the word "faithfully" and erroneously replaced the phrase "President of the United States" with "President to the United States" before restating the phrase correctly; since Obama initially repeated the incorrect form, some scholars argued the President should take the oath again.^[16] On January 21, Roberts readministered the oath to Obama in a private ceremony in the White House Map Room, making him the seventh U.S. president to retake the oath; White House Counsel Greg Craig said Obama took the oath from Roberts a second time out of an "abundance of caution".^[17]

First 100 days[link]

Expectations[link]

Obama's 100th day in office was April 29, 2009. In his first post-election interview with 60 Minutes, Obama said that he has been studying Franklin Roosevelt's first 100 days,^[18] while adding, "The first hundred days is going to be important, but it's probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference."^[19]

Obama's first 100 days were highly anticipated ever since he became the presumptive nominee.^[20] Several news outlets created web pages dedicated to covering the subject.^[21] Commentators weighed in on challenges and priorities within domestic, foreign, economic, and environmental policy.^{[22][23][24][25]} CNN lists a number of economic issues that "Obama and his team will have to tackle in their first 100 days", foremost among which is passing and implementing a recovery package to deal with the financial crisis.^[24] Clive Stafford Smith, a British human rights lawyer, expressed hopes that the new president will close Guantanamo Bay detention camp in his first 100 days in office.^[23] After aides of the president announced his intention to give a major foreign policy speech in the capital of an Islamic country, there were speculations in Jakarta that he might return to his former home city within the first 100 days.^[26]

The New York Times devoted a five-part series, which was spread out over two weeks, to anticipatory analysis of Obama's first hundred days. Each day, the analysis of a political expert was followed by freely edited blog postings from readers. The writers compared Obama's prospects with the situations of Franklin D. Roosevelt (January 16, Jean Edward Smith),^[27] John F. Kennedy (January 19, Richard Reeves),^[28] Lyndon B. Johnson (January 23, Robert Dallek),^[29] Ronald Reagan (January 27, Lou Cannon),^[30] and Richard Nixon.

Legislation and executive orders[link]

Within minutes of taking the Oath of Office on January 20, Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, issued an order suspending last-minute federal regulations pushed through by outgoing President George W. Bush, planning to review everything still pending.^[31] Due to the economic crisis, the President enacted a pay freeze for Senior White House Staff making more than $100,000 per year,^[32] as well as announcing stricter guidelines regarding lobbyists in an effort to raise the ethical standards of the White House.^[33] He asked for a waiver to his own new rules, however, for the appointments of William Lynn to the position of Deputy Defense Secretary, Jocelyn Frye to the position of director of policy and projects in the Office of the First Lady, and Cecilia Muñoz to the position of director of intergovernmental affairs in the executive office of the president, leading to some criticism of hypocrisy and violation of his pledge for governmental openness.^[34][35]

In his first week in office, Obama signed Executive Order 13492 suspending all the ongoing proceedings of Guantanamo military commission and ordering the detention facility to be shut down within the year.^[36][37][38] He also signed Executive Order 13491 - Ensuring Lawful Interrogations requiring the Army Field Manual to be used as a guide for terror interrogations, banning torture and other coercive techniques, such as waterboarding.^[39] Obama also issued an executive order entitled "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel", setting stricter limitations on incoming executive branch employees and placing tighter restrictions on lobbying in the White House.^[40] Obama signed two Presidential Memoranda concerning energy independence, ordering the Department of Transportation to establish higher fuel efficiency standards before 2011 models are released and allowing states to raise their emissions standards above the national standard.^[41] He also ended the Mexico City Policy, which banned federal grants to international groups that provide abortion services or counseling.^[42][43]

In his first week he also established a policy of producing a weekly Saturday morning video address available on whitehouse.gov and YouTube,^[44][45][46] much like those released during his transition period.^[47][48] The first address had been viewed by 600,000 YouTube viewers by the next afternoon.^[49]

The first piece of legislation Obama signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 on January 29, which revised the statute of limitations for filing pay discrimination lawsuits. Lilly Ledbetter joined Obama and his wife, Michelle, as he signed the bill, fulfilling his campaign pledge to nullify Ledbetter v. Goodyear.^[50] On February 3, he signed the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIP), expanding health care from 7 million children under the plan to 11 million.^[51]

President Obama signs the ARRA into law on February 17, 2009 in Denver, Colorado. Vice President Joe Biden stands behind him. Obama addresses a joint session of Congress, with Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.	Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was a focal point of Barack Obama's February 24, 2009 Address Before a Joint Session of Congress. Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) (audio) Audio-only version
Problems listening to these files? See media help.

