Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Michael Chertoff is a man charged with a large and diverse portfolio, ranging from monitoring terrorist activity to keeping the country's borders safe to fending off environmental disaster. 

Chertoff came to his post after devoting most of his adult life to the law. He has served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals, as a federal prosecutor, and as assistant U.S. attorney general. A 1975 magna cum laude graduate of Harvard College and a 1978 magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, Chertoff served as a clerk to United States Supreme Court Justice William Brennan from 1979 to 1980.  

Chertoff went into private practice for three years before joining Rudolph Giuliani, then the U.S. attorney for Manhattan, as a prosecutor of organized-crime and political-corruption cases.  

He was quite successful in this area, occasionally earning the grudging respect of the very individuals who found themselves behind bars courtesy of his courtroom expertise. According to published reports, convicted Mafia boss Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno said Chertoff, who received a promotion for his work on Salerno's case, owed him a thank-you note.  

Chertoff was confirmed by the Senate in 2001 to serve as assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. While in this role, he oversaw the investigation of the September 11 terrorist attacks and helped draft the USA Patriot Act. Chertoff also formed the Enron Task Force, the creation of which led to more than 20 convictions, including those of company heads Jeffrey Skilling and Ken Lay. 

He also served as special counsel for the U.S. Senate Whitewater Committee.  

The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002 in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Its mission is to protect the United States from terrorist attacks and to respond to domestic emergencies and natural disasters.  

In his capacity as leader of the DHS, Chertoff oversees new endeavors such as the REAL ID Act, designed to make travel safer by requiring new security standards for drivers' licenses and ID cards; and continues to work to make the country's borders with Canada and Mexico less porous.  

In light of the Gulf Coast hurricane catastrophes, Chertoff has also been instrumental in redesigning the response of federal and local governments to environmental calamities. 

A native of Elizabeth, N.J., Chertoff, 54, is the son and nephew of rabbis, both of whom officiated at his wedding, and is himself active in the Jewish community. His children attended Jewish private schools and his wife, Meryl, a fellow Harvard
College and Harvard Law School grad, was active in the regional Anti-Defamation League's civil rights committee. 

Rail-thin, Chertoff stays in shape by running and kayaking. He likes to unwind in front of the television set, watching "24" and, until recently, "The Sopranos," and reportedly has said that he would have liked to have had a cameo role on that program. 

Chertoff says that life in the United States is safer today than it was seven years ago, but vigilance is key if it is to remain that way. 

Chertoff shared his thoughts on U.S. internal and external security concerns in a recent interview with Senior Editor Janet Lubman Rathner.  

Q: What are the biggest threats to U.S. security today? And are we safer than we were before 9/11? 

Well, we're definitely safer than we were before 9/11, although we still live in a world where there are some serious threats out there. Al Qaeda remains committed to carrying out mass casualty attacks against the United States and our friends in other parts of the world. There are other terrorist groups—extremist terrorist groups—[that] are also threats to our interests here and abroad. And even significant transnational organized crime and smuggling organizations pose a threat to our security, although of a lesser dimension than terrorism. 


Q: How big of a threat are terrorists crossing the border? I know that you believe there might be more to fear from terrorists crossing the Canadian border than from the Mexican boundaries.  

Historically, when we've had terrorists enter the United States or other countries, they have come though the ports of entry using false documents. But we have seen instances where they came between the ports of entry, and that certainly remains a live possibility, so we have to monitor all of the areas of entry.  

As far as the difference between the Canadian border and the Mexican border, obviously the volume of people who come in illegally through Mexico is much greater than through Canada, but we've seen historically a few occasions where there were people with terrorist connections in Canada [who] did cross the border into the United States.  

And there are some groups in Canada that have affiliations with terrorists, and some were the subject of a law enforcement operation a couple of years ago. So we have to mind both borders. 

Q: Any thoughts about one [border] being more of an issue than another?  

I don't like to put it that way. I think we have to just evaluate each border in terms of its own particular challenges.


Q: Is Al Qaeda more dormant than it was?  

The news may not report it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. If you look, there was a bombing in Pakistan, and in the last couple of months…some FBI agents were killed. There was the assassination of [former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir] Bhutto. I'm not saying Al Qaeda did that itself, but the Pakistanis have identified [the possible killer as] Baitullah Mehsud, who was certainly an ally of Al Qaeda.  

We have the Islamic Jihad Union plot in Germany that was disrupted last year. We saw a terrorist plot in London last summer. So they're very active. They have not succeeded in carrying out an attack in this country since 9/11, but it's not that they haven't tried.

We had the August 2006 airline plot, which was directed at air travel between the U.K. and the U.S., and that was an example of the kind of plot that we were lucky enough and skillful enough to disrupt.  

Q: What about unaffiliated individuals who might be influenced by groups?  

Well, we worry about not only Al Qaeda or groups that are allied with Al Qaeda, but we worry about individuals who might radicalize themselves and find themselves as kind of kindred spirits with Al Qaeda. An individual who is like a lone wolf is unlikely to be able to carry out a high-consequence attack, but they could still do some real damage. 

