In intelligence work, there are limits to the amount of information one can share. Confidentiality is essential.

Muslim organisations tend to have a low level of organisation. The communities in Europe are quite diverse.

You can't get closer to the heart of national sovereignty than national security and intelligence services.

Europe has a long and tragic history of mostly domestic terrorism.

Ultimately, freedom and democracy are stronger than fear and tyranny.

Terrorists have failed in what is arguably al Qaida's most important objective - to trigger revolutions.

The European Borders Agency in Warsaw has been created to help border forces in Europe cooperate more.

I remain optimistic. What we've seen in Europe and the rest of the world is that freedom has a much stronger attraction than radical fundamentalism.

The violent radicals do not legitimately represent the overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims.

If you exchange information internationally, you must strengthen data protection. Those are two sides of the same coin.

Police forces collect information to be used in a public court to get people convicted. Security services gather information that does not necessarily lead to people being prosecuted and in many cases needs to remain confidential.

If information ends up in the wrong hands, the lives of people very often are immediately at risk.

Terrorists always have the advantage of surprise.

The key to tackling Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism from the Islamist community is in the hands of moderate Muslims.

Terrorists have failed to trigger mass conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims in Europe. We should draw strength from that fact.

In the fight against terrorism, national agencies keep full control over their police forces, security and intelligence agencies and judicial authorities.

If you combat an international phenomenon, it is indispensable to share information internationally.

There are no automatic links between poverty and terrorism. Among millions of poor people in the world, only a few turn to terrorism.

We have an integrated picture of the threat from outside and from within that is provided not only to our foreign ministers but also to our justice and interior ministers.

We remain vulnerable. There is no such thing as 100 percent security against terrorism.

The central role in the fight against terrorism is with national authorities.

There is a series of sectors which could be severely disrupted by terrorist attacks, particularly if they were to happen in several member states simultaneously.

I have never come across a technology that doesn't change. This is inevitable. You have to adapt your systems as technology develops.

The majority of the world's Muslims do not believe that terrorism is a legitimate strategy or that Islam is incompatible with democracy.

In intelligence work, there are limits to the amount of information one can share. Confidentiality is essential.

We are familiar with terrorism. But indiscriminate, cross-border, religiously motivated terrorism is new.

In situations of military conflict, civil strife, lawlessness, bad governance, and human rights violations, terrorists find it easier to hide, train and prepare their attacks.

We still lack a global definition of terrorism.

Our strategy should be to strengthen the hand of moderate Muslims.

The idea is to have global standards. There is so much travel that if you just had a regional standard, it would probably ultimately have to be changed.

We're still stymied by the old stand-off between those who wish to fight terrorism and resistance fighters.

Indiscriminate attacks on civilians ought, under all circumstances, to be illegal in war as in peacetime.

Look at Iraq; look at Afghanistan, where at great personal physical risk people have gone to the polls and have rejected the appeal from Bin Laden and his allies to stay at home.

It's important that we work very closely with moderate Muslim forces locally, nationally and internationally.

Young people discovering their sexuality must know they walk with a strong tradition and that they are not alone. They have a right to information without being pressured.

But in the first Gulf war the United Kingdom was not under any threat from Iraq, and is still less so in the second one. Then there is no justification for obstructing freedom of information, particularly as nations have a right to know what their soldiers are being used for.

And they talk about their bona fide doctors. They have a list of doctors that signed affidavits from looking at a picture of Terry. That's where they get their information from, by looking at a picture.

Since I'm allergic to various things, the army wouldn't accept me during the war, and I got into the Office of War Information, which sent music to Europe.

Actually the copies of characters is something I don't particularly like to talk about in articles but just for your information, most characters there's only one.

But the Congress has made the determination that certain kinds of information can be protected even though the American people may want to have access to information.

Although Customs and Border Protection analyzes cargo and other information to target specific shipments for closer inspection, it still physically inspects only a small fraction of the containers under its purview.

I have a tendency to be lucky and make the right choices based on limited information.

I would never jeopardize classified information to be brought out to the public. This information is all open source. There is no reason to worry about classification. It is simply an attempt by bureaucrats to cover their rear ends.

For me, having a child is a really great responsibility because you've got something there that is depending on you for information and love until a certain age when it goes to school.

People have really gotten comfortable not only sharing more information and different kinds, but more openly and with more people - and that social norm is just something that has evolved over time.

First, the security and privacy of sensitive taxpayer information is absolutely essential.

Information, usually seen as the precondition of debate, is better understood as its by-product.

Because of Watergate in part, I am kind of a magnet for calls and information and suggestions.

With respect to the FBI, they had problems communicating in a vertical way, within the FBI itself, so that information of importance could get pushed up to those who were decision-makers.