Public Agenda Special Edition: Terrorism

Introduction

Overview

Bioterrorism

Public Opinion

Sources and Resources

Public Wants Hussein Deposed, But Cautious About the Price

Updated Aug. 21, 2002

The public, like President Bush and many others, would like to be rid of Saddam Hussein and at least initially supports military action to do it. But surveys show public support may not be as broad or as solid as it initially appears.

Nearly eight in 10 Americans told the ABC/Washington Post poll on Aug. 11 that Iraq poses a threat to the U.S., and nearly seven in 10 supported "military action to force Saddam Hussein from power." Then again, the public has consistently told researchers that the U.S. should have removed Hussein when it had the chance during the Gulf War. The public also consistently prefers the U.S. not to act alone overseas. The latest ABC/Post survey also found support for an attack fell to 54 percent if U.S. allies opposed military action. In the same survey, some 57 percent supported "a U.S. invasion of Iraq with ground troops" — but support fell to 40 percent if that invasion led to "significant" U.S. casualties.

Some survey questions suggest that the public is more uncertain about the reasons for taking Iraq on at this point. A Gallup survey in early August found 56 percent said they had a clear idea of why the U.S. was considering an attack, while 39 percent did not.

There has been considerable media coverage of the debate over creating a Department of Homeland Security and whether the government should be allowed to secretly detain immigrants suspected of terrorism. Three-quarters of the public thinks a Department of Homeland Security would do some good. While surveys show the public is beginning to struggle with concerns about fairness and civil liberties, most Americans are more concerned with whether the FBI is doing enough to track terrorists.

Al Queda, Prisoners of War and Military Tribunals
The question of what to do with those captured by U.S. authorities has been one of the thorniest problems in the war on terrorism. More than 450 accused al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are being held at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay and face either military tribunals or indefinite detention by the U.S. While so-called "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh pleaded guilty in a civilian court, two other U.S. citizens accused of working with al Qaeda are being held in military prisons without formal charges.

At least initially, the public seems willing to accept holding U.S. citizens as war prisoners. An ABC News survey on June 12-16 asked what should be done with an American citizen accused of planning an al Qaeda attack: should he be "held by the U.S. military as a wartime prisoner without being put on trial, or should he be given access to a lawyer and put on trial in the U.S. criminal court system?" More than half (54 percent) endorsed military detention, while 42 percent said he should get a civil trial.

When the 42 percent who supported civilian trials were asked how they would feel if an open trial would "jeopardize sensitive intelligence," 29 percent opted for military detention while 67 percent said the suspect should still be put on trial.

In general, surveys have shown Americans express at least an initial willingness to trade civil liberties for security, although it's important to note that few have faced the practical implications of that tradeoff. (More detail on this is available in the section on Immigration and Civil Liberties).

Another controversial strategy to fight terrorism has been President Bush's order permitting non-citizens accused of terrorism to be tried by special military tribunals, which could be closed to the public and offer defendants fewer rights than in a criminal court or a conventional military court-martial. The primary candidates for such a trial, of course, are Osama bin Laden and captured members of his al Qaeda network.

Public opinion has not changed on military tribunals since the idea was announced. The ABC News/Washington Post poll on Jan. 27 found 60 percent in favor. A more detailed November 2001 question giving arguments for tribunals (protecting ongoing probes and that civilian jurors might be afraid to convict) and against (closed proceedings that singled out non-citizens) also showed virtually the same results. Some 77 percent of those surveyed by Fox News on Jan. 11 said they were "very" or "somewhat" confident accused terrorists would receive fair trials.

For many Americans, getting hold of bin Laden himself has consistently been a key war aim. But the number who say the U.S. must capture or kill bin Laden for the war to be a success has fallen: 50 percent in the April 18-21 ABC News/Washington Post survey, down from 64 percent on Dec. 19. Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) told the ABC/Post survey in March that attacking al Qaeda in general is more important than getting bin Laden specifically, and 54 percent say it isn't worth a "large number" of U.S. casualties to get him.

