U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge

IDSS Distinguished Public Lecture
“Fighting Global Terrorism: Security and Cooperation in the 21st Century”
Singapore Shangri-La Hotel
Tuesday, March 9, 2004 at 11:00 am – 12:30 pm

Q1: Secretary Ridge, I’m from the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies. I have a factual question, but with a conceptual twist: I am interested in the significance or otherwise of the formation of NorCom, the Northern Command, which is the new U.S. military geographic component command with responsibility for defense of the continental United States. And so, in context of your new department and your new role, what do you think are the major distinctions if any, between these ideas of security and defense?

Secretary Ridge: For those unfamiliar with the force structure within the Department of Defense -- periodically the Secretary of Defense reviews and, occasionally over the decades has revised, how we pre-position both responsibilities and forces around the world. Secretary Rumsfeld, sometime ago, in a post 9-11 environment, decided to create a Northern Command. It is a group of military leaders from the various forces, headed by General Eberhart. There are many responsibilities, but one of the primary responsibilities is to work with the Department of Homeland Security, when it is appropriate, to apply some of the unique assets that they have available to them within the Department of Defense, to particular needs that we may have as a result of a terrorist threat or terrorist incident.

The Northern Command itself is not a huge build-up of forces positioned in the U.S. or elsewhere; they can draw on - with the Secretary’s approval - the special capacities that they have internally within the Department of Defense, to be used by our Department in homeland security issues. We do a lot of training -- exercises with regard to different kind of events, terrorist incidents around the country, and it’s a great collaboration that we have together. In a gist, the presence of the Northern Command, and the potential for the Department to be able to draw and pull specific kinds of military assets in order to respond to an event in the domestic United States -- it just adds enormous value to the work we have in Department of Homeland Security.

Q2: I’m Darcy Doran from the Associated Press. Over the past few months top Singaporean officials have warned about the possibility of terrorists using boats as bombs. I’m just wondering how serious a threat you think this is, and what you see being done to prevent such an attack?

Secretary Ridge: Well, first of all, I hope I interpret your question correctly. First of all we have, as partners in the international coalition with Singapore, a level of information and intelligence sharing that I think has added to the security of both of our countries. As the international coalition grows, regardless of whether it is the United States or Singapore, as we gain more information about potential terrorist attacks in other parts of the world, as members of the world community I think we’ll be able to contribute to the security of the citizens in other countries as well. Because there are more people gaining more information about the terrorists - who they are, where they are and how they operate than ever before. And that coalition continues to expand.

It’s difficult to comment specifically on the nature of any particular threat, but from America’s point of view, the threat reporting that we continue to review -- in spite of the enormous additional measures we have taken to secure our commercial aviation in the United States -- it still seems to be an interest, not exclusively, but an interest of Al-Qaeda to return and use airplanes in the same way. So from the curb to the cockpit door, we have layered-in various measures of security. We have, as you well know, now trained screeners both for passengers and for baggage. We deploy explosive detection technology. We’ve gone from a handful of air marshals to literally thousands – the numbers are classified. We’ve hardened cockpit doors, are training flight crews, some of them volunteering to be trained in the use of firearms. So from the curb to the cockpit, we feel we’ve added layered security, so that commercial aviation is more secure today than it’s ever been before.

One of the challenges that we have, I think, -- and I suspect that the Minister would agree with me -- is that from time to time we seek to have, based on information we may have, host countries or other countries not only beef up their basic security at international airports, but potentially even use air marshals on flights. There is a difference of opinion around the world as to whether or not air marshals can or should be used. But by and large, I think, with the support of the Government of Singapore and others around the rest of the world, we are seeing a significant enhancement for commercial aviation internationally.

It makes no difference whether or not the next terrorist attack on an airplane is on a domestic United States airliner, or an airliner that embarks from any other country. The consequences on international aviation would be significant, would be huge, would be mammoth. In the globalization of commerce, in the globalization of communication, in the mobility of the world, we cannot afford - no country can afford - to be so lax that it ends up being an open invitation for the terrorists to undermine one of the basic infrastructures, underpinnings, of the international economy, and that’s commercial aviation.

Moderator: If I could make a brief plug for the Institute. This issue which you raised has been discussed in a recent working paper, available on our website, entitled “Fireballs on the Water.” Could I invite the next question please?

Secretary Ridge: I suspect the working paper was more articulate and more to the point than my answer, so I invite you to visit the website. (Laughter and applause.)

