it's important to note that michael chertoff actually gained immensely from the body scanners and will monitor across airports as well and your domestic terrorist status where does that stand right now i mean are you still declared a terrorist for the eyes of the government and how well you know what you're probably a domestic terrorism well because in my case they justify it by saying that i was an aggravation because of my anti-government statements in my lawsuits and public press releases so that would make quite a lot of people qualify qualify for that dubious designation and all they do it for is to still allow themselves warrantless surveillance warrantless searches and seizures and if you notice f.b.i. and homeland security are sitting very quietly right now because they're doing the same kind of spying as the n.s.a. is doing except no one the stuff that we know and they have an insatiable urge to continue getting more power more access julie davis it's amazing that the you know they expelled so many resources and money to shut down your case when really they could have just inv

last night, we interviewed michael chertoff about outgoing fbi director robert mueller. we should have said for the record that chertoff is chairman of the board of directors for b.a.e. systems, a "newshour" underwriter. >> brown: online, leon panetta kwame holman tells us more. >> holman: ray talked to former c.i.a. director and defense secretary. panetta today about how robert mueller helped transform the fbi, and the increasing and paul solman has more on today's jobs numbers including that's on making sense. all that and more is on our website newshour.pbs.org. judy? >> woodruff: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. on monday, we'll look at major league baseball's negotiations to penalize players that doped. i'm judy woodruff. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. "washington week" can be seen pbs stations.enin we'll see you online and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. thanks for joining us. goodnight. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us. >> and with the ongoing

an examination of the mueller era at the bureau we turn to former homeland security secretary michael chertoffo worked closely with mueller during george w. bush's administration. and julian zelizer. he's a princeton university professor of history and public affairs, and is the author of a book on the politics of national security. secretary chertoff, it's been said that director mueller had to oversee the transformation of the f.b.i. from a crime-fighting agent city to a national security one. in practical term what is did that mean? what had to change at the f.b.i.? >> well, of course, the f.b.i. continues to be a crime fighting mission but intelligence and prevention have to be equal priorities with prosecuting and punishing crimes after that they occur and that meant creating a career path that will foster the development of an intelligence capability. it meant to some degree centralizing the activities of what used to be a widely decentralized agency so you could have a coordinated approach to dealing with counterterrorism and perhaps most important it meant taking the f.b.i. overseas, p

more on the terror threat and what it means, we welcome former secretary of homeland security michael chertoff and jeffrey goldberg of bloomberg view. i want to start with you, secretary chertoff. really alarming details this morning. seems a very credible threat but not a specific target. operatives in place at least in one place, that's believed to be yemen, but here at home, these beefed-up security measures, what do you make of all this? why at home? >> well, first let me observe, as congressman ruppersberger did, that apparently the collection of this warning information came from the kinds of programs we've been discussing about, the ability to capture communications overseas. now, that gives you very credible information. it's believable because you're hearing the bad guys themselves talking about doing something. the challenge is it's not specific. they haven't yet talked about a particular target or a particular location, and that's why you have a broad warning but one that's taken quite seriously. >> but it reminds me of those color-coded days. that everybody gets used to it, so is t

enemies to a degree i don't believe the american public is clued in on but what do you make the michael chertoff'son that this war against al qaeda may be more dangerous than the previous one? >> it is a fascinating comment. i take mr. chertoff extremely seriously. it is a legitimate point of view. it is not one i necessarily share. i certainly think when al qaeda's core was at its strongest -- there is when we suffered our largest attack and also when we had other kinds of major plots that were in the works and we had the indonesia bombing in 2002. we had the spain train bombings in 2003. that was a pretty dicey period. we had had a worry for a short time, as you'll recall, about a possible nuclear weapon being in manhattan back in the fall of 2001. al qaeda's core was a pretty scary group and i am thrilled that most of them are either off this planet or at least in disarray and not communicating. so the problems that we have today i think are at least a half magnitude below that but in fairness to mr. chertoff -- again, a person who knows this set of threats very well -- we should not underestim