The Washington Post speculated that fewer people are focused on bin Laden because they believe the U.S. has successfully curtailed bin Laden's ability to maintain his terrorist group, with 82 percent saying the U.S. has been at least somewhat effective in this.

If bin Laden is caught, however, the public does not completely reject the idea of a civilian or international trial. President Bush has said the U.S. wants bin Laden "dead or alive," and a Gallup survey on Nov. 26-27 found 54 percent who said it would be better for the U.S. if he was killed.

If bin Laden is taken alive, however, 62 percent told Gallup they want to see him put on trial, compared with 35 percent who would execute him immediately. Some 59 percent say he should be tried by the U.S., rather than an international court (37 percent). If convicted, 69 percent in the Gallup survey say bin Laden should get the death penalty; 28 percent preferred a life sentence without parole.

The conditions at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp drew criticism earlier in the year from human rights groups and European allies. The Bush administration has decided to apply Geneva Convention protections to Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan but not members of al Qaeda. Most Americans (72 percent in the Gallup poll taken Jan. 25-27) say the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo is "acceptable." Gallup also asked questions describing the treatment of a detainee who was held "outdoors in an 8 foot by 8 foot cell, and when traveling … was blindfolded and his hands bound." Three-quarters told Gallup that it would be acceptable to hold a Taliban soldier under those conditions. Half of those surveyed (49 percent) said that would also be acceptable treatment for an American soldier captured in war; 46 percent said it would be unacceptable.

Immigration and Civil Liberties:
Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department are facing stiff criticism from Congress and civil liberties groups over some of the actions taken to pursue terrorists. So far, surveys show while the public is beginning to struggle with concerns about fairness and civil liberties, most Americans are more concerned with whether the FBI is doing enough to track terrorists.

From the very first surveys after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, most Americans told pollsters that the country would have to give up some rights to fight terrorism (79 percent in a CBS/New York Times poll in September). Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) told Fox News on June 4-5 that they would be willing to give up some of their personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism. Sixty-five percent said the government is doing enough to protect the rights of citizens in a June 12-16 ABC News survey.

Early June surveys by the ABC News/Washington Post poll and Fox News show about two-thirds of the public support expanded FBI powers to monitor events in public places, like rallies, libraries and mosques. In the ABC/Post poll, 64 percent supported the change even though 62 percent said such monitoring intrudes on privacy rights.

Fox News also found that, given the choice, 71 percent of Americans said they were more worried about the FBI "not doing enough to spy on potential terrorists" than about the bureau spying on them. The ABC/Post survey asked a slightly different question but got a similar result: 79 percent said it was more important for the FBI to investigate terrorist threats "even if that intrudes on personal privacy" than for the FBI to respect privacy "even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats."

Public Agenda has found in the past that the public supports civil liberties in the abstract, but often hasn't spent much time thinking about the tradeoffs and precedents that might be set. (See our Red Flags on Internet Free Speech and Privacy). Also, personal experience is always a potent factor in public attitudes, and few Americans have ever lived under the restrictions that worry civil libertarians.

The public also has a long history of trusting the police more than the criminal justice system, and valuing being tough on criminals over the rights of the accused. There are important racial differences in those attitudes, however, and surveys find that minorities are less likely to be supportive of restrictions. (For an analysis on the issue of racial profiling, see the section on The View of Islam at Home).

But surveys also find that when asked what should be done to prevent terrorism, the public's strongest instincts are for measures such as metal detectors in public buildings and tighter airport security. Even immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks, only a third wanted increased electronic eavesdropping and even fewer supported random searches by police.

The way survey questions are worded seems to make a difference in the response — usually a warning sign that public attitudes can change depending on events or as people learn more about an issue. When CBS/New York Times researchers simply asked whether it's a good or bad idea to allow the government to listen in on conversations between suspected terrorists in jail and their lawyers, 72 percent thought it was a good idea. But when researchers rephrased the question to add that attorney-client conversations have always been private, only 30 percent said it was a good idea.