Q3: Secretary Ridge, earlier on, you called on all governments’ governors and mayors to rally to the call. I’d like to say that we would like to rally to your call in the fight against terrorism. I’m Mayor Zainul Abidin Rasheed from Singapore. Sir, we all agree with you that diversity can and is a strength, but as Minister Wong mentioned just now, in the polyglot we do have strands of divisiveness, fault lines, even madness. There’s a Malay saying which goes, “If you pull a strand of hair out of a pile of flour, by all means pull out this hair, but make sure that the pile of flour remains intact.” So, in your fight against terrorism, how do you ensure that your strategies are understood, in particular, what kind of problems do you face when you meet, for example, the majority Muslims, other countries who may have reservations about the techniques and the tactics used? How do you ensure that there’s better understanding? How do you understand them – their aspirations, their frustrations and how do you make them understand your strategies? Thank you.

Secretary Ridge: Hopefully, the understanding is a result of an appreciation of how we view the threat, an appreciation of how our country is going about dealing with it in a way that enables us to keep our doors open and our borders secure. Hopefully, the understanding is derived from knowledge based on what we are now doing differently than even we did in the year after.

Clearly there was some concern in the international community about the first entry-exit system; countries have the legitimate right -- any country, anywhere -- to monitor those people and those goods that come across their borders. It is not only a right, it is a responsibility to your citizens. Immediately after 9/11, we set up a registration program that was not universal. It was called NSEERS, and there were certain people from certain countries that had to not only register, they had to come back in 30 days and report, and then within a year report again. That was the first reaction to 9/11.

In order for us to continue to be the kind of country we want to be, we needed to design a system that didn’t take in nationality as an element in any kind of screening, any kind of process. We needed a process that could be universally applied, so that regardless of where you came from, regardless of your ethnicity, regardless of your religious beliefs or background, when you came to the United States, there was one system that applied to everybody. I think people understand that. When you design systems that are targeted to one group or another, you justifiably can anticipate a reaction that you are profiling them, and that it is discriminatory.

The U.S.-VISIT System that we have undertaken at our airports and our seaports is universal, across the board. If you come in to the United States, and you are not from a visa waiver country, we are going to take a photograph and fingerprints. In time we think we’ll do this not just for security reasons, but in time -- when we get the technology -- we can speed and expedite your processing through our borders more quickly. Right now, if you come to the United States, even under a U.S.-VISIT, you may have a preliminary screening. A member of the Homeland Security Department probably may ask you several questions, just to confirm your identity. But once we have the technology in the consular offices that can confirm you are the individual that sought the passport, got the passport, and you are the individual coming to our country, I think we are going to make it quicker for you to get through our doors. And that’s what we want to do. We want aligned systems, universally applied that can make it easier for people all around the country to get through. The same thing applied with the SEVIS system.

I have to tell you, we did not do a good job for entering students in the year 2002. There were too many students left on the doorstep; a lot of international students were not only inconvenienced, but some of them endured some significant financial impact. We know in the Department as well that we ought to do a better job, because we want foreign students. We need foreign students, because of what they contribute to our communities and our schools. I think we’ve done a better job, but we still have some additional work to do. When universal systems apply, we can secure ourselves and also move people and groups around much quicker than we’ve done before. Hopefully, the more we talk about universal application in the use of technology that has no bias, we’ll be better understood.

Open doors and secure borders, economic prosperity and security. They all go hand in hand, and it’s our mission to find ways to accomplish those mutual goals.

Q4: Mr. Secretary, after 9/11, there were many reports about miscommunications and inter-agency problems. You have this tremendous task of getting 22 organizations and departments to work together --to what extent are you satisfied or not satisfied that you are getting sufficient integration?

Secretary Ridge: We still have real work to do. There have been several challenges associated with really integrating and building the Department -- internal integration to your point -- and then getting access to other federal departments, as well as working with our state and local governments. In our federal government, we have the responsibility and the need to pull them in as partners.

So I will tell you, at the end of the first year, I think we have made a great deal of progress in connecting ourselves with the CIA and the FBI. We are not a collection agency; we are not in the business of gathering intelligence in the Department of Homeland Security. Our job is to take that intelligence, as it relates to a domestic threat and as it relates to a specific target, take the threat or target, and see whether or not there is sufficient security and if not, see to it that adjustments are made. That process of getting access to the intelligence community is coming along quite nicely.