michael chertoff on nbc's this week. >> more dangerous because now we have what we call 2.o or 3.0 which>> i was thinking michael chertoff had a solution for a problem that didn't exist. >> stephanie: much like darrell issa. how to make a fancy car alarm after a career as a car thief. billy in texas. >> caller: good morning, guys. listen, you were talking about lindsey graham being challenged by a tea party member. i was wondering why you won't talking about the liberals that will challenge him because it doesn't seem like there is any. >> stephanie: if he makes it through the teabagging to actually run against the democrats. >> caller: there are. what you're missing -- the point you're missing is the tea party that's providing a challenge. which indicates there is a lot more conservatives in that part of the world which is a good thing for people like me. >> stephanie: uh-huh. >> caller: well, there's a lot more conservatives out there. you're not going to run as a liberal in pa part of the world and get elected. >> stephanie: you think -- >> james clyburn -- >> stephanie: lindsey graha

michael chertoff, former homeland security secretary, says yes, saying today's splintered al qaeda isan ever before. >> now we have what i call 2.0 or 3.0, which is widely dispersed, a younger generation coming up with new ideas, not necessarily repeating what they did in the past, and we now see them all the way from west africa into south asia. and so there's a much broader battlefield. >> cnn international's jim clancy is here. it's interesting hearing chertoff hearing about 2.0, 3.0 because we've talked about that. do you think as a result of that, even despite the fact that they appear splintered, they more of a threat? >> they are in some ways. and we have to recognize that. first of all, the core objectives haven't changed. kill as many americans as possible. set up an islamic caliphate, an islam ig state that they can use as a base. al qaeda needs a base. they need a base they were deprived of that in al qaeda. they remain focused on those goals. but as they splinter, a lot of them have tried to set up the caliphate, say, in mali, north africa, in somalia. they've been pushed

. >> host: chad sweet is the ceo of the -- founded by secretary michael chertoff.i want to get your reaction of homeland security to the story published based on the reporting of abc news that al qaeda may have developed a new form of explosives a liquid explosive and essentially at the technique allows you to -- into liquid that would make a textile explosive upon drawing and one official calling it in genius. guess who is a great example of where we can never underestimate our enemy and in this case al qaeda has shown over and over again and ability to whenever we create a measure they do a countermeasure. it's back and forth between them. both when we are in government and invested in technology and procedures to try to thwart all explosives outside of government we are actively involved with people in that sector and what i will tell you is right now what we saw after the underwear bomber and 2009 was finally it took that incident which was unfortunate where for almost 300 americans died over the city of detroit. only then was that a political will to say we no

john king, and michael hayden, general hayden has run the cia and nsa and is a principal with the chertoff group and serves on the boards of several defense firms. christiane amanpour, you've talked to a number of folks around the world. what is their reaction to this, and in particular, britain, which is capable of launching a tomahawk missile? are they saying that they want the u.n. to actually publish a report before they're willing to make a decision about whether or not to have military action? >> well, the very latest, in fact, from great britain is precisely that. they have said now they will not join any action against syria until there is a report from the u.n. inspectors. we don't know all the details what the british mean about that, but it seems to be putting the brakes on what seemed like a lot of momentum from britain today, with that draft u.n. resolution, which was under the chapter 7, which mean under the use of force mandate. that got nowhere, there was not even a u.n. security council meeting today. also, the foreign minister saying chemical weapons were used, this is a

michael hayden. he served as the cia director from 2006 until february 2009. he's now a principle with the chertoffserves on the board of several defense firms as well. what's your read, general hayden, on how good u.s. intelligence is, right now. because we know it's often excellent, but there have been times when there have been major blunders. >> no, there have been. i actually think we're pretty solid here, wolf. and let me give you three sentences, all right? chemical weapons were used. i think that's obvious. that's incontrovertible. you ran the piece a few minutes ago. that happened. secondly, that the regime did this. i'd give that high confidence. i don't think the opposition has the ability to do this. i think the circumstantial evidence is very powerful. and i've not seen any of the secret reporting. but i would think we've also got additional data here that makes us highly confident -- >> but when you say the regime did it, there's no evidence, at least as far as i've heard, that the president, bashar al assad, personally authorized it. >> and that's the third sentence, all right? and t