A Nov. 27 ABC/Washington Post poll also found 86 percent who said the government was justified in detaining immigrants who had overstayed their visas or otherwise violated immigration laws. Those alleged violations may provide important context to public attitudes about the hundreds who have been detained during federal investigations. Historically, the public has mixed views on immigration, but usually makes a clear distinction between legal and illegal immigrants - with a far tougher stance on illegal immigrants. (See our Red Flags on Immigration).

There is evidence of a spike in opposition to immigration since Sept. 11, with 58 percent of the public telling Gallup researchers in October that immigration should be decreased — a 20-point change from a year before. A May 14-15 Fox News poll found 61 percent who want to make it more difficult for all foreigners to enter the country. Nearly half (48 percent) told Fox they would support stopping all immigration for two years or blocking all immigration of young Arab men (53 percent). This could be a transitory reaction (by June the number telling Gallup immigration should decrease had fallen to 49 percent). Support for immigration had generally been increasing since 1995. Or this could signal the beginning of a long-term reconsideration. But there's no question that this sentiment has yet to fade.

Iraq: The Next Step?:
President Bush has now promised to seek congressional approval before acting against Iraq, and surveys show Americans overwhelmingly support that. Eighty percent of those surveyed by in an ABC News overnight poll on Aug. 29 said President Bush should seek authorization from Congress, and 61 percent say if Bush and Congress disagree, Congress should have the final say.

With the Taliban removed from power in Afghanistan, debate has focused on the question of whether an attack on Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein should be "phase two" of the war on terrorism. The latest surveys show substantial majorities of the American public agree that Iraq is a threat and initially support military action. But support for an attack falls when questions are raised about casualties and the reluctance of U.S. allies to join in.

Nearly eight in 10 Americans told the ABC/Washington Post poll on Aug. 11 that Iraq poses a threat to the U.S., and nearly seven in 10 supported "military action to force Saddam Hussein from power." Then again, the public has repeatedly told researchers that the U.S. should return to the Persian Gulf and remove Hussein by force, ranging from 70 percent in 1993 to 52 percent in February 2001.

Yet the ABC/Post survey also found support for an attack fell to 54 percent if U.S. allies opposed military action. In the same survey, some 57 percent supported "a U.S. invasion of Iraq with ground troops" - but support fell to 40 percent if that invasion led to "significant" U.S. casualties.

This is consistent with poll results in other situations, where surveys have shown that the public doesn't automatically expect the U.S. to take a leading role in world affairs, and should at least consider the views of allies before using force.

In previous foreign crisis, the prospect of U.S. casualties can drive down support for military action - but not always. Prior to the Persian Gulf War, surveys found the higher the number of potential casualties cited in the question, the lower the support for war. By contrast, the prospect of higher casualties did not deter the public in surveys on Afghanistan last fall. In October 2001, Gallup found three-quarters of the public said they supported military action in Afghanistan even if it resulted in 5,000 U.S. casualties.

Some survey questions suggest that the public is more uncertain about the reasons for taking Iraq on at this point. A Gallup survey in early August found 56 percent said they had a clear idea of why the U.S. was considering an attack, while 39 percent did not. Of those who said they understood the reasons, 30 percent said it was because of Iraq's potential for chemical and biological weapons and another 30 percent said it was fear of terrorism. At least one survey found that more people said a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be a higher priority than Iraq (see our section on Israel and the Palestinians).

The U.S. public continues to strongly support the military campaign in Afghanistan, as it has since the beginning. The very first surveys in September found nine in 10 Americans supported a military response. A CBS News survey in July found 67 percent of Americans said the war in Afghanistan was going well, but only 13 percent said it was going "very well" - 54 percent the war was going "somewhat well."

Israel and the Palestinians:
A complicating factor in the war on terrorism has been the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has proved increasingly violent and intractable. U.S. efforts to broker a settlement have proved fruitless so far, while Middle Eastern governments insist a settlement must precede any expansion of the war on terror.

