| Home | Information Sharing & Analysis | Prevention & Protection | Preparedness & Response | Research | Commerce & Trade | Travel Security | Immigration |
The threat level in the airline sector is High or Orange. Read more.
This information is not current, is not being updated, and may contain broken links.
Release Date: October 30, 2007
Washington, DC
Secretary Chertoff: Well, I want to thank President Smith for that walk down memory lane with my rather ever-changing job history. And I want to thank you all for interrupting your lunch to hear me speak for a little bit about some of the challenges that we face in the 21st century as we look at the dangers and the opportunities that lie ahead of us.
I should mention that last week I had the opportunity to be in California with Governor Schwarzenegger, preceding the President, and did see and meet with a lot of individuals and their families who were in dire need of assistance because of the devastating wildfires which have wiped out over half a million acres and forced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes.
This was truly a major disaster. But it could have been worse, had it not been for the herculean efforts of firefighters and other first responders - local, state and federal - who came together to work to contain the fires and save lives and property.
I was very impressed by the overall emergency response efforts, which included a great deal of voluntary response by numerous private individuals and private groups. I was at the Qualcomm Stadium, for example, and saw literally mounds of food and water that had been donated by private individuals and companies, and they were stacked up waiting for people to consume. Interestingly, there was actually a special area for kosher food, and they covered the whole waterfront. It was really quite impressive. And I want to thank B'nai B'rith for having opened its own disaster relief fund to help affected communities deal with the aftermath of this terrible calamity.
Your response to the urgent needs of Californians is further confirmation of the humanitarian nature of this organization. And it's another example of how you've worked over the years, over 160 years, to meet material as well as spiritual needs, and to exemplify the values of the Jewish people, and also of our great country.
So, since we're talking about values, let me talk a little bit about values and the traditions of freedom in relation to our identity as a country and our role in the world after September 11th.
Now, let me begin with a question you'll undoubtedly recognize as a rewording of one of the traditional Four Questions of Passover that we'll be asking in the spring. Here's the Question: Why is this nation different from all other nations? Or, if I can phrase it a little more specifically: Why do people across the globe consistently choose this country over other countries to live, work, raise a family and call home?
I happen to believe the answer is obvious. I think it's because of our belief, enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, that people have fundamental rights that are not to be trampled upon by any government or any person.
Now, no nation is perfect, and ours is not either. But I do believe that our nation is and has been historically a remarkable reflection of the belief in these human rights and human freedom, because America is a place where people come and exercise the freedoms they need to build new lives for themselves and for their loved ones.
Of course, we're not the only democracy in the world, but we are indeed one of the oldest. And, equally important, we began our life as a nation as a democracy.
It's important to remember that when America's democratic experiment was beginning, much of Europe was still clinging to the belief in the divine right of kings. But the founders of the United States rejected that view. They believed that nobody was above the law; there was no king that stood above everybody else. Rather, they believed that God ruled through the law, which spelled out the fundamental equality of all humanity.
America's story is that of a great contest between this view - that ours is an exceptional nation dedicated to freedom - and the view that says that America is really no different from any other nation pursuing its own narrow interests.
The first view, the view of America as defined by freedom, begins at the very start of this country's experience. In John Winthrop's famous words, talking about the country in its earliest days, he said, "We must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us."
Of course, there's a second view that sees America as a conventional nation pursuing narrow, materialistic interests. And I think throughout our history, these two views - one which I may call the exceptional view or the idealistic view, and the other being the conventional view - have been in competition with one another.
Now, let me drill down a little bit further into this idea of a fundamental difference of opinion or a fundamental difference of approach to this nation's identity and purpose. Sometimes people say that the difference between competing views of this country is the difference between pie-in-the-sky idealists and down-to-earth realists. If the people who believe in this country as an example for freedom, dedicated to promoting freedom, are really just dreamers, and that what is really required is leadership, that is realistic. But I think that history shows that the so-called idealists are actually people who have been repeatedly vindicated by history, and that they in fact are the realists, and that sometimes what is described as realism is nothing more than conventional wisdom.
Where conventional wisdom embraces accommodation, appeasement and resignation, in my view, it is not realism. It's simply the avoidance of unpleasant reality. It's what I sometimes call fatalism.
Let me give you some examples of what I mean about these conflicting views about the world - idealism versus fatalism.