Internally, the whole process is really centered around how we connect our information technology from these different units -- so that we end up at a single point of fusion within our department. Then we begin to pass that information on down to our state and local governments, because we have in the United States - given the population - we have six to seven hundred thousand local police. If they are empowered with information, they hopefully have got the vigilance and the knowledge so that -- the local police -- can identify a threat before it happens, a terrorist incident. So I would say as we take a look at what we’ve done the first year, external integration is good and getting better; internal integration, I think, as we link up is very well, but we still - considering the enormity of the task - we still have several years to go. But the first thing we are trying to do is hook ourselves up to our states and locals, because they need to be partners in this information sharing. The other piece of integration, procurement systems and the whole management business, that’s going to take some time.

But getting actionable information is at the heart of fighting terrorism -- getting information you can act on -- whether it’s Indonesia and we move forward or something. The minister is interested in bio-terrorism, and we’ve made significant investments in the technology of detection, bio-detection, monitoring air quality, picking pathogens out of the air. That’s information that public health officials can act upon, getting information to local officials, actionable information they can act upon. So information sharing is at the heart of what we do in preventing an attack. Our primary efforts in the past year plus, the number one goal, is to do a better job of sharing it, analyzing it, and getting it out to people who can act on it.

Q5: There have been some voices raised within the U.S. concerning the possibility of preventing certain nationals from particular countries from actually gaining access to higher education in some technical disciplines -- like engineering or physical sciences. In fact, I believe that some conservative columnists actually have said that if such individuals from certain countries who are known to be enemies of the U.S. have such access to such kinds of education, you know, they might go back to their countries or join militant networks and then become terrorists armed with that kind of education which might be used against the U.S. For example, I can’t remember the name of one particular columnist, we shouldn’t be, our universities shouldn’t be training the next so and so using education which he got from the U.S., so how strong is this kind of sentiment?

Secretary Ridge: I think it is appropriate for any country -- and there are many countries that have rich and extraordinary universities, yu have several in this country and in this region -- I think every country needs to, in a post 9/11 environment, to look carefully at those who may have access to that kind of education to make sure its ultimate use is to enhance a greater good, rather than to be a part of any evil design, any terrorist design.

We are very sensitive to that notion in the United States, and at the same time, sensitive to the enormous contributions of foreign students in our laboratories, in our graduate schools, and how much they contribute. Because part of the antidote to combating terrorism is to educate foreign students, not just in the sciences or the disciplines that they may gain because of their attendance at the university, but hopefully in appreciation for the openness and diversity and the multi-culturalism in our country. So again, I think there have been occasions where we will look very carefully into individual applications with regard to access to particular kinds of programs; but I must tell you that the mind set, as we take a look at this, is really to keep the door open and not to close it. And, it is an exception when a student would be denied access to that. But there is a process, a review process to make sure that, based on intelligence and information, only those who would use their education as a means to further a greater good, whether they stay in our country or return to their own, get access to that academic discipline. The mind set is to be open, and the exception is to close the door.

Q6: You spoke of the need not to defend liberty to forsake it. You may be aware that in Malaysia in the last week there has been a hunger strike as alleged terrorist detainees have been protesting their detention without trial, and that within Singapore, more than 30 people are being held without trial. There is also a controversy in your own country about detention and the use of military tribunals. Overall, critics are saying that with regard to the rule of law, we are lowering our standards. So my two precise and brief questions: firstly, with regard to the military tribunals in your country, and particularly the case of the two Australians, is that not a lowering of standards?; and secondly, in relations to the detainees in Malaysia and Singapore, should Malaysia and Singapore bring their detainees to fair and open trial?

Secretary Ridge: I think, with regard to the second part of your question, as we try to combat global terrorism – and we’ve got partners in that effort -- we also recognize that within their own countries there are security measures that are constitutionally or legally protected that these countries have undertaken -- perhaps not necessarily consistent with what another country could do, but certainly consistent with that sovereign nation’s need to respond to terrorists or terrorist incidents. Presumably you are referring to the Internal Security Act or internal control act. For that reason, we recognize the sovereign differences and work with the respective governments as they deem fit to deal with the threat, terrorism to their citizens and their economy.

With regard to Guantanamo, one of the important… one of the attributes of our system of governance is that the decisions made by the Executive Branch in pursuit of the war powers is reviewed all the way up to the Supreme Court. While there have been transparent challenges to our ability to retain people in Guantanamo, again -- in a post 9/11 world -- as we respond to different threats against the internal security not only the United States but the rest of the world, this is an appropriate use of executive powers, subject to review and confirmation by our court system.

I think you’re going to find that in time, not only as the United States but these other countries deal with the scourge of international terrorism, we may adjust as we learn more about terrorism -- to the means we deploy to detain, interrogate and use information. For the time being, it is an appropriate use of the executive powers to combat international terrorism in the United States.