Historically, surveys show the public sympathizes more with the Israelis than the Palestinians, but would rather not take a side. Most Americans say the U.S. vital interests are at stake in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (61 percent in the April 18-21 ABC News/Washington Post poll). When asked to choose, half of the public (52 percent) told the Gallup poll in June that peace between Palestinians and Israelis should be a higher priority than overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (42 percent). However, a CBS News poll in July found the public evenly split: 46 percent said the U.S. has a responsibility to broker a settlement, and 46 percent said it's none of our business.

In a Harris Poll conducted July 18-22, 9 percent blame the Israelis for the West Bank violence, 42 percent blame the Palestinians and 30 percent blame both. But 19 percent said they didn't know, and such a high level of undecided responses can mean public opinion is volatile on this topic. Two-thirds (66 percent) told the ABC/Post poll that Israel's military action in response to a series of suicide bombings is justified, and three-quarters believe Yasser Arafat is responsible for the terrorist attacks. Nine in 10 say Arafat can do more to end those attacks. But there is some public unease with Israel's actions, with 61 percent who say Israel "should have done more" to avoid civilian casualties in its offensive. Four in 10 (43 percent) say the U.S. should apply more pressure on Israel to negotiate.

The public is divided on what more the U.S. can do. The ABC/Washington Post survey in April found the public split on whether to cut military aid to Israel if it fails to withdraw from Palestinian areas (47 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed). The public is just as split on whether to provide the Palestinians with economic aid in exchange for a peace deal (47 percent both for and against). Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) told Fox News they would oppose sending U.S. troops to bring about a ceasefire, but 48 percent would support sending U.S. peacekeepers after a treaty has been signed. [Additional detail is available in the section on The View of Islam Abroad.]

Homeland Security, Intelligence Failures and Terror Alerts:
Nearly three-quarters of the public support President Bush's plan for a Department of Homeland Security, but surveys conducted in 2002 also find the public more doubtful of the government's ability to prevent attacks.

The number of people who say they're confident the authorities can prevent further attacks fell to 46 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post survey conducted after revelations emerged about missed signals prior to the World Trade Center attack (July 11-15). While this is a sharp drop since March (55 percent) there has been a steady but less dramatic decline in confidence since November (63 percent). The number who told researchers that "the government is doing all it reasonably can" to prevent terrorism has also fallen, from 71 percent in October to 66 percent in March and 54 percent in the May ABC/Post survey. So have the number who say the U.S. is winning the war on terror: it was 66 percent in a January Gallup poll but only 33 percent in June. By July, 37 percent told Gallup the U.S. was winning but 46 percent said neither the U.S. nor the terrorists were winning.

Yet during that same period, the number of people who considered a new attack "very likely" also dropped, from 53 percent in a CBS/New York Times survey in October to 23 percent in early April (and 15 percent in a July CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll). The number who told Gallup that they were worried about being a victim of terrorism themselves also fell, from 59 percent in October to 35 percent in April (although it rebounded to 40 percent in May). There may be an element of fatalism in public attitudes - even as the public felt safer, many also accepted that the government can only do so much to protect them.

Several surveys have asked about whether the government mishandled intelligence data prior to Sept. 11, but the results seem uncertain. The NBC/Wall Street Journal overnight survey conducted May 18 found 58 percent who were "satisfied," with the administration's actions, but the ABC/Post researchers in May found an even split: 44 percent said the government did enough, while 46 percent said they didn't. Around one in 10 people in both surveys said they didn't know, which should also be considered a warning sign of unsettled public attitudes.

About half of the public says the intelligence was too vague and the plot too outlandish to have been anticipated. Some 56 percent told ABC/Post researchers that the pre-Sept. 11 reports were too vague for the government to take action. In the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, 53 percent said the administration did as much as was reasonable "because it was impossible to predict airplanes would be used as weapons."

More than half (55 percent) told Newsweek researchers in a May 15-17 survey that the Bush administration should have used the information to issue public warnings about possible hijackings. Yet 67 percent also told Newsweek that the warnings wouldn't have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks. There's some evidence that the public would rather get a vague warning than be left in the dark. When asked by Gallup last November, after the government had issued unspecified alerts, 71 percent said they preferred a terrorist alert without details to no alert at all.