In the 1930s, some, like Winston Churchill in Britain and others in our own country, said that we'd have to stand up to the ever-growing march of fascism because it was destroying lives and freedoms across the world. But the conventional wisdom in the '30s rejected this as warmongering, rejected it as warmongering in England and rejected it as warmongering in the United States. And so, for a good deal of the 1930s, this country pursued a policy of isolationism. Thanks to that policy, Germany devoured pieces of continental Europe and Japan did likewise in Asia. And in the end, the conflict between freedom and the ideology of fascism could not be avoided or accommodated. Delay and dithering merely compounded the cost in lives and human suffering until freedom triumphed.
But after the Second World War, the same sort of contest occurred between those who saw communism as a monstrous ideology that enslaved hundreds of millions of people and that required us to challenge it, and those who believed that in the wake of an exhausting war, we should simply permanently accommodate ourselves to Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe in the name of pragmatism and peace.
For almost 50 years, some who styled themselves as realists criticized and ridiculed those who challenged the communist ideology and dared to argue that Eastern European countries should aspire to freedom. The conventional wisdom said these views, seeking freedom for Eastern Europe, were naive or even dangerous and destabilizing.
The high water mark for this kind of conventional wisdom of accommodation was the mid-1970s. I think you'll remember the 1976 presidential debate, where President Ford appeared at one point to deny that Poland should be regarded as under Soviet domination. Now, I believe what he meant was that he was not prepared to concede a Poland that was permanently unfree. But President Ford was ridiculed for even suggesting that there might be a free Poland. And his opponent, Jimmy Carter, after winning the election, went on the following year in a speech at Notre Dame to say that our nation was getting over what he called an inordinate fear of communism.
But you'll remember that even in that period of time, there were voices who argued that we shouldn't simply accommodate or resign ourselves to domination of Eastern Europe and the loss of freedom. Senator Henry Jackson, for example, was one of the few voices of that era who dissented from the conventional wisdom and the conventional orthodox. He argued compellingly that it was wrong to appease our enemies, to give away freedom, and that doing so would not, in fact, bring us closer to a lasting peace or a lasting sense of security.
Another of the public figures of that era who shared this unwillingness to accept the conventional wisdom was, of course, Ronald Reagan. After becoming president, President Reagan began to press more vigorously against this conventional wisdom of accommodation and resignation - challenging the idea that Soviet-American relations should simply be frozen in a détente that accommodated an Eastern Europe under permanent Soviet domination.
So, in 1982, speaking before the British Parliament, Reagan departed from the euphemisms of the 1970s, declaring that the Soviet Union "runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens." He pledged to "foster democratic change." As one observer remembered, President Reagan's speech to Parliament rejected the Cold War "as some permanent condition." And, of course, President Reagan backed up those words with action, as when he deployed upgraded Pershing missiles in Europe, despite strong demonstrations and criticism.
How did the conventional wisdom view Reagan daring to talk about human freedom and human dignity as values that trump what domination there was in Eastern Europe? How did they view his prediction and his promise to foster democratic change, that the Cold War was not a permanent condition? Well, the conventional wisdom viewed Reagan's approach as dangerously simplistic.
Reflecting those conventions, the late historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who had also been a presidential advisor under President Kennedy, had this to say in his contemporaneous diary entries about Reagan's policies: "Those who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse are kidding themselves."
He went on to criticize the "Reagan people" who "want an unlimited arms race on the theory that it will either wreck the Soviet economy or result in unquestioned American nuclear superiority." And he added scornfully, "These people don't seem to realize they are playing with the future of humanity."
But in fact, President Reagan had a vision of the future for humanity, but it was not a vision of a humanity in permanent thrall in large parts of the world to domination by dictatorship and totalitarianism. It was a view and a vision of the future for humanity rooted in hope rather than defeatism. And he had a powerful conviction that this vision of hope, rather than the vision of defeatism, would ultimately come true.
President Reagan's climactic challenge to conventional wisdom came, of course, in the 1987 Brandenburg Gate speech, when Reagan called for Gorbachev to "tear down" the Berlin Wall, which separated the world of tyranny from that of freedom.
So who was right, as between the conventional wisdom and the Reagan view? Who was vindicated by history? I think it was President Reagan. Who was kidding himself about the Wall? And by the way, I've seen a National Security memorandum written in 1987, shortly before President Reagan gave this speech, where his speechwriters, in despair over what they described among themselves as a mediocre speech, complained that he wouldn't take out the language, "tear down this wall." That was their view. But President Reagan, trumping his own speechwriters, saw better. And he was right, because we know now, within a few years, that the Wall came down, and as Reagan promised, the Cold War ended, and the Soviet Union itself went out of existence as an empire.
