10 Questions for Alberto Gonzales

George W. Bush doesn't like having Alberto Gonzales too far from his side. In 2001, Bush tapped the Texas judge for White House counsel and in 2004 for Attorney General--both leading roles in the war on terror. Gonzales, who declined to discuss who he thinks should succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, spoke last week with TIME's Viveca Novak and others in the Washington bureau about detainee abuse, DNA testing and being attacked by fellow conservatives.

WHAT ISSUE HAS PROVIDED THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE FOR YOU IN TERMS OF BALANCING COMPETING TENSIONS? Most of the hard decisions relate to the war on terror. We're fighting this new kind of enemy before an American population that has not seen the U.S. really engaged in this kind of fight for a generation. They don't remember that, say, in World War II we captured a lot of people. We didn't provide them lawyers. We didn't read them their rights. We simply held them because under the laws of war, we're entitled to do that.

IS THE DETAINEE-ABUSE PROBLEM BIGGER AND HIGHER UP THAN WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR? There have been about 10 independent outside investigations or reviews of detainee treatment at Abu Ghraib. They found there was some confusion, there was inadequate supervision on certain occasions, no good guidance. They also found, however, with respect to those horrifying pictures, that it resulted from a small group on the night shift. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this conduct doesn't occur in a nice clean conference room like this one. In every war, things like this happen. I'm not making an excuse for it.

WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED FROM THE LONDON TERRORIST BOMBINGS ABOUT INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT? What this tells us is that we have an enemy that's very patient, very diabolical. I think they watch to see what we do and they adjust their conduct accordingly. This is why we're concerned about talking too freely about some of the things we're doing in the war on terror.

HOW CLOSELY IS YOUR DEPARTMENT MONITORING BORDER VIGILANTE GROUPS? My view is that it's a free country. You go wherever you want in most cases, say whatever you want in most cases. But if you engage in criminal conduct, you're going to be prosecuted. We ought to let the experts, the professionals, secure our borders.

HOW DO YOU SQUARE THE GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS OVER THE YEARS TO LIMIT ENDLESS APPEALS BY DEATH-ROW INMATES WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT DNA TESTING CAN CLEAR SOMEONE'S NAME AT THE 11TH HOUR? No one should be executed who's innocent--bottom line. But if additional delays are possible through DNA testing, that would be something I would worry about. We ought to be able to work out a system where you can take advantage of DNA testing but it wouldn't unduly delay the administration of justice.

THE INVESTIGATION INTO WHO LEAKED THE NAME OF CIA OPERATIVE VALERIE PLAME SEEMS TO BE WRAPPING UP. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A FEDERAL SHIELD LAW FOR JOURNALISTS? Since 1991, we've gone after, I think, 12 confidential sources. It's not something we do lightly. I don't know if this law is necessary.