After much debate, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was passed by both the House and Senate on February 13, 2009. Originally intended to be a bipartisan bill, the passage of the bill was largely along party lines. No Republicans voted for it in the House, and three moderate Republicans voted for it in the Senate (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania).^[52] The bill combined tax breaks with spending on infrastructure projects, extension of welfare benefits, and education.^[53][54] The final cost of the bill was $787 billion, and almost $1.2 trillion with debt service included.^[55] Obama signed the Act into law on February 17, 2009, in Denver, Colorado.^[56]

On March 9, 2009, Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research,^[57] and in doing so, called into question some of George W. Bush's signing statements. Obama stated that he too would employ signing statements if he deems upon review that a portion of a bill is unconstitutional,^[58][59] and he has issued several signing statements.^[60]

Early in his presidency, Obama signed a law raising the tobacco tax 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes.^[61] The tax is to be "used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children", and "help some [smokers] to quit and persuade young people not to start".^[61]

In October 2011, Obama instituted the We Can't Wait program, which involved using executive orders, administrative rulemaking, and recess appointments to institute policies without the support of Congress.^[62] The initiative was developed in response to Congress's unwillingness to pass economic legislation proposed by Obama, and conflicts in Congress during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis.^[63]

Approval ratings and opinion[link]

2009[link]

After his transition period, Obama entered office with an approval rating of 82%.^[64] At the end of his first week, 68% of respondents in a Gallup poll approved of how Obama was handling his job, the second highest approval rating for a President shortly after being elected since World War II.^[65] Throughout early February polls showed scattered approval ratings: 62% (CBS News),^[66] 64% (USA Today/Gallup), 66% (Gallup), and 76% in an outlier poll (CNN/Opinion Research).^[67][68] Gallup reported the congressional address in late February boosted his approval from a term-low of 59% to 67%.^[69]

Throughout autumn 2009, Rasmussen estimated Obama's approval as fluctuating between 45% and 52% and his disapproval between 48% and 54%;^[70] as of November 11, Pew Research estimated Obama's approval between 51% and 55% and his disapproval between 33% and 37% since July.^[71]

Handling of the economy[link]

Rasmussen reported in mid-February 2009, that 55% of voters gave Obama good or excellent marks on his handling of the economy.^[72] In early March, a The Wall Street Journal survey of 49 economists gave Obama an average grade of 59 out of 100, with 42% of the respondents surveyed giving the administration's economic policies a grade below 60 percent. In comparison, only 30% of those same economists considered the response of governments around the world to the global recession to have been adequate.^[73] In April, a Gallup poll showed trust in Obama's economic policy with 71% saying they had "a fair amount" or "a great deal" of confidence in Obama's handling of the economy, higher than for Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, or leaders of Congress.^[74] Another Gallup poll in June showed 55% of Americans approved Obama's overall handling of the economy, but 48% and 51% disapproved of his handling of the federal budget deficit and controlling federal spending, respectively.^[75] A CBS News poll taken August 27–31 showed 53% of those polled approved of his handling of the economy.^[76] A Rasmussen poll taken on November 12 found 45% of Americans rating Obama's handling of the economy as poor and 39% rating him as doing a good or excellent job. They found 72% of Democrats rated his handling of the economy as good or excellent, while only 10% of Republicans and 27% of voters not affiliated with either party agreed.^[77]

2010[link]