So, looking back on this history, I propose that many who are simply treated as idealists are actually realists, and some who describe themselves as realists are really nothing more than fatalists.
How do I define the difference, when I look back historically? Well, I think idealists, like Churchill in the '30s or Reagan in the '80s, are keenly aware of reality and the constraints imposed by circumstances. They don't kid themselves about what dangers there are in the world out there. Indeed, they're crystal clear - even blunt - about the constraints that we all face. But their response to bad news is neither to sugarcoat it, nor to shrug in resignation and urge a fatalistic strategy of accommodation and managed decline. Instead, idealists of the kind I'm talking about have the vision to formulate strategies that seek to "change the game" entirely, through fundamental realignment of the circumstances that appear to be so grim.
Now, how does this concept of idealism translate to the current struggle of our new century? Well, first we have to have a clear-eyed view of the threat that we face today, in the first decade of the 21st century. And, like Ronald Reagan, we must not hesitate to call evil by its true name.
The evil we face is an ideology of violent Islamist extremism that declares its hostility to all who disagree, including most Muslims. In 1998, bin Laden issued what amounted to a declaration of war, starting with the false accusation that America had declared war on Islam, and ending with a command, and I quote, "to kill the Americans and their allies - civilian and military¼.in any country where it is possible to do it."
And in the decade that followed, bin Laden and his cohorts did exactly that - plotting strikes not only against our own country but against our global system of security, safety and prosperity.
Spread by a sinister network of cult-like entities that span the world, this evil ideology sanctifies the slaughter of innocent people, denying the dignity and humanity of its opponents, including Muslims who dare to reject its pseudo-religious message of hatred and bigotry.
Clearly, the terrorists who embrace this ideology do not represent mainstream Islam. Instead, they target Muslims themselves with bullets and bombs. Need I remind you that two years ago in Amman, Jordan, a groom, his bride, the fathers of both newlyweds, and as many as 10 more relatives in the group were among dozens of Muslims slaughtered in the middle of a wedding celebration in a triple suicide bombing, ordered by al Qaeda in Iraq. These were Muslims who were celebrating one of the most important religious events of their faith - and they were mindlessly killed by fanatics with a perverted sense of what their religious mandate was.
Of course, these terrorists do more than simply violate the sanctity of human life. They seek to destroy human liberty by intimidating people everywhere into submission.
There is no force on this planet more antithetical to freedom and liberty than that of ideologues who face us with weapons of terror. And whenever they've gained power, they've sought to extinguish freedom, from women's rights to liberty of conscience.
Now, this threat that I'm talking about is not merely a theoretical threat; it doesn't merely reflect the grandiosity of ideas held by bin Laden [and his fellow travelers] and his henchmen. As we know, al Qaeda once partnered with the Taliban to run Afghanistan. That's, of course, what helped create the platform for launching September 11th. And that's why it was vital to depose that regime. We remember what that was like - the absence of liberty, the oppression of women, their rigid rules. And, although driven out of Afghanistan, the terrorists, al Qaeda and the Taliban have not given up their desire to reclaim that land they have lost. They want to overthrow the Iraqi government as well and carve a safe haven for themselves and parts of Iraq, although, thankfully, the people of that area are beginning to reject them as a foreign host.
And that's why our armed forces are working very hard with the people of Iraq to counter al Qaeda in Iraq, even as I speak.
But the activity of al Qaeda and its fellow henchmen is not limited to Afghanistan or Iraq. Associated groups from North Africa and throughout South Asia are fighting for and sometimes achieving control of tangible territory from which these terrorists hope to be able to train, assemble advanced weaponry, impose their own vision of repressive law, and dominate local life.
It's clear that just as al Qaeda and its allies want to reclaim Afghanistan, so too they want to reclaim Somalia. Al Qaeda, in fact, wants to extend its franchise across North Africa and beyond. And just last year, bin Laden threatened to fight any attempt by the West to stop the mass murder in the Sudan.
So, the first step to a reality-based idealism in this 21st century is to clearly identify the threat we face today in an honest and straightforward manner, and that is this threat of violent extremism that I've described.