Nearly seven in 10 (68 percent) of those surveyed by Newsweek say it's in the national interest to conduct a congressional investigation of how intelligence information was handled. Some 63 percent say Congress should have opened an inquiry immediately after Sept. 11. Yet the public doesn't seem to be out for blood on this issue, either. When the NBC/Wall Street Journal survey raised the possibility that an investigation would be "unproductive and too political," 58 percent opposed a probe. And while three-quarters in the Newsweek survey say the FBI and CIA bear at least some blame for failing to stop the Sept. 11 plot, only 23 percent say senior officials at the agencies should be fired.

The public does seem to think the government won't repeat any such mistakes next time: 67 percent in the June ABC/Post survey says the CIA and FBI are doing a better job handling intelligence about terrorism than they did before Sept. 11. Some 73 percent say President Bush's proposed Department of Homeland Security would improve the government's ability to prevent terrorist attacks, according to the ABC/Washington Post survey conducted June 7-9.

Surveys show a widespread belief that the nation has been changed by the Sept. 11 atttacks, but also show widespread doubt that the changes will last - except, perhaps, for one.

Eight in 10 Americans told the ABC News/Washington Post poll on March 7-10 the country has been changed by Sept. 11, and 78 percent said it has been a change for the better. More than half (57 percent) say their personal life has changed "in a lasting way," and a majority of those (73 percent) say the change has been in the way they feel, rather than how they live their day-to-day lives. Of those who say they've changed personally, 73 percent say the changes have been for the better.

Public Agenda, in our Aggravating Circumstances study on civility, found 74 percent who said in January that people became "more caring and thoughtful toward each other" after the attacks. But nearly half (46 percent) said that thoughtfulness would only last a few months. Only a third (34 percent) said it would last a long while, and 18 percent said it was already over.

The change that may linger, according to Public Agenda's survey, is a greater appreciation for America. Some 87 percent said Americans came to appreciate their country more after the attacks, and more than half (54 percent) said the feeling would last a long time. Only 6 percent thought it was already over.

The View of Islam Abroad...:
One issue that does concern Americans is the possibility that the "war on terrorism" will become what Osama bin Laden claimed it was: a war pitting Islamic and Arab nations against the U.S. and its allies. And a growing number of Americans tell survey researchers they doubt the U.S. is doing enough to win over the Islamic world.

In October 2001, 69 percent told the ABC/Washington Post poll that the U.S. was doing enough to win the support of Muslims, and only 18 percent disagreed. By April 18-21 2002, that had declined to 49 percent, with 43 percent saying the U.S. needed to do more. For many, a wider war is still possible, with 34 percent telling CBS News on April 1-2 that it was "very likely" the fighting in Afghanistan would spread to a larger war between Western and Muslim countries. Another 43 percent said that was "somewhat likely."

Both domestic and international critics argue that U.S. policies, such as support for Israel and sanctions against Iraq, helped spur extremism in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become more pressing to the U.S. war on terrorism, as violence escalates and many Middle Eastern governments say they won't support action against Iraq without progress on the West Bank.

Substantial numbers of Americans are at least considering those arguments. On April 2-3, Fox News found more than half of Americans (54 percent) say "the U.S. needs to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part of winning the war on terrorism." Some 54 percent also told the ABC/Washington Post poll on April 18-21 that U.S. support for Israel is hurting the war on terrorism. And 46 percent told CBS News that the current West Bank fighting makes a terrorist attack against the U.S. more likely (but 40 percent say it will make no difference).

Back in the fall, 55 percent of Americans told the ABC/Washington Post poll they believed most Arabs and Muslims had a negative view of the U.S., and cited support for Israel (68 percent), the spread of Western culture (64 percent), and the presence of U.S. forces in the Mideast (63 percent) as the reasons. Nearly half (48 percent) told Newsweek in early December that U.S. support for "friendly but dictatorial" regimes played a role in increasing support for Islamic militants. But more than one-fifth (22 percent) said they didn't know.