On March 25, 2010, following his signing of landmark health care reform legislation into law, Obama's polling was revealed by Bloomberg to be 50%, with higher marks for relations with other countries (58%) and his running of the war in Afghanistan (54%). "Obama's approval rating is roughly equal to what Bill Clinton had at this point in his presidency, according to data maintained by Gallup (and) higher than the 45 percent Ronald Reagan recorded in April 1982" and more favorable than Democrats or Republicans office in 2010. They found Obama's approval rating was at 85% among Democrats, compared with 46% among independents and 11% among Republicans.^[78]

Fox News released the results of two polls on April 8–9, 2010. The first showed a drop in Obama's approval rating to 43%, with 48% disapproving. In that poll, Democrats approved of Obama's performance 80–12%, while independents disapproved 49–38%.^[79] The other poll, which concentrated on the economy, showed disapproval of Obama's handling of the economy by a 53–42% margin, with 62% saying they were dissatisfied with the handling of the federal deficit.^[80] According to a Gallup Poll released April 10, 2010, President Obama had a 45% approval rating, with 48% disapproving.^[81] In a poll from Rasmussen Reports, released April 10, 2010, 47% approved of the President's performance, while 53% disapproved.^[82][83]

2011[link]

Obama's approval rating jumped to a high following the death of Osama Bin Laden on May 2, 2011. A GfK poll conducted May 5, 2011 found his approval rating to be 60%. During the debt ceiling debate in August 2011, Obama's approval rating dropped to the low-40s.^[84]

This section requires expansion.

Major legislation[link]

2009[link]

• January 29: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
• February 4: Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
• February 11: DTV Delay Act
• February 17: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
• March 30: Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009
• April 21: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
• May 20: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
• May 20: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009
• May 22: Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009
• June 22: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
• August 6: Cash For Clunkers Extension Act
• October 22: Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
• October 28: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
• October 30: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
• November 6: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009

2010[link]

• January 27: Emergency Aid to American Survivors of Haiti Earthquake Act
• March 4: Travel Promotion Act
• March 18: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act)
• March 23: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
• March 30: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
• May 5: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010
• May 17: Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act
• July 1: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act
• July 21: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
• July 22: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010
• July 22: Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010
• August 10: SPEECH Act
• September 27: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010
• December 9: Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010
• December 13: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
• December 17: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010
• December 22: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010

2011[link]

• January 2: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (H.R. 847)
• January 4: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111-353, H.R. 2751
• August 2: Budget Control Act of 2011
• October 21: United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implemention Act
• October 21: United States-Panama Free Trade Agreement Implemention Act
• October 21: United States-South Korea Free Trade Agreement Implemention Act

Personnel[link]

Cabinet appointees[link]

The Obama Cabinet
Office	Name	Term
President	Barack Obama	2009–present
Vice President	Joe Biden	2009–present
Secretary of State	Hillary Clinton	2009–present
Secretary of Treasury	Timothy Geithner	2009–present
Secretary of Defense	Robert Gates*	2006–2011
	Leon Panetta	2011–present
Attorney General	Eric Holder	2009–present
Secretary of the Interior	Ken Salazar	2009–present
Secretary of Agriculture	Tom Vilsack	2009–present
Secretary of Commerce	Gary Locke	2009–2011
	John Bryson	2011–present
Secretary of Labor	Hilda Solis	2009–present
Secretary of Health and Human Services	Kathleen Sebelius	2009–present
Secretary of Education	Arne Duncan	2009–present
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development	Shaun Donovan	2009–present
Secretary of Transportation	Ray LaHood	2009–present
Secretary of Energy	Steven Chu	2009–present
Secretary of Veterans Affairs	Eric Shinseki	2009–present
Secretary of Homeland Security	Janet Napolitano	2009–present
Chief of Staff	Rahm Emanuel	2009–2010
	William Daley	2011–2012
	Jacob Lew	2012–present
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency	Lisa Jackson	2009–present
Director of the Office of Management and Budget	Peter Orszag	2009–2010
	Jacob Lew	2010–2012
	Jeffrey Zients**	2012–present
Ambassador to the United Nations	Susan Rice	2009–present
United States Trade Representative	Ron Kirk	2009–present
*Retained from previous administration **Acting

