Tom Ridge on Homeland Security Secretary of Homeland Defense; Former Republican Governor (PA)

9/11 reaction: We will find those responsible

I stood there stone-faced, but my insides were churning. I thought of my own kids, and thousands of other children, who had by then viewed those horrible images from the Twin Towers over and over. Many thoughts and images came to mind. I stood silently in front of the cameras for about fifteen seconds--which in television is almost a lifetime. (Later aides told me that they thought they saw me tear up for the first time.) I responded, finally, more in terms of a dad than as a governor:

"It's pretty difficult to explain to your kids that there are people in the world who would kill innocent men, women, and children and subject them to the enormous terror associated with these events to advance a cause. There's nobody that's claimed, as I understand to date, responsibility for these acts. Whether they do or not, we will find them."

Nobody knew about Al Qaeda or radical Islam until 9/11

Yet in all my conversations with fellow governors over the years at our semiannual meetings I don't recall a single session devoted to domestic terrorism or to Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the man behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing), radical Islam generally, or Al Qaeda in particular. As we later learned, we were not alone on our ignorance or dismissal of this developing, malignant force. Information that emerged after 9/11 revealed th Central Intelligence Agency had tried to get the threat of imminent terrorism on the agendas of the White House and the FBI, with limited success. Neither the term "Al Qaeda" nor the name bin Laden was widely known until after the 1993 attack.

Governors must show up at disaster locations

As a governor, I'd had to deal with the results of floods, tornadoes, prison breaks, and terrible accidents. As difficult as that was, there was always a clear way to proceed. Rule number one: Go there, and do what you can to help. Identify with the suffering. There was a finality to other tragedies, but in this case, I wondered, "When will this end?" Moreover, the more I learned about the level of our preparedness as a nation, the more I understood the immense task ahead.

Overcome barriers between CIA and FBI

Guantanamo holds theological zealots, not POWs

Several months after the opening of the prison I met with a friend over dinner, an army general, who had been involved in many of the interrogations. "Some of those bastards," he said, "should remain on that rock forever." Others, he disclosed, were in the wrong place at the wrong time. We are still wrestling with how to distinguish who is and who is not a terrorist. We still argue about the type of due process, if any, and promise to close the prison without any clear plan of how we will deal with those we do identify as terrorists.

Post-9-11 goal: tell Americans specifics about threats

One of our key tasks would be to offer particulars and do it in such a way that they would contribute to a better understanding of what potential threats there might be and, we hoped, to an ever increasing confidence in the government's efforts to thwart them.

Duct Tape Debacle: public mocked our "Ready Campaign"

We decided to encourage people to be prepared for an emergency by having valuable, even lifesaving supplies at home. Our "Ready Campaign": we suggested three days' worth of food and water, a battery-operated radio, medical and emergency supplies, and home protection materials intended to seal off threats from atmospheric poisons. These materials included plastic sheeting and duct tape, to be stored in a "safe room."

The campaign had some unanticipated results: One was that there was a general run on duct tape and plastic sheeting in hardware and home supply stores.

Finally, duct tape became a metaphor and punch line for late-night comedians. Duct tape in an age of potential nuclear holocaust? Duct tape is a symbol of the Bush administration's nickel-and-diming of homeland security? Duct tape as Tom Ridge taking a great threat and reducing it to a home do-it-yourself project?

Threat advisory system: not politically told "Go to orange"

In spite of allegations of playing politics, as time went on, our office was more often than not the most reluctant to raise the threat level. Despite perception to the contrary, the White House couldn't, as a matter of course, call us up and say, "Go to orange, Tom." First, we would never have done so regardless of where the order originated. There would have been mass resignations, and no change in the threat level.

Let me make it very clear. I was never directed to do so no matter how many analysts, pundits, or critics say so. Secondly, the threat advisory system approved in 2002 created a system that included cabinet members whose consensus drove the recommendation. No one, not even the president, can unilaterally alter the threat level.