Yet Americans don't necessarily want to change those policies: six in 10 told ABC/Washington Post researchers the U.S. should keep its current level of support for Israel, and they're divided on whether the U.S. should apply more pressure on the Israelis for a peace settlement (46 percent say the U.S. has applied enough pressure; 43 percent say the U.S. should apply more). Back in October, only 29 percent told Newsweek "the U.S. should reduce its ties to Israel in order to lessen the acts of terrorism against us." The public was divided when Newsweek asked if the U.S. should pressure Middle Eastern countries toward democracy, "even if it means Islamic extremists might win power." Again, 48 percent said yes, but 40 percent said no. [Survey data on the West Bank situation is also available in the section on Israel and the Palestinians]

Public Agenda's focus is on public opinion in the United States, but Gallup's survey of opinion in nine Islamic countries is noteworthy. Majorities in eight of nine countries surveyed condemned the Sept. 11 attacks. But most also considered the U.S. military response "morally unjustifiable," including 80 percent of Pakistanis, 89 percent of Indonesians and 69 percent of Kuwaitis, according to Gallup. Majorities in five nations told Gallup researchers they don't believe Arab groups were behind the Sept. 11 attacks. The full report is available through Gallup.

...and The View of Islam at Home:
After the Sept. 11 attacks, there were reports of hate crimes around the country against Arabs, Muslims and even Sikhs (who are neither Arabs nor Muslims but who wear distinctive turbans). While the Bush administration has strongly condemned hate crimes, Muslim American groups have also expressed concern about "racial profiling" by federal agents and airport security guards looking for suspected terrorists. Survey results over many years indicate that most Americans believe in religious tolerance. But just as clearly, Americans are still wrestling with fears surrounding a religion most admit they don't understand.

Surveys conducted in September found tolerance bending under the emotional strain of the attacks. About 35 percent of those surveyed the week of Sept. 11 said they had less trust in Arab-Americans since the attack. Several questions show the public's fear and frustration right after the trade center attack, with 58 percent saying Arabs should undergo special security checks before boarding planes and 49 percent saying they should carry special identification. In a Zogby International poll of Arab-Americans in early October, 20 percent said they personally had experienced discrimination since Sept. 11, and 45 percent said they knew someone else who had faced discrimination.

Six months later, there's evidence that most Americans view racial profiling of Arabs and Muslims as regrettable but not intolerable. In January, Public Agenda researchers found two-thirds of Americans agreed that racial profiling of Middle Easterners is "understandable, but you wish it didn't happen." Only 11 percent found "nothing particularly wrong" with profiling, but also only 21 percent said "there's no excuse for this."

By contrast, Public Agenda found half of Americans (52 percent) say there's no excuse for racial profiling of African-Americans. Black Americans are twice as likely to say there's no excuse for racial profiling of Middle Easterners (35 percent among blacks, compared to 18 percent among whites). Yet a solid majority (59 percent) of African-Americans also say that profiling of Middle Easterners is "understandable, but you wish it didn't happen."

A somewhat larger number of Americans reject "jokes or negative remarks about Arabs and Muslims" in Public Agenda's survey. Half say there's no excuse for it, but 44 percent consider it understandable.

In two Public Agenda surveys conducted prior to Sept. 11, one on religion and public life and another on the values parents want to teach their children, we found Americans voiced a firm belief in religious and social tolerance. Most parents, for example, consider intolerance the mark of a bad citizen. Yet we also found in January 2001 that only 7 percent of Americans said they understand Islam well - perhaps not surprising since Muslims only make up 2 percent of the U.S. population.

Even now, many Americans don't know what to make of Islam. In an ABC News/Beliefnet survey on Jan. 6, more than one-third (35 percent) chose "no opinion" when asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable view of Islam. Only 14 percent said they believed "mainstream Islam" encourages violence, and 57 percent said they considered it a "peaceful religion," but 29 percent were undecided. And when ABC News asked about violent extremists, 38 percent said Islam had more extremists than other religions, while 41 percent said Islam had no more than other religions. Only 5 percent said Islam had fewer extremists, and 17 percent were unsure. All these questions found an extremely high level of undecideds - usually anything over 10 percent is considered a sign of public volatility.