Twenty-two members of the Obama administration are either in the United States Cabinet (15) or are in positions considered to be Cabinet-level (7). The members of the Cabinet are the heads of the fifteen major departments (State, Defense, Justice, etc.), and the seven cabinet-level positions are the Vice President, White House Chief of Staff, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador to the United Nations, and the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.^[85][86] Since Robert Gates was a member of the previous administration, his letter of resignation (a formality at the end of a President's term) was simply not accepted, and he did not need confirmation.^[87] On January 19, 2009, Senate Democratic leaders requested fifteen of the twenty positions to be ratified by unanimous consent,^[88] and seven gained unanimous confirmation by voice vote the next day: Ken Salazar, Steven Chu, Arne Duncan, Peter Orszag, Eric Shinseki, Tom Vilsack, and Janet Napolitano.^[87][89] On January 21, Obama presided over the swearing in of the seven unanimous nominees.^[90] Later that day, the Senate confirmed Hillary Clinton by a 94–2 vote. On January 22, several more confirmations were approved unanimously: Susan E. Rice, Ray LaHood, Lisa P. Jackson, and Shaun Donovan.^[91] On January 26, the Senate confirmed Geithner by a 60–34 margin.^[92][93]

At the conclusion of Obama's first week as President, Hilda Solis, Tom Daschle, Ron Kirk, and Eric Holder had yet to be confirmed, and there had been no second appointment for Secretary of Commerce.^[93] Holder was confirmed by a vote of 75–21 on February 2,^[94] and on February 3, Obama announced Senator Judd Gregg as his second nomination for Secretary of Commerce.^[95] Daschle withdrew later that day amid controversy over his failure to pay income taxes and potential conflicts of interest related to the speaking fees he accepted from health care interests.^[96] Solis was later confirmed by a vote of 80-17 on February 24,^[97] and Ron Kirk was confirmed on March 18 by a 92-5 vote in the Senate.^[98]

Gregg, who was the leading Republican negotiator and author of the TARP program in the Senate, after publication that he had a multi-million dollar investment in the Bank of America, on February 12, withdrew his nomination as Secretary of Commerce, citing "irresolvable conflicts" with President Obama and his staff over how to conduct the 2010 census and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.^[99][100] Former Washington governor Gary Locke was nominated on February 26^[101] as Obama's third choice for Commerce Secretary and confirmed on March 24 by voice vote.^[102]

On March 2, Obama introduced Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius as his second choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. He also introduced Nancy-Ann DeParle as head of the new White House Office of Health Reform, which he suggested would work closely with the Department of Health and Human Services.^[103][104] At the end of March, Sebelius was the only remaining Cabinet member yet to be confirmed.^[102]

Six high-ranking cabinet nominees in the Obama administration had their confirmations delayed or rejected among reports that they did not pay all of their taxes, including Tom Daschle, Obama's original nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.^[105] Though Geithner was confirmed, and Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, thought Daschle would have been confirmed, Daschle withdrew his nomination on February 3.^[96] Obama had nominated Nancy Killefer for the position of Chief Performance Officer, but Killefer also withdrew on February 3, citing unspecified problems with District of Columbia unemployment tax.^[106] A senior administration official said that Killefer's tax issues dealt with household help.^[106] Hilda Solis, Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor, faced delayed confirmation hearings due to tax lien concerns pertaining to her husband's auto repair business,^[107] but she was later confirmed on February 24.^[97] While pundits puzzled over U.S. Trade Representative-designate Ron Kirk's failure to be confirmed by March 2009, it was reported on March 2 that Kirk owed over $10,000 in back taxes. Kirk agreed to pay them in exchange for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus's aid in speeding up the confirmation process;^[108] he was later confirmed on March 18.^[98] On March 31, Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, revealed in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee that her Certified Public Accountant found errors in her tax returns for years 2005-2007. She, along with her husband, paid more than $7,000 in back taxes, along with $878 in interest.^[109]

Notable non-Cabinet positions[link]

Appointees serve at the pleasure of the President and were nominated by Barack Obama except as noted.

• Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
  • Sheila Bair¹ (2009–2011)
• Special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan
  • Richard Holbrooke (2009–2010)
  • Marc Grossman (2011–present)
• Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
  • Retired General James L. Jones (2009–2011)
  • Thomas E. Donilon (2011–present)
• Special envoy to the Middle East
  • George J. Mitchell (2009–2011)
  • David Hale (2011–present)
• Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • Robert Mueller² (2009–present)
• Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
  • Leon Panetta (2009–2011)
  • Michael Morell (Acting-2011)
  • David Petraeus (2011–present)
• Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • Christina Romer (2009–2010)
  • Austan Goolsbee (2010–2011)
  • Alan Krueger (2011–present)
• Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission
  • Mary Schapiro (2009–present)
• Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of National Economic Council
  • Lawrence Summers (2009–2010)
  • Gene Sperling (2011–present)
• Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board
  • Paul Volcker (2009–2011)
  • Replaced by Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in 2011
• Chairperson of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness
  • Jeffrey R. Immelt (2011–present)

¹Appointed by George W. Bush in 2006 to a five-year term
²Appointed by George W. Bush in 2001 to a ten-year term

Judicial nominees[link]

United States Supreme Court[link]

Obama appointed the following Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States:

• Sonia Sotomayor – 2009
• Elena Kagan – 2010

Other courts[link]

Outside of the Supreme Court, by October 2009, Obama had nominated fewer than two dozen judges to fill judicial vacancies, of which there were close to 100. This has prompted some Democrats to criticize the pace of Obama's judicial appointments as too slow.^[110] In December 2009, Senator Patrick Leahy criticized Republicans for stalling those judicial nominations that had been made, noting that the Senate confirmed more district and circuit court nominees during the first year of the George W. Bush administration than it had approved by that point during the Barack Obama presidency.^[111]

As of July 2010, Obama's nominees to the district and circuit courts had been confirmed at a rate of only 43.5 percent, compared to 87.2 percent during Bill Clinton's administration and 91.3 percent for George W. Bush. The Center for American Progress, which compiled the data, commented:

Judicial confirmations slowed to a trickle on the day President Barack Obama took office. Filibusters, anonymous holds, and other obstructionary tactics have become the rule. Uncontroversial nominees wait months for a floor vote, and even district court nominees—low-ranking judges whose confirmations have never been controversial in the past—are routinely filibustered into oblivion. Nominations grind to a halt in many cases even after the Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously endorsed a nominee. ^[112]

Policies[link]

Economy[link]

Upon entering office, Obama planned to center his attention on handling the global financial crisis.^[113] Even before his inauguration he lobbied Congress to pass an economic stimulus bill,^[114] which became the top priority during his first month in office.^[115] As President, Obama made a high profile trip to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. to dialog with Congressional Republicans and advocate for the bill.^[116] On February 17, 2009, Obama signed into law a $787 billion plan that included spending for health care, infrastructure, education, various tax breaks and incentives, and direct assistance to individuals.^[117] The tax provisions of the law reduced taxes for 98 percent of taxpayers, bringing tax rates to their lowest levels in 60 years.^[118]

As part of the 2010 budget proposal, the Obama administration has proposed additional measures to attempt to stabilize the economy, including a $2–3 trillion measure aimed at stabilizing the financial system and freeing up credit. The program includes up to $1 trillion to buy toxic bank assets, an additional $1 trillion to expand a federal consumer loan program, and the $350 billion left in the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The plan also includes $50 billion intended to slow the wave of mortgage foreclosures.^[117] The 2011 budget includes a three-year freeze on discretionary spending, proposes several program cancellations, and raises taxes on high income earners to bring down deficits during the economic recovery.^[119]

Obama speaking with former President Bill Clinton and Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett about job creation in July 2010.

