When public officials, speakers, and writers condemn an act as terrorist, rhetorical decisions are made regarding the language and arguments used. Condemnations based on pragmatic rather than moral considerations send a very different message, while another form of rhetorical response threatens retaliation. When properly developed, counterterrorist rhetoric can effectively eliminate specific acts of terrorism. Nonetheless, most studies of counterterrorism focus on legal, diplomatic, or military responses to terrorism and ignore the strictly rhetorical responses or rhetorical aspects of the domains they consider. Legal studies of counterterrorism are concerned primarily with the effectiveness of treaties or with problems of law enforcement and intelligence. Diplomatic studies tend to focus on responses in hostage situations. The issue of how government officials can best respond rhetorically to terrorism is a significant one. A rhetorical strategy will meet the two purposes of counterterrorism, to preserve the democratic process and to lessen the incidence of terrorism. Counterterrorist rhetoric of the Reagan and Nixon administrations is examined. References and notes