Q: How should Israel and the United States deal with Hezbollah and Hamas, given the somewhat positive attitudes of some governments toward these groups?  

Well, I can't tell you what Israel does. I can tell you what the United States ought to do. We do regard these as potentially dangerous groups. Hezbollah has not carried out an attack against American interests recently, but, if you go back to the Khobar Towers in 1996, I believe we indicted Saudi Hezbollah for that attack. And, of course, there were attacks in Lebanon, so they remain a potential threat. And Hamas has not struck against the United States in our country, but they've killed American citizens in the course of carrying out acts of terror in Israel. So I think terrorism in general has to be rejected. There's no good form of terrorism. 


Q: So can these groups be contained?  

Well, you mean Hamas and Hezbollah? I don't think "contained" is the right word. Hamas has not really struck against the United States in our country. Obviously the Israelis are going to deal with them to the extent they attack Israel. [With] Hezbollah, we do have to be mindful. We've had cases where we've arrested people who were doing fundraising for Hezbollah, committing criminal activities to support Hezbollah, and we have to remain vigilant with respect to these groups, too. 

Q: How big a threat is Iran? Do you believe the country is contributing to terrorist activities?   

I don't think there's any doubt that Iran contributes to terrorist activities, because [it is] very closely allied with
Hezbollah. And [it is] a force for disorder and violence in Iraq and in other parts of the Middle East. And were Iran to get a nuclear weapon, the danger [it] posed to the area would multiply.  

I would say that Iran is the state that poses the greatest risk to the peace and security of the Middle Eastern region.    

Q: President Bush has talked about [creating] a Middle East agreement before he leaves office. Do you believe this is feasible? And what progress has been made since the Annapolis Summit?   

I think Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice was just over there, and she's working with the Israelis and the Palestinians to try to move forward in the process. And I think we're just going to have to see what happens. 

Q: What threat, if any, does Venezuela pose to its Latin American neighbors and to the world? Do you think that terror elements are going to come out of Latin America?   

Well, Chavez had done everything he can to aggravate tension in the region. He's been hostile to the United States in his words. He's been very hostile to Colombia. He has been supportive of FARC [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia], which is a group that is [not only] a terror organization, but [also] a drug-trafficking organization. And he's also expressed affinity for Iran and Hezbollah.  

So he is creating a platform for groups to be active in South America that are adverse to interests in American security. And he's got the benefit of having a considerable amount of money from the oil revenues.  

Q: There's been a recent change of the guard in Cuba. Will this lead to any changes on the island and how the United States deals with that country?  

I think the U.S. would like to see freedom and democracy in Cuba, and we haven't seen that at this point. I think the message is clear that, at least as far as we're concerned, if there's going to be a change in our approach to Cuba, it will require [Cuba] moving toward a democratic and free society. 

Q: In light of what happened along the Gulf Coast following Hurricane Katrina, how is the Department of Homeland Security preparing for future environmental disasters?   

We've done a lot of planning [on] increasing our capabilities to respond to a disaster. But, of course, the main response continues to be at the state and local level. That's where the National Guard is and that's where the local responders are.  

So we want to encourage them to continue work with us to have good, practical plans to make sure that, at the local level and at the individual level, people are preparing. Much of the effectiveness of response depends on individual people having a plan to protect themselves, having some basic supplies, listening to the instructions of their local authorities on evacuation.  

So this has really got to be a network response. It's not just a federal government response.  
 

Q: There's been some controversy revolving around the Real ID Act. Some are claiming that it's infringing on privacy without any benefits to added security. Do you have any thoughts about that?   

I think the ACLU and ideological advocacy groups that oppose Real ID really often base their opposition on just misstating the facts. So here are the facts on security and privacy; this is a 9/11 Commission recommendation.  

If people are going to rely on driver's licenses for identification to get into airplanes or federal buildings, then they ought to meet certain basic standards of security in terms of who can get them and how resistant [such documents] are to being tampered with. Having secure identification is a critical element of having security.  

As far as privacy is concerned, a secure license protects privacy because it prevents people from forging a license in your name and pretending to be you. The arguments that have been made against it on privacy grounds are based on misrepresentations.  

For example, some people say there will be a big federal database. That's simply false. There's not going to be a big federal database. Some people say the government will be able to follow you around because of your license. That's also false. There's nothing in the license that would enable anybody to follow you around unless they physically walked around behind you, in which case the license really isn't the problem; the problem is someone following your person around.  

So an honest assessment of Real ID, I think, underscores that it promotes security, and it has no negative impact on privacy. If anything, it benefits privacy. But some of the opponents continue to distort what it is out of an ideological opposition. 
 

Q: What role does the private sector play in maintaining homeland security, such as an organization like B'nai B'rith? What can it do to help your department?   

I think every person—the way security really works is that every person—has to take some responsibility for themselves. If you have a plan for what you would do in an emergency, if you have some basic supplies—a radio that operates on a battery or crank…you prepare yourself in case something happens, and you know what you would do, you've already made a major contribution to homeland security.  

If you see something suspicious or unusual and you speak up on it, that's a major help to homeland security. The government can't take care of everybody at the same time, and the more people can help themselves, the easier it is for us to help those people protect themselves.