Malcolm Turnbull Quotes

The American people have got a touchstone: Which party voted for the tools necessary to protect America and which party didn't? And that's what I'm trying to get people to focus on.

This, in my view, is the highest responsibility of the President of the United States, which is to maintain the safety of the American people.

The threat is there. It's very real and it's continuing. And what the Obama people are doing, in effect, is saying, well, we don't need those tough policies that we had. That says either they didn't work, which we know is not the case - they did work, they kept us safe for seven years - or that now somehow the threat's gone away. There's no longer a threat out there, we don't have to be as tough and aggressive as the Bush administration was.

But I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing in regard to our security more than anything that I can remember in the past.

Different regions may require different strategies, as President Bush has noted, but not different basic principles. It's either collective security or selective security.

I've been involved in the intelligence side of the federal government for a long time. We all know that we have to have a balance between security to protect the American people and liberty. We take an oath to protect and defend the constitution and the American people.

The media needs to begin demanding to hear Hillary Clinton's answer on how her policies will affect Americans and their security.

I was appointed U.S. attorney by President [George] Bush on September 10th, 2001, and the world changed enormously the next day, and that happened in my state.I will make no apologies, ever, for protecting the lives and the safety of the American people. We have to give more tools to our folks to be able to do that, not fewer, and then trust those people and oversee them to do it the right way.

We can't simply scare people into giving up their rights, on the basis, oh, this protects us from terrorism.

I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security.

Donald Trump has called for extreme vetting for people coming into this country so that we don't bring people into the United States who are hostile to our bill of rights freedoms, who are hostile to the American way of life, but I will say, Donald Trump and I are committed to suspending the Syrian refugee program and programs on immigration from areas of the world that have been compromised by terrorism.

My first job as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe.

I am worried about this word, this notion - security. I see this word, hear this word, feel this word everywhere. Security check. Security watch. Security clearance. Why has all this focus on security made me feel so much more insecure? ... Why are we suddenly a nation and a people who strive for security above all else?

What I'm OK with is protecting the American people. What I'm OK with is, when people have the intent to come to this country and take American lives, that we are prepared to do what's necessary to gain the information to protect the people of this country.

When I went on Fox News people asked me why I was going on those shows. Are you kidding? You have to go, especially to people you don't agree with.

The following [addition to the Bill of Rights] would have pleased me: The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty or reputation of others, or affecting the peace of the [United States] with foreign nations.

If you represent all the people you should be able listen to someone who's pro-abortion are anti-abortion. Even though you might have a different view you should hear somebody who's pro-affirmative-action anti-affirmative action.

And we're being attacked because of what we do, not because of who we are. And by refusing to talk about that, I'm afraid the American people, at least, don't have a good idea of just how dangerous the threat is that we face.

If they listen to the military people, we probably wouldn't be having an ISIS right now.

Those who heralded the decision not to give law enforcement the tools necessary to protect the American people just simply don't see the world the way we do.

I always say to people, you know - someone goes, oh, well, what are you going to do about terrorist attacks and Muslims? We got to do something. And I go, don't let those in power trick you out of your freedoms by using your fear.

There are some people who make a big distinction between n - a, which they say is OK, and n - - . Now, in my view, it's important to know about that distinction, because some people put a lot of weight on it. I don't.

I believe only a free society can ever be truly secure. The goal should be to make terrorists feel threatened, not the American people.

I believe it is wrong to undermine public safety, and indeed public confidence in the concept of human rights, by allowing highly dangerous criminals and terrorists to trump the rights of the people of Britain to live in security and peace.

I think it's critical that we return national security issues to the center of the overall political debate in America.