And the second step is to have a vision of a strategy that aims not only to manage the problem but to transform the problem.
How do we do that? How do we transform the problem? Well, we begin by exhibiting continuing strength and resolve. Almost immediately after September 11th, we destroyed al Qaeda's headquarters in Afghanistan, we deployed our intelligence assets across the globe, we captured and killed terrorists on nearly every continent, we partnered with our allies on information sharing and intelligence, and we adapted in numerous ways to the evolving threats that had emerged, both overseas and at home. And of course, part of that adaptation here at home was the establishment of my own department, the Department of Homeland Security.
But to go beyond merely that stalemate position, to truly transform the battlefield and landscape, we have to fight a battle of hearts and minds, recognizing that the way out of an endless struggle with an ideology of hate is the pursuit and promotion of freedom.
Here is a true American strength. As we fight our war against those who commit acts of terror in the name of extremist ideology, we have to remain committed to the values that I've discussed that define who and what we are as a nation.
Whether it was fighting the Nazis in World War II or communism during the Cold War or extremist Islamist ideologues today, we draw great strength from our country's creed, a creed that says no to tyranny, no to oppression and no to enslavement. And we're empowered by our conscience, our conscience that says yes to freedom, yes to justice, yes to civil rights and yes to emancipation for all humanity - not emancipation only reserved for the lucky few who reside in the West.
When we went into Afghanistan to evict the Taliban and dismantle bin Laden's headquarters, what our soldiers found there confirmed what human rights groups had been saying for years. The ruling Taliban had hijacked Islam, turned its clock back many centuries, and combined it with the brutal methodologies of a modern totalitarian police state.
Political opponents were jailed. Ancient statues portraying a different religion were demolished or desecrated. Women were forced out of every arena of public life, stripped of every modern right and privilege, and made virtual property of husbands and fathers.
And so by ejecting the Taliban from power, we struck not only a military blow against an enemy, but we freed millions of people and enfranchised women so they could be full participants in that society. That was ultimately the strength of what has been achieved in Afghanistan.
But even in light of that today, in other pockets of the Middle East and Asia, in Afghanistan itself, al Qaeda and the Taliban and their henchmen dream of once again eliminating the fundamental rights we have brought to these corners of the world and returning a thousand years ago to a different vision, a darker vision, of what human existence should be.
And that's why it's essential we continue to make clear that we support the right of people everywhere to be free. For not only is that right in principle, but it will go a long way toward winning the hearts and minds in a long battle against the perpetrators of September 11th and the malignant ideology they represent.
And for those who say it's a pipe dream, that most of the world isn't ready to be emancipated or be free, let me remind you again of the example of Eastern Europe, where our sustained public support for the solidarity movement in Poland unleashed a greater movement which led to a decisive victory for the forces of liberty against those of communist tyranny.
Once the people of those nations knew we were going to keep standing up for them, and they knew Senator Jackson and President Reagan were going to keep standing up for them, they were emboldened to stand for their own freedom. And their history, of course, is now clear.
So it follows from everything that I've said, that in our post-9/11 world, we must continue to respect the civil rights of people everywhere, including the rights of Muslims right here in our own country, and that includes rejecting racial, ethnic and religious profiling, which is not only wrong in principle, but it doesn't work very well in practice.
By respecting individual and civil rights, we're not only making this a better country, but we're positioning ourselves to speak to people around the world who are seeking a real alternative to the pseudo-religious extremism that is being promoted by our enemies.
Now I need to add, of course, that with rights come responsibilities. Americans of every background and heritage must continue to stand with us in our efforts to secure our homeland. They must provide law enforcement with the information needed to identify and apprehend individuals who pose a clear threat to this country. And people of all heritages and faiths must continue to recognize that we're all in it together, that what the terrorists want to destroy is everything that all of us as Americans hold dear.
And so as part of an ongoing dialogue with leaders of all the communities that make up the United States, we want to continue to talk about the rights and responsibilities which define us as American people. We continue to ask - and we will continue to ask all Americans to remain vigilant and to report to the authorities activities that they believe to be suspicious, activities that are directed indiscriminately against people of all faiths and all creeds.
And we pledge a continued open-door policy that respects the ideas and is sensitive to the concerns of every community so that none feel excluded in this country, and all feel that they are part of the solution to the problem.
In the end, human rights are at the heart of who we are, what we're fighting for and what we need to protect as we prosecute this war against the ideologies of oppression and terror.