There are conflicting results, however, on whether concern about Arab and Muslim Americans is rising or falling. The CBS/New York Times survey found the numbers who think Arab-Americans are "more sympathetic" to terrorists may have increased by early December, from 28 percent on Sept. 13-14 to 33 percent by Dec. 7-10. The later survey was taken in the aftermath of a series of suicide bombings in Israel, which may have affected public attitudes. Yet the ABC News/Washington Post survey found the number who said they were "personally suspicious" of people of Arab descent fell from 43 percent on Sept. 13 to 31 percent on Dec. 19. The difference might be because the two surveys focus on slightly different aspects of the issue; perhaps the public is making a distinction between feeling someone is sympathetic to a cause and actually feeling threatened.

Still, in early April Fox News found only 24 percent of Americans think American Muslims are "doing enough" to help authorities track down terrorist cells; 44 percent say they're not doing enough.

Trust in Government:
One of the most intriguing public opinion trends since Sept. 11 has been the surge in people reporting they trust the government to do the right thing (as distinct from trusting President Bush personally). But the trust level seems to be falling, and at least one survey organization has concluded that the surge is over.

Americans consistently join ranks behind their leaders in the initial stages of a crisis, and approval ratings for President Bush have been remarkably high since the fall. But approval ratings for a particular president are different from the public's overall trust in the government, which fell during the years of Vietnam and Watergate and never recovered, regardless of how popular the president happened to be. In late September, the ABC News/Washington Post survey found 64 percent said they trust the government to do the right thing "most of the time" or "just about always," the highest rating since the 1960s. The Jan. 21-24 CBS/New York Times poll found 46 percent who said the government did the right thing "just about always" or "most of the time" (compared with 26 percent in 1998). Even during the Gulf War, when approval ratings for both the war and for President Bush's father were at high levels, the trust in government rating never exceeded 45 percent.

A May survey commissioned by the Brookings Institution, however, contends the air of trust quickly faded. The survey, conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, found that the number saying they trusted the government to do what is right at least most of the time rose from 29 percent in July 2001 to 57 percent in October, but dropped down to 40 percent in May. The number who said the government could be trusted only "some of the time" rose from 39 percent in October to 53 percent in May.

Even before the Brookings survey, there were signs the public was skeptical about long-term change in Washington's political climate. More than half (55 percent) of those surveyed in Public Agenda's Aggravating Circumstances study during January said elected officials had "put politics aside and [paid] more attention to what was good for the country" after the attacks. When asked how long politicians would keep that new attitude, however, the public showed more doubt. Only 30 percent said elected officials would keep that attitude for a long time, while 45 percent said it would last a few months and 23 percent said it was already over.

About seven in 10 Americans approve of how President Bush is handling his job, according to Gallup polling conducted in July. That approval rating has declined since President Bush's record-setting approval ratings last year (86 percent in December) but is still extremely high.

When asked about specific issues such as the economy, however, the approval ratings have always been weaker. In the latest Gallup poll, 63 percent say they approve of President Bush's handling of foreign policy, but only 52 percent said he is doing a good job on the economy. In a Newsweek survey on Jan. 31-Feb. 1, 54 percent said President Bush's opponents should "go along" with his policies on terrorism, compared to 38 percent who said opponents should "push for a full debate." But on the economy and other domestic issues, the percentages were almost exactly reversed: 54 percent wanted a full debate, compared to 39 percent who wanted the opposition to go along on domestic policy.

There is also a divide between ratings for President Bush personally and others in the government. Nearly half the public (48 percent) told Newsweek in May that Bush did everything he should have with the warnings received before Sept. 11, while 39 percent said he didn't do enough. But the public is much more critical of "top FBI and CIA officials" (53 percent say they didn't do enough) and "the President's national security advisers" (46 percent). The Newsweek survey also found that 59 percent say the Clinton administration didn't do everything it could have to prepare for a terrorist attack, either.

Read previous editions of our running analysis of public reaction to the attacks to see how public opinion has changed since the September 11 attacks.