In a July 2009 interview with ABC News, Biden was asked about the sustained increase of the U.S. unemployment rate from May 2007 to October 2009^[120] despite the administration's multi-year economic stimulus package passed five months earlier. He responded "The truth is, we and everyone else, misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there ... the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited."^[121][122] The White House indicates that 2 million jobs were created or saved due to the stimulus package in 2009^[123] and self reporting by recipients of the grants, loans, and contracts portion of the package report that the package saved or created 608,317 jobs in the final three months of 2009.^[124]

The unemployment rate rose in 2009, reaching a peak in October at 10.1% and averaging 10.0% in the fourth quarter.^[125] Following a decrease to 9.7% in the first quarter of 2010, the unemployment rate fell to 9.6% in the second quarter, where it remained for the rest of the year.^[125] Between February and December 2010, employment rose by 0.8%, which was less than the average of 1.9% experienced during comparable periods in the past four employment recoveries.^[126] GDP growth returned in the third quarter of 2009, expanding at a 1.6% pace, followed by a 5.0% increase in the fourth quarter.^[127] Growth continued in 2010, posting an increase of 3.7% in the first quarter, with lesser gains throughout the rest of the year.^[127] Overall, the economy expanded at a rate of 2.9% in 2010.^[128]

During November–December 2010, Obama and a lame duck session of the 111th Congress focused on a dispute about the temporary Bush tax cuts, which were due to expire at the end of the year. Obama wanted to extend the tax cuts for taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year. Congressional Republicans agreed but also wanted to extend the tax cuts for those making over that amount, and refused to support any bill that did not do so.^[129] All the Republicans in the Senate also joined in saying that, until the tax dispute was resolved, they would filibuster to prevent consideration of any other legislation, except for bills to fund the U.S. government.^[130][131] On 7 December, Obama strongly defended a compromise agreement he had reached with the Republican congressional leadership that included a two-year extension of all the tax cuts, a 13-month extension of unemployment insurance, a one-year reduction in the FICA payroll tax, and other measures.^[132] On December 10, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) led a filibuster against the compromise tax proposal, which lasted over eight hours.^[133] Obama persuaded many wary Democrats to support the bill,^[134] but not all; of the 148 votes against the bill in the House, 112 were cast by Democrats and only 36 by Republicans.^[135] The $858 billion Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which The Washington Post called "the most significant tax bill in nearly a decade",^[136] passed with bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and was signed into law by Obama on December 17, 2010.^[134]

Ethics[link]

Lobbying reform[link]

Early in his presidential campaign, Obama stated that "they [lobbyists] won't find a job in my White House", but softened his stance later in the campaign.^[137] On January 21, 2009, Obama issued an executive order for all future appointees to his administration, which stated, no appointee who was a registered lobbyist within the two years before his appointment could participate on matters in which he lobbied for a period of two years after the date of appointment.^[40] Three formal waivers were initially issued in early 2009, out of 800 executive appointments:^[138][139] to William J. Lynn III, a lobbyist for Raytheon, to hold the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense;^[34] to Jocelyn Frye, former general counsel at the National Partnership for Women and Families, to serve as Director of Policy and Projects in the Office of the First Lady; and to Cecilia Muñoz, former senior vice president for the National Council of La Raza,^[138] to serve as Director of Intergovernmental Affairs in the Executive Office of the President.^[139] As of March 21, 2009, at least thirty officials appointed by Obama had been lobbyists in the past five years.^[137] Ten additional waivers were announced in September 2009.^[140]

Not all recent former lobbyists require waivers; those without waivers write letters of recusal stating issues from which they must refrain because of their previous jobs.^[138] USA Today reported that 21 members of the Obama administration have at some time been registered as federal lobbyists, although most have not within the previous two years.^[141] Lobbyists in the administration include William Corr, an anti-tobacco lobbyist, as Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services^[142] and Tom Vilsack, who lobbied in 2007, for a national teachers union, as Secretary of Agriculture.^[141] Also, the Secretary of Labor nominee, Hilda Solis, formerly served as a board member of American Rights at Work, which lobbied Congress on two bills Solis co-sponsored,^[143] and Mark Patterson, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's chief of staff, is a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.^[141]

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have criticized the administration, claiming that Obama is retreating from his own ethics rules barring lobbyists from working on the issues about which they lobbied during the previous two years by issuing waivers. According to Melanie Sloan, the group's executive director, "It makes it appear that they are saying one thing and doing another."^[141]

Transparency[link]

