September 12th, 2010
09:52 AM ET
4 years ago

Napolitano: U.S. will never be 'totally immune' from terrorism

(CNN) – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Sunday that the United States is “never going to be totally immune from threats” to its national security.

One day after the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Napolitano said in an interview with CNN’s Candy Crowley on "State of the Union" that the country is safer now than it was then, but added, “there is no 100 percent guarantee” that we won’t be attacked again.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff echoed Napolitano’s assessment.

“We have reduced the risk, we have not eliminated the risk,” Chertoff told Crowley on Sunday.

Napolitano said a small number of American citizens have become “radicalized to violence,” but said that it is “not unique” to the United States, “nor was it unanticipated that that could occur.”

soundoff (33 Responses)
  1. dogshoe

    America will not has immunity until she takes the power off the jews and let the Muslims got Jerusalem.

    September 12, 2010 11:12 am at 11:12 am |
  2. Christopher

    Actually, I have to disagree with Mrs. Napolitano. There IS a way that the United States can be almost totally free of threats: by butting out of the business of foreign countries.

    Seriously, 99% of the bad things that have happened to the United States, including 9/11, are linked to that or trying to dictate to people what they put into their own bodies (the drug trade, etc.).

    September 12, 2010 11:16 am at 11:16 am |
  3. Marcus

    the real ib – So, in two specific groups (coal and oil industry) the job loss rate under Obama is higher than it was under Bush.
    So?
    If you check every president since Truman, there's always a group of interest that fared better with his predecessor than with him. What matters is the whole big picture, in this case the job loss rate as a whole.

    September 12, 2010 11:17 am at 11:17 am |
  4. Matt

    Napolitano is wrong to a point. Domestic terrorism may happen from domestic dissidents but the reason for foreign terrorism is because the radical groups know that we have a weakness that can be exploited: Oil Dependence. Therefore, the extremeist groups use the tool and threaten the oil supply to bring us into line. The key to ending terrorism is eliminate the economic motive for it. If we had alternative energy that we can develop in abundance here, the Middle East would rapidly slip back into both a backwater and ideologically-driven world again. Money supply would dry up faster than the wells would stop producing. Suddenly, the US would not be the Great Satan and our money would be practically begged for. If we were serious about National Security, we would be actively and feverishly seeking energy independence – not this largely for show, puppet activities that the TSA makes us dance through every time we have to fly.

    September 12, 2010 11:26 am at 11:26 am |
  5. Tom-Vermillion Ohio

    "...never totally immune from terrorism...?" Perhaps so, after all, the word 'totally' is absolute in of and itself. There will always be 'nutcases', that is persons whose brains are somehow 'miswired'. That being said, does it NOT seam feasable that terrorism can be minimized or at least reduced by influential figures refraining from the 'labeling' that is prevailent in America these days? What sets people off? It all starts with words and perseived insults. From there it spends like a virus until somebody takes inappropriate action that fans the flames. The question is, is how do we put out those flames when the fire is small? Add more gasoline?

    September 12, 2010 11:29 am at 11:29 am |
  6. Joe

    Of course the US will never be without threats, then she would be out of a job. She's gonna make sure we have plenty of threats!!!

    September 12, 2010 11:35 am at 11:35 am |
  7. Rick McDaniel

    That is the sad statement, about the condition of the world we live in.

    September 12, 2010 11:36 am at 11:36 am |
  8. shepherd

    what a sham, a 911 truth activist asked napolitano about building 7 that came down in 7 secs at free fall speed in perfect symmtery without having any planes hitting it or having any significant fires on 911. this is controlled detonation and not terrorism. She chose not to respond instead requested that this be taken up with NY city council. what a sham to "see something , say something". we saw how building 7 came down . yet authorities refuse to nvestigate this! now who is the actual terrorrist?

    September 12, 2010 11:37 am at 11:37 am |
1 2