Janet Napolitano, former US Secretary of Homeland Security HARDtalk

-- what it calls "combined operations".

Welcome to HARDtalk, with me, Zeinab Badawi.

World leaders are all grappling with similar problems these days -

how to counter terrorism, enhance security and manage

national borders, while at the same time remaining open to the benefits

My guest is someone whose job that was, Janet Napolitano.

She was homeland security chief for five years under

She's also a former governor of Arizona, a US border state.

How does she think we can make the world a safer place and respect

Janet Napolitano, welcomed the HARDtalk. When you look around the

world today you see almost daily acts of terror, insecure borders and

the rest of it. You can't really, you are fighting a losing battle,

are due? The world is a very troubled place. Everyone would agree

with that and it is a very troubled place. Everyone would agree with

that and the rise of jihad and the huge migration patterns that are

under way. If you look at what your successor has said, he says he is

very worried about the soft targets, the public places. For instance, in

December last year we saw the San Bernardino killings, 14 people

killed by a couple, a Pakistani wife and her husband say it for rook.

That kind of attack is practically impossible to do anything about. --

Syed Farook. You had a few, the Times Square bomber. Yes, the Boston

Marathon, among others. When you think about something like San

Bernardino, they call it leaderless jihad, in other words, people who

had become converted to that theory of violence and they aren't part of

an organised group and there's nothing to intercept and there's no

travel to stop and they just go and commit an unspeakable act of

violence. It is also the kind that is directed abroad. We saw that with

the so-called Underwear Bomber in Christmas of 2009. That, from a

security interception possibility gives you greater odds. You famously

said at the time that the system worked but it was actually his

fellow passengers who overpowered him and they realised that the bomb

failed to detonate. -- when they realised. It was a lucky escape,

however I was talking about how immediately upon that episode we

were able to get control over all US bound international air travel and

confirm every single passenger that was on the way to the United States.

That was part of a system that... He got on a plane with underwear that

had explosives in it and it failed to detonate properly. It is

interesting, Janet Napolitano, that you are citing the attacks by

jihadists because when you look at the figures it is quite striking

that since the September the 11th attacks in the United States 400,000

people in the US have died from gunfire, violence, and the 45, very

tragic obviously, from jihadist of violence. So the numbers don't stack

up. 12% of attacks in the US are jihadist inspired. So why the focus

from you, when the figures don't justify that perhaps? I think that

focus on jihad really drives from September the 11th, when we had over

3000 Americans killed in the towers in New York, with flight 93 and so

forth. For Americans to have that kind of an attack that comes from

abroad and attacks iconic sites it was a real game changer for the

United States. But the implication of what you are saying is that fear

is driving security policy in the United States. I think in the United

States, and it is sad to say and I don't agree with it as a matter of

policy, but in general there is a greater acceptance of risk of dying

in some way with gunfire. But not an acceptance of risk with dying by

terrorism. So security policy focuses on the counter-terrorism

aspect. So when Barack Obama said after the San Bernardino attacked in

this -- in December, as we become better at dealing with complex

attacks like September said -- September 11, that is the benchmark

of security, we are successful if we avoid a massive jihadist attack.

Whatever else happens. I don't think so. You want to avoid other kind of

attacks as well. But in the United States most street crimes, violent

crimes, are not handled at the federal level but at the local

police departments or State Department of police. It is

prosecuted under different laws. I think it is evaluated as a different

type of risk. Can I just say that it is interesting because when you were

a homeland security chief there was a report published that had been

commissioned by George Bush and it was released when you were in the

position. It said lone wolves and small terrorist cells in bracing

right-wing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic

terrorism threat to the United States. So it's not just regular

gunfire that poses the biggest threat, is it? No. It is the right

wing extremists. We have violent extremists of all types in the US.