2001: Nation was not equipped to deal with bioterrorism

After 9/11, bioterrorism became a subject of widespread speculation and concern. A survey of health officials indicated the nation was not equipped to deal with terrorist attacks using biological weapons. The big problem, one official said, was "lack of basic public health infrastructure and preparedness that could thwart a terror attack of limit its effects."

Reinterpreting FISA secretly seems like unauthorized power

The 4th Amendment to the Constitution is unambiguous. Under no circumstance can we voluntarily surrender a constitutionally protected right.

After I left the administration, the White House inquired if I could publicly support the President's use of FISA. I said I could and would but felt it was imperative the White House work with Congress to amend the FISA statute to comport with the new electronic means of surveillance and the original congressional intent. At that point they lost interest in having this discussion. I never got a call to defend their use of FISA.

We will never celebrate a Victory over Terrorism Day

• Do I think America will ever celebrate a Victory over Terrorism Day when we can say with confidence and pride that we vanquished our extremist foes? No.
• Do I think there are philosophical and financial limits to the measures we should take to secure ourselves against this threat? Yes.
• Do I think America is willing to accept a certain level of risk of future attacks? I'm not certain.
• Should we accept some risk and get on with our lives? Yes!

No Orwellian oppression, but inconveniences are ok

On the domestic front, we didn't want neighbors to spy on each other, or patriots to turn into vigilantes. It wasn't our intention to fill citizens with unnecessary worry. We simply wanted people to become more aware of what was happening around them, to be on the lookout for anything that didn't look right.

OpEd: Diverted attention to terrorism for political gain

In almost any other situation in government or anywhere else, praising the boss would not be an issue. But in this case, citing "the result of the president's leadership" was loaded with political implication, and this was not lost on our critics. John Kerry had just been nominated for president at the Democratic Party convention. Our announcement, as delivered with the loaded words, was seen by some as a way to divert attention from that event and to reinforce in the minds of Americans that--even as Democrats enjoyed their hour upon the political stage--only the Republican incumbent could keep America safe.

OpEd: Ignored FOIA request from AP until he left office

On the other, cynical, hand, it did come out after the election that Ridge had met with hotshot Republican pollster Frank Luntz just 4 days before embarking on the 1st of his 16 trips to 10 swing states at the height of the campaign season.

We know about the meeting with the GOP pollsters because the Associated Press filed a Freedom of Information Act request for Ridge's daily appointment calendars, a request that Ridge's staff conveniently failed to comply with until 3 days after he left office. What we don't know is whether Luntz specifically focus-group-tested the phrase "We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security."

Deal with terrorism as a joint federal-state responsibility.

• Handling Information Needs.
  Many of the operational, programmatic, and funding activities associated with terrorism consequence management preparedness are classified because of national security. Thus, the sharing of critical information is hampered. State governments must be viewed as strong partners in the US’ national security efforts, particularly as related to terrorism.
• Managing Consequences.
  Managing the short- and long-term consequences of terrorism is among the responsibilities of state and local government supplemented by the resources of the federal government, coordinated by FEMA.
• Supporting Public-Private Cooperation.
  Terrorism preparedness efforts should be inclusive of key private sector entities such as defining the appropriate roles and responsibilities for public and private health and medical communities.
• Clarifying the Role of the National Guard.
  The role of the National Guard in terrorism response activities is to support federal, state, and local response agencies with equipment, facilities, and personnel. Any assignment of responsibility should enhance the nation’s terrorism consequence management capability and provide for the contingency of the National Guard being called to assist active and reserve components in dealing with a major military conflict.
• Federal Responsibility
  Governors recognize the need to coordinate programs among federal agencies to address domestic terrorism and appreciate the efforts of the National Domestic Preparedness Office. However, they encourage greater clarification of the currently fragmented structure of federal responsibilities and support increased cooperation among federal agencies to better enable states to plan for domestic terrorism responses. Governors urge appropriate funding, maximum coordination of program components, and coordinated service delivery within states and localities.

Include states in anti-terrorism planning.

The Issue

NGA’s Position