We continue to have ongoing discussions with different governments with regard to the retention of individual citizens from other countries at Guantanamo, and will continue to have those, and let the State Department and others make decisions on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. But with regard to our friends, our global partners in this war against international terrorism, they have chosen to deploy means that are consistent with their law, and with their views what they need to do to protect their citizens and their society, and we will work with them according to those needs.

Moderator: Since the questions refer to the Internal Security Act, could I invite Minister Wong Kan Seng to respond.

Singaporean Minister Wong Kan Seng: Since you ask about the Singapore standard in using the Internal Security Act, let me state here that we make no apology for using the Internal Security Act to deal with terrorists. In fact, post-September 11, we know that this Act in particular has indeed helped us to nip the problem in the bud. And Malaysia too has a similar Act, and Malaysia too has been effectively using the Act to deal with these troublemakers and terrorists. Although we arrest these people and detain them under the Internal Security Act, there is a particular process for review. The safeguard there is that we have an Advisory Board, chaired by a High Court judge with two other prominent citizens. They review the whole process of detention, they look at the evidence, they interview the officers who conducted the operation and dealt with the case, and they examine the evidence. At the same time, they also hear and review statements given by the detainees. The detainees themselves also have access to appeal counsel and, from what I know, from the 30-odd cases of the detained, 2 of them engaged a counsel to defend them. And that process is reviewed and eventually a submission by the board to the President of the Republic of Singapore. Although the cabinet makes the decision on the detention, if the Board thinks otherwise, the President has the prerogative to decide which view to take, that is whether of the Cabinet or the Advisory Board. So I would say that many countries regretted that they didn’t have an Act like that before Sept. 11. We know some of our friends and neighbors lamented that they couldn’t act like Singapore because they don’t have such a piece of legislation. In the case of Australia, I know that they have also started a similar legislation, and if you will examine the ingredients of the particular legislation, you will find that they are not far from what we have in the ISA.

Q7: Since we are talking about the 21st century, can you share with us the progress of the United States against cyber terrorism and cyber threats? My thoughts are purely on the indication of threats, such as an electronic Pearl Harbor, for example.

Secretary Ridge: One of the new components of the Department -- we’ve pulled in 22 separate agencies and units, but we have also created a few new units within the Department. One is the “Infrastructure Protection Unit,” and at the heart of that is a very robust Cyber Security Unit. And, as part of our national strategy, we have engaged the private sector to work with the government to identify cyber weaknesses, to identify vulnerabilities, to identify responses.
We are connected very, very aggressively with many universities around the country. Carnegie-Mellon comes to mind, but there are plenty of others that deal with cyber security issues; we will not achieve our goal of securing our country and freedom-loving people around the world without them. The government cannot do it alone.

We need partnerships with academic institutions and the private sector. So we have in the United States partnerships with the leadership out of the technology sector, perhaps an individual who runs a cyber company and is well recognized within the cyber community. But his leadership, and the partnership we have with the private sector, helps to identify in advance some problems, to quickly see if there is a particular kind of attack that we need to design an antidote or a remedy, real quickly. So we have a very good and dynamic working model between the government agencies and the private sector and the academic community to deal with cyber terrorism.

Unfortunately, in the post-9/11 world, you think about the worst cases, but a physical attack -- accompanied by a cyber attack -- in a particular community would make the response and the recovery enormously difficult, if not almost impossible. A cyber attack, if you’re trying to combat or prevent a catastrophic economic event -- the backbone of successful economies these days happens to be the internet and the cyber world --and an incursion in a malicious way can cause enormous physical and economic disruption. So we pay very close attention. It is a unit that is expanding in connection with the private sector and academic community.

Q8: My question is this: if Mr. Kerry wins the next election in the United States, what will be the impact in the American foreign policy in the area?

Secretary Ridge: Well, first, it probably comes as to no surprise to you that I am opposed to that outcome. (Laughter) That may or may not be news. It probably is not news.

I think that...let me just put it this way, in this contested election the President’s leadership and approach to how we dealt with Afghanistan and Iraq will certainly be a seminal issue, one that’s highly debated. I am quite confident in the ability of -- I am grateful for -- the leadership that our President has taken. I am confident in the ability of the United States to understand that, but I’m going to let the presidential candidates air their views and let America make the decision.

One of the decisions that the President and I have made is that Homeland Security is an issue and an office that lends itself to, in many instances, an apolitical or bipartisan approach. We’ll let the politics of this summer and fall play themselves out. But you know clearly who I’m voting for, and I think you probably know why. Thank you.