Unfortunately. What you have to do from a security perspective is,

using the best kind of information you can glean, consistent with civil

liberties, with information sharing, data collection and all that, do

everything you can to prevent and then be in a position to immediately

respond. The fact is, it is because of that, as you say, in the US the

perception is the jihadist threat after 9/11 is what really should

people up. Look at the Oklahoma bombing in 1995... I worked on that

case too. Right. So because of the attention on the jihadist threat,

arguably there aren't enough resources being spent on the

threat, the internal threat, from right-wing extremists. They cite

people who say they should be much more done to try to put resources

into right-wing extremists. I do think when we are planning security

in the United States we sit down and say, that the jihadist, that's a

right-winger, we are going to put money here or there. No, the notion

is, where can you invest resources to be the most effective for public

safety? When you look at the links between American jihadist --

jihadists, like the one killed in 2011 in Yemen by a US drone attack,

it was an American citizen living in the US. Why does somebody like that

escape surveillance and is not stopped before they go on to commit

greater acts of violence? Well, he was an interesting case. He was a

cleric at a mosque outside of Washington, DC. After the attack of

9/11, he was on TV as a kind of moderate Muslim condemning the

attack. Boaties preachings got more radical. He went to England, went to

Yemen and he became the voice of AQAT and then he became their

operational head. That was a turning point in a sense of the president

was a willingness to authorise a drone attack on an American citizen.

How do you identify and catch people like that? Also the Boston bombers,

which happened on your watch, the two Brothers, another who left the

US and the FBI closed the investigation before he came back.

You clearly need better surveillance. I think you have to

think about what kind of surveillance. Al-Awlaki was in

Yemen. It is very difficult to find individuals in Yemen. It is

difficult to see Dale, even though there was close watch on what he was

putting out on internet. The vast majority were reading al-Awlaki's

sermons. But airport records? You mentioned that was relevant with the

Underpants Bomber. We did a lot of work after that because it revealed

a gap in international air information system and we fixed

that. But we spent a year working with the UN and others to fix that.

With the Boston bombers, these were young men, the sons of those who had

fled from Russia. One went back. That's the older one. Yes. But there

was no information, other than what the Russians said, that while he was

in Russia he had somehow engaged in or become radicalised to the point

of violence and indeed the records show that the VI -- the FBI

interviewed him, they spoke to family members. They followed up on

the lead. The Russians provided no more information. So they closed the

case. And he was an ethnic Chechens. Talking about the road of technology

and surveillance, there is great concern that whatever you are trying

to do is going to be subject to perhaps cyber attack. You have said

the United States may face some kind of major cyber event. Hywel Reddy is

the US if something like that was to happen that could shut down

infrastructure? -- Hywel Reddy. This is one of the risks for many

countries of the world, not just the United States, that we are so

willing to buy technology that there can be a major attack carried out

through that. It could be committed to different nation states, but also

different individuals using again the internet as... Weaponising it in

a way. Very difficult to prevent, difficult to respond to. The US is

not prepared if something like that happened? It would be a calamity? It

could be. It depends on what it is, where it is, the extent of the

attack, the technology used in the attack. There are lots of things

that you have to go through. But, yes, in certain circumstances it

could be calamitous. What is the nature of the threat exactly? Could

it be some terror cells that are extremely good technology, all

states that perhaps don't see eye to eye? Nationstates? It could be

either. Actually, in terms of the kind of cyber crimes we have seen

from the United States side, attribution is one of the most

difficult aspects because you can see the attack, you can see what's

happening on the systems et cetera. We do have things in place to stop

attacks on three are detected, but the attribution can be awfully

difficult. Talking about technology, there's quite a controversy going on

at the moment because the federal court has said that it wants Apple

to unlock the phone of the San Bernardino shooters and Apple is

resistant with that. Right. The two top senators on the intelligence

committee says there should be legislation to force companies to

provide such information. What do you think? There's this tension

between privacy rights and security, it is becoming more

apparent. The Apple case puts a fine point on it. In my view, from what

I've read, I do not all of the details, but from what I've read

icon clue bat in all Lord there's no Apple exception. If you've shown by

the information is necessary, that law enforcement should prevail and

in previous cases that has generally been the case. But it is this

balance between as you say the rights of citizens, the right to

privacy, although with this case I think the phone was a work phone,

but at any rate the chief executive of Apple Tim Cook says the

implication of the demands are chilling. He says the worry is that

if the software was developed foreign governments and criminals

could break into many other phones and so that degrades privacy for

all. So the commercial company says it is protecting the rights of the

citizens. I don't know the basis for his statement. You have to

understand what exact knowledge you we are talking about. Is it new

technology that has to be developed? If you did it for this case, under

these unique circumstances, why does that open the door for all phones

and foreign governments able to use it? I don't know whether Apple is

stating its case accurately or perhaps overstating its case in

order to make a point. So you would back legislation that would compel

companies to assist the FBI or other law enforcement agencies to unlock

phones of people, as in the case of this couple?