It's my pledge to you that we'll continue to pursue a vision of homeland security that balances durable and comprehensive security with the values we cherish and the freedoms we enjoy as Americans.
It's my promise that as we defend America, we will remain - in every sense of the word - Americans.
Thank you. (Applause.)
Mr. Smith: The Secretary has agreed to take some questions.
Question: Mr. Secretary, thank you. General John Abizaid spoke near here yesterday about improvised explosives against the U.S. troops in Iraq; he's the former commander there. And he said it's important to bring that technology to the homeland, to us, to protect us here. He cited Israel as an example of being able to do that. Do you have anything new for us, of where that technology will be crossing over to protect us in the United States?
Secretary Chertoff: I thought about this, I think, in the last couple of weeks. We do have a very comprehensive strategy looking at the issue of improvised explosive devices. And the way to describe it is sometimes using the expression, moving from left of the boom to right of the boom. In other words, we want to intercept and prevent detonation of devices in the earliest possible stage before the process of actually creating and detonating the bomb occur.
That means stopping people who are planning to detonate bombs, making it difficult to acquire ingredients that lead to the creation of bombs, making it harder to take a bomb into a protected area or to gain access to a populated area with a bomb, hardening the locations where a bomb might be set off so that the damage is mitigated, and ultimately - and this of course is to the right of the boom - responding effectively and quickly to mitigate the damage if the bomb goes off.
As part of that we do, in fact, incorporate a lot of the lessons learned by our military in the field as they analyze increasingly more sophisticated explosives used in Iraq. But we also learn lessons that we're seeing - unfortunately, hard-won lessons - overseas when we examine bombs that have been detonated or have - people have tried to detonate in Western Europe and other parts of the world. Regrettably, the nature of the improvised explosive devices is it's often possible to improvise it out of ingredients you could find in your own kitchen. So we have to look at the full menu, sophisticated and primitive, and we want to move our interception as far to the left of the boom, as far ahead of the detonation, as we possibly can. And that's a major part of our strategy that we are currently implementing.
Question: In your homeland security agenda, where does the promotion of Iran by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez in this continent stand? And how does the department you lead plan to deal with the spreading anti-American sentiment fueled by Chávez in Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and the Caribbean Basin, spreading arms supported by the high price of oil? How do you assess the appearance of Chávez's image in banners next to Nasrallah in the Hezbollah (inaudible) of Lebanon, or the Iranian-built - supposed - bicycle and tractor factory built near uranium-rich mines in Venezuela near the Orinoco River? Could north Venezuela become to Iran another Islamic extremist regime - what Cuba became to the former Soviet Union in Latin America?
Secretary Chertoff: I think you quite forcefully captured an emerging threat and challenge to the West, which is the export of ideology that we see among Islamist extremists in the Middle East from Iran, and the marriage of that with others who, perhaps for their own reasons, have strong anti-American views or who simply exploit anti-Americanism as a way of promoting their own ideological or power agendas.
And I think you - without engaging in a full-blown geopolitical discussion here - I think that as we look in to the 21st century, we need to make sure that while we are looking overseas, over the Atlantic and Pacific, we're also looking south. It clearly is troubling when we see Iranian assets and Iranian surrogates working closely with and, in fact we see the Iranian leadership are marching hand-in-hand with anti-American forces in our own continent.
I can assure you - without giving away secrets - that we are very mindful of that threat. I think it's part of the strategic threat that informs all of our strategies about what we're doing worldwide. And I think it's a recognition that people who treat the issue of these extremist ideologies as merely kind of a low-level kind of terrorist nuisance that we can deal with as a law enforcement problem are not recognizing that these ideologies truly have strategic vision and are building strategic capabilities, including by forming alliances with others who at least share part of the agenda - which often unfortunately involves distaste to the United States, hostility to free trade and free movement of people and ideas, and so they find a comfort in a similarly narrow, rigid and often violent ideology.
And I think this is - truly as we shift our vision from what we saw in the Cold War - and, you know, I grew up in the Cold War, so I was habituated to that and it took a while to re-frame my thinking from the way we used to look at the issue of the strategic challenge into the current strategic challenge. But I'll tell you, September 11th was a great shock that made it easy to begin that process of re-framing. And I think you're dead right to say these are developments and trends we need to be very, very careful about and need to continue to address very clearly.
