Michael Chertoff Quotes

The question to ask when you look at security is not whether this makes us safer, but whether it's worth the trade-off.

We all want security …. But we don’t need to simplify the debate to such an extent that we simply say we have to give up our liberties.

Some in Washington say that you have to trade your liberty for security.

Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive means of protection.

Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad.

Throwing money after security turns out to be a classic example of the law of diminishing marginal utility.

A security program where everything that is technical possible is done, undermines trust and in the long run produces less security.

If the concern is security, there needs to be evidence-backed policies to increase security and safety, while maintaining our liberties and freedoms. Policies that clamp down on freedoms and don't increase security empirically need to be outright rejected.

We have sold our birthright of freedom and justice for a mess of national security.

We must continue to be diligent in protecting Americans' civil liberties while preserving critical law enforcement tools we need to keep America safe.

Reducing future risks requires paying some immediate costs.

Our immediate job is defense. We will play offense soon enough, but right now it is defense…. Your job is to keep America free by making Americans feel safe again

When these attacks occur, as they likely will, we will wonder what more we could have done to stop them.

Those who are troubled by our existing programs are not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9-11. And those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties. The challenge is getting the details right and that is not simple.

You do the best you can, looking at precedent, in trying to anticipate where the Supreme Court is going to draw the balance between the protection of civil liberties and protecting the national security, and in some cases, we guessed wrong.

It's a genuine dilemma for governments, deciding how much information to share in this threat-filled era.

Safety has been my top legislative priority. I'm driven by the idea that safety is really a core function of government.

I am ready to debate how we fight terrorism without giving up our liberty.

Security has to be, and has long been, our government's top priority. It is imperative that we continue to diligently watch for potential threats by all appropriate means.

One of the biggest challenges for any Home Secretary - indeed, any government - is how we deal with emerging threats.

I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.

Liberty comes only after security.

We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.

Our need for public safety and our need for privacy are crashing into each other and we've got to sort that out.

The fact that other countries spy on their own people or spy on each other does not address the fact that the US is engaged in massive, bulk collection to the tune of 70.3 million telecommunications a month in France of perfectly innocent people. That has nothing to do with protecting the United States, and has nothing to do with really gathering any kind of meaningful intelligence on France. It is an overreach ... and I think the other countries are justifiably outraged .... As one of our founders said: Those who choose between liberty and security deserve neither.