Obama presents his first weekly address as President of the United States, discussing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The Obama administration has said that all executive orders, non-emergency legislation, and proclamations will be posted to the official White House website, whitehouse.gov, allowing the public to review and comment for five days before the President signs the legislation.^[144] The pledge was twice broken during Obama's first month in office when he signed SCHIP legislation and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act with less than the full five days of "sunlight before signing". The administration has said that they are still "working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar".^[145][146]

During his first week in office, Obama announced plans to post a video address each week on the site,^[44] and on YouTube,^[45] informing the public of government actions each week. During his speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Obama stated, "I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy."^[147]

On January 21, 2009, by executive order, Obama revoked Executive Order 13233, which had limited access to the records of former United States Presidents.^[148] Obama issued instructions to all agencies and departments in his administration to "adopt a presumption in favor" of Freedom of Information Act requests.^[149] In April 2009, the United States Department of Justice released four legal memos from the Bush administration to comply voluntarily with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.^[150] The memos were written by John Yoo^[151] and signed by Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, then Principal Assistant Attorneys General to the Department of Justice, and addressed to John A. Rizzo, general counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.^[152] The memos describe in detail controversial interrogation methods the CIA used on prisoners suspected of terrorism.^[153][154] Obama became personally involved in the decision to release the memos, which was opposed by former CIA directors Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch.^[152] Former Vice President Dick Cheney criticized Obama for not releasing more memos; Cheney claimed that unreleased memos detail successes of CIA interrogations.^[155]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires all recipients of the funds provided by the act to publish a plan for using the funds, along with purpose, cost, rationale, net job creation, and contact information about the plan to a website Recovery.gov so that the public can review and comment. Inspectors General from each department or executive agency will then review, as appropriate, any concerns raised by the public. Any findings of an Inspector General must be relayed immediately to the head of each department and published on Recovery.gov.^[156]

On June 16, 2009, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration in order to get information about the visits of coal company executives. Anne Weismann, the chief counsel for CREW, stated "The Obama administration has now taken exactly the same position as the Bush administration... I don't see how you can keep people from knowing who visits the White House and adhere to a policy of openness and transparency." On June 16, MSNBC reported that its more comprehensive request for visitor logs since Obama's January 20 inauguration had been denied.^[157] The administration announced that White House visitor logs will be made available to the public on an ongoing basis, with certain limitations, for visits occurring after September 15, 2009.^[158] Beginning on January 29, 2010, the White House did begin to release the names of its visitor records.^[159] Since that time, names of visitors (which includes not only tourists, but also names of union leaders, Wall Street executives, lobbyists, party chairs, philanthropists and celebrities), have been released. The names are released in huge batches up to 75,000 names at a time.^[160] Names are released 90–120 days after having visited the White House. The complete list of names is available online by accessing the official White House website.^[161]

Obama stated during the 2008 Presidential campaign that he would have negotiations for health care reform televised on C-SPAN, citing transparency as being the leverage needed to ensure that people stay involved in the process taking place in Washington. This did not fully happen and Politifact gives President Obama a "Promise Broken" rating on this issue.^[162] After White House press secretary Robert Gibbs initially avoided addressing the issue,^[163] President Obama himself acknowledged that he met with Democratic leaders behind closed doors to discuss how best to garner enough votes in order to merge the two (House and Senate) passed versions of the health care bill. Doing this violated the letter of the pledge, although Obama maintains that negotiations in several congressional committees were open, televised hearings. Obama also cited an independent ethics watchdog group describe his administration as the most transparent in recent history.^[164]

The Obama administration has been characterized^[165] as much more aggressive than the Bush and other previous administrations in their response to whistleblowing and leaks to the press. Three people have been prosecuted under the rarely used Espionage Act of 1917. They include Thomas Andrews Drake, a former National Security Agency (NSA) employee who was critical of the NSA's Trailblazer Project,^{[166][167][168]} Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department contractor who allegedly had a conversation about North Korea with James Rosen of Fox News,^[169][170] and Jeffrey Sterling, who allegedly was a source for James Risen's book State of War. Risen has also been subpoenaed to reveal his sources, another rare action by the government.^[171]