Question: Two-part question. First part, could you issue a - let's call it a scorecard on how the Homeland Security has acted since 9/11? And then secondly, to follow up on the previous question, what do you see as the biggest challenges moving ahead?
Secretary Chertoff: Well, you know, people in Washington love scorecards and report cards. I don't like report cards because it reminds me too much of grade school. In some ways the score that matters the most of course is the fact that we have not had a successful attack against this country in six years. I think that in total the strategy that we've pursued both overseas and here deserves a lot of credit for that. I certainly don't think the enemy has ceased to try.
But I also think that we need to continue to adapt and improve or we run the risk of falling behind. The fact that we killed and captured a lot of al Qaeda, that we drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan, did not mean, unfortunately, that we could, you know, beat our swords into plowshares and rest on our laurels under the oak tree - because the enemy didn't go away. They continue to adapt. They continue to try to rebuild. And we therefore have to stay ahead of them.
The biggest challenge we face, to be honest with you, is a question of resolve. I don't have any doubt that American - not just American - Western, global ingenuity, technology are powerful weapons and powerful advantages in fighting with these kinds of terrorist tactics. I think the great weakness we have sometimes is a lack of resolution - the fact that after two or three or five years, some people say, you know what, it's time to get over it; it's getting old.
And the thing to remember is that the ideology propagated by bin Laden and Ahmadinejad and others - that's an ideology that deliberately and quite consciously nurses historical memories that go back centuries. If you read the writings of bin Laden and his intellectual predecessors and those who are his henchmen, they're still agitated and angered about events that occurred in Western Europe 700-800 years ago. They're very deep into the historic memory as a well from which to draw, incite and to continue acts of violence.
If we don't have a similar resolve - not a resolve based on hatred, but a resolve based on determination and commitment to freedom - then we actually do have a big vulnerability. And my biggest mission in this job - putting aside the building of the bricks and the mortar and the deploying of the scanners and the screeners and the hardening of the sites and the collecting of intelligence - my biggest challenge is to do everything that I can to convince the American people that we have to put ourselves into a position of sustained commitment; not hysteria, not anxiety, but commitment to do what we need to do.
First, to continue to stay ahead of the enemy, but also as I said here, to move beyond the, just, discussion of stalemate where we match them, and to actually talk about what changing the game would be. And that's why I think the President has been very, very forceful about the fact that we can't prevail in this - what is an ideological struggle, unless we are prepared to promote freedom and to promote civic values. If we merely view this as a matter of technology and boots on the ground, then we're going to be locked in the same kind of frustrating embrace that we seemed to be locked into in the 1970s.
It took Reagan, who was willing to challenge the conventional wisdom and say Eastern Europe can be free, to end the Cold War. And to promote those values, including being very clear about what we were facing - it was that mentality that ultimately transformed the summit of the '70s. And that's the kind of mentality that the President is talking about and that we're talking about here so that we don't get locked into a stalemate in this current, 21st-century struggle.
Question: We're expecting a decision in the Madrid-Spain terrorism case soon. Can you just talk about whether you believe that al Qaeda wants to bring those style of attacks to the U.S., and if so, what intelligence suggests that?
Secretary Chertoff: Well, I always, of course - when I'm asked this question, I hasten to say that as I stand here, I don't have any credible intelligence about an imminent attack against the United States. But I will also tell you - and it's been reinforced recently by the National Intelligence Estimate and testimony that I give publicly before Congress, along with Director Mueller and Director McConnell and Admiral Scott Redd that it is still very much at the top of al Qaeda's list to carry out attacks, particularly significant attacks against the United States.
And if you look at the news, you will see from time to time that arrests are made of people who want to carry out attacks against the United States. Now, many of them, or all of them, may be homegrown, so to speak. But certainly if you read what bin Laden himself says, he makes it very clear that he hasn't abandoned this plotting. And if you look at what he tried to do in August of last year when al Qaeda had a plot to blow up airliners coming from the United Kingdom to the U.S., it's quite clear that the big attack with enormous consequences is still very much a part of the al Qaeda strategy.
So I don't think there's any doubt but that the enemy will continue to probe. They will continue to attack where they see weakness. They will continue to test us. They will continue to try to change tactics and methods in hope they can avoid the obstacles and the barriers we place up. And that's again why none of us can call it quits and go home and say the job is done, because this is a dynamic struggle. And we have to continue to make sure that we stay ahead of the enemy.