My view is that the law as it currently exists should enable law

enforcement to prevail. I would say that one of the undercurrent here is

where you deploy resources. -- undercurrents. What do you do when

you follow up on the one Austin bomber and you can't find anything?

-- Boston. Do you put him under surveillance? Where do you focus

efforts? Trying to access a phone or computer? They don't do that all the

time. It is a resource issue. I have to see that the FBI has many reasons

it has put forward to the court as to why this information is

necessary. What about the debate with President Obama talking about

Muslims, going to visit a mosque this year, you cannot abandon values

or given to fear. -- give in. When we talk about Muslims and the

jihadist threat you have to make sure you don't change an entire

community in the US. Muslims are by and large very well integrated into

society. That is important. Extremely important. It is not easy

because these kind of situations happen. No answer makes everyone

completely happy. What is the best decision I can make based on the

facts given to me. And in the Apple versus FBI situation, the San

Bernardino shooters, there is a debate to intercept phone calls or

get information that already exists. I don't know of an Apple

exception. So when the hopeful for the Republican Party says he wants a

temporary ban on Muslims entering the US until all four trees can

figure out what is going on... -- authorities. It resonates with many

Americans, doesn't it? Donald Trump is a leading contender, I would say

the lead contender right now. Do you think you will get the nomination?

If you look at the delegates and the states, he is in a very good

position to get his party's nomination. But I would say without

caveat that the statement about banning all Muslims on the basis of

religious faith is very much contrary to American values. Another

issue he has played within particular in the race for the

presidency is that of migrants. In 2014, according to peer research,

11.3 million unauthorised migrants entered the United States, half from

Mexico. You are the governor of Arizona, or were, which borders

Mexico... He is talking about building a fence. You have said you

are not supportive of that. What do you do? Let me just say that not

only was I the governor of Arizona, a border state, I corrupt in

Mexico, I spent my whole life there. -- grew up. I have spent a lot of

time on that border and know it well. My view is, show me a ten foot

wall and I will show you a ten foot ladder. A wall is not adequate and

is very expensive and doesn't solve anything. You need an immigration

policy that makes it easier for immigrants to come lawfully. How

immigration law is desperately in need of reform. -- Our. I worked a

lot on that when I was Secretary of Homeland Security. That is a key

part of migration policy. The underlying law doesn't work very

well. When you were in Homeland Security you had a programme called

the Secure Communities Programme. Under that 2 million were deported

last year. America is expelling illegal immigrants and nine times

the rate of two years ago. He is outpacing any previous president,

Barack Obama. That is partly you're doing. Is that something you can

really be proud about? -- your. That programme was an asset to say,

look, we cannot deport everybody in the US illegally. -- effort. We

don't have the resources for that. Let's focus on other crimes in

addition to immigration crimes. Where do you find those people?

Jails and presence in the US. -- prisons. That programme was a data

base of... The criticism was that you didn't focus on criminals and

deport them. This person says it is not focused on dangerous criminals,

it is as significant amounts of tax dollars to sweep up those who pose

no threat to the community. That was 2010. There have been numerous

criticisms. There have been criticisms and evolution is in the

programme. -- evolutions. Anything new is subject to evolution. I would

disagree with that criticism. That is not how it was carried out.

204,000 parents of American children deported between 2010 and 2012, that

attracted criticism. One example, the president of the University of

California, one person there said it has torn apart families more than

any other administration, the Obama administration. That is partly your

record. You have to put it into context. What immigration

enforcement is. Their right instances where we would not have

deported but the law made us. -- There are. We are seeking to reform

that law. When you became president of the University of California

there were concerns because of your past as Homeland Security chief.

This student says he doesn't know what your goal is because you come

from a background of Homeland Security. We have about 190,000 what

we would call undergraduate students and another 40,000 students. We are

the largest public university in the US. And we have about 3500 also who

are undocumented and we provide financial assistance, we have a

learning programme, special centres for them, and we work with them,

because they are in this very difficult circumstance. When I was

Secretary of Homeland Security, I recognised that. We did the first

executive action to defer deportation on young people who had

been brought here and grown up in the US but had come here illegally.

Briefly, you are supporting Hillary Clinton for the nomination for The

Democratic Party. You have a record of public service, why didn't you

run yourself? Because I love being the president... Of the University

of California. Thank you very much for coming on HARDtalk. A pleasure.

Thank you. Thank you. Rather belatedly we are seeing

more typical winter weather. We don't have to worry

about flooding and rain,