And we also, to be honest, have to recognize that we may not always be 100 percent successful. And if we do fail, and if, God forbid, there is an attack like there was in London in 2005, we've got to pick ourselves up and we've got to get back on our feet. We've got to continue the struggle, because this is not a place where failure is an option. This is not a place where withdrawal is a possibility, unless we're prepared to withdraw from our own country.
Question: First of all, on behalf of, I'm sure, all our colleagues, thank you for your service to this country. (Applause.) The question I have has to do with sanctuary cities. As you know, in Chicago, which is a sanctuary city, and the other five cities that has the sanctuary city impact on illegal immigration, which impacts on Homeland Security, could you briefly comment on what is being done in that particular area?
Secretary Chertoff: Well, of course, we'll - you know, the phrase "sanctuary cities" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, so it's always a little hard to generalize. As it happens, we are currently suing the State of Illinois because the State of Illinois has made it, for all intents and purposes, illegal for employers to use our electronic verification systems to verify the work status of their employees. Since we regard that as an actual interference with our obligation to enforce the law, obviously we have to fight against that.
I recognize there are a range of other positions that some states and cities take. Some are very active; in fact, take their own initiative in terms of seeking to identify and remove illegal aliens or at least notify us. And some we train in how to - we have a program that allows us to train people in how to deport - legally and properly - people who are here illegally.
Some states and cities take the position they don't want to be involved - it's not a state and city function, it's a federal function. Some go further and actually affirmatively try to interfere. Obviously we can't brook interference from state and locals. At the same time, I think - my reading of the Constitution is, we can't compel state and locals to do our work for us. We have a responsibility to do it for ourselves.
But since you raise the issue of homeland security, let me say this - and I've said it publicly before - although I think enforcement is a critical element of our immigration law and that we have to - we cannot have a circumstance where people come across the border at will - although we put an awful lot of resources into this, including now having 15,000 - having had a 3,500 Border Patrol over the last year, having now about 116 miles of fencing, and about 120 miles of vehicle barriers at the border, putting high technology up, doing very active enforcement at the workplace and against gang members - with all that and with the fact that we've seen approximately almost a 25 percent decrease in flow across the border, I can't tell you that the solution to the immigration problem lies alone in enforcement.
As the President said in his - as we've tried to pass in Congress earlier this year, in the end, because of the fact that economic migrants are coming here to do jobs that Americans are giving them, we have to find some way to deal with this economic engine that is drawing people in. And that means finding a way to fill those jobs and have the people who are doing those jobs be visible and regulated, and, in fact, if they broke the law in coming in, they should pay a price for it. But we need to be realistic about what we can achieve in terms of simply tossing 11 or 12 million people out of the country.
My main interest in this is security. And the truth is that the biggest danger to security is that terrorists or criminals or drug dealers will submerge themselves in a wave of economic migrants. It's a little bit like lying down in the tall grass and using the economic migrants for cover. So if we can find a way to deal with economic migration that brings migrants in to the law, that makes them pay their debt to society if they have a debt to society, that regulates their behavior, then all of the assets and all of the resources we have can be deployed against the minority - but nevertheless dangerous minority - of illegals who are not coming to do work but are coming in to sell drugs, commit crimes, or commit acts of terror.
So in the end - I know that the American people have become skeptics about the ability of the United States to do this. I will tell you that with each step I've taken - my agency has taken - to continue to enhance and increase the enforcement of the law, we have had unbelievable obstacles thrown in our face - there are probably a hundred cases entitled ACLU v. Chertoff. I'm sued by everybody. People don't want us to have No-Match Letters that require employers to check whether their employees are legal or not. They don't want us to have fences. They don't want us not to have fences. They don't want us to conduct arrests when we run across people who are dangerous. Some don't even want us to arrest gang members, because they think it's unfair to be arresting gang members.
I'm determined to demonstrate - and I think the 208,000 people in my department are determined to demonstrate to the American public that we will continue to fight to enforce the law. We will vigorously dispute lawsuits that try to tie us down. We will use every measure that we can - fairly, but firmly and dare I say toughly - to enforce the law.
But at the end, we will also, I think, need to go back to Congress and say, brute force alone is the hardest, most expensive and most time consuming way to get the job done. We need a little help to deal with the economic migration situation so we can really focus our whole effort on those who are truly dangerous. (Applause.)
###
This page was last reviewed/modified on October 30, 2007.
