Public Agenda Special Edition: Terrorism

Introduction

Overview

Bioterrorism

Public Opinion

Sources and Resources

Public Opinion: Civil Liberties
Public attitudes about the USA Patriot Act may not be what they seem. With the controversial act up for renewal this year, no single poll question gives a clear picture of the public's conflicting desires, fears and doubts about civil liberties and terrorism.

Despite the controversy over the Patriot Act, nearly six in 10 people admitted to the CBS News poll in April 2005 that they knew "not much" or "nothing" about the law. Of those who had heard something about it, opinions were divided, with 49 percent saying it was a necessary tool while 45 percent said it "goes too far."

When people are asked more probing questions, some specific provisions of the law are unpopular. In February 2004, seven in 10 told Gallup they oppose allowing federal agents to secretly search a citizen's home. The public is split on some other Patriot Act features, with 51 percent opposing the requirement that libraries, bookstores and hospitals secretly turn over records to investigators on request.

Public Agenda's research suggests that the public's views on civil liberties can depend on two things: how threatened they feel and their own personal experience with the law. In our 2002 study on the Constitution, Knowing It By Heart, Public Agenda found that while most Americans admit they don't know details about the Bill of Rights, they seem to have absorbed its core values. Most respondents were able to put aside their personal views to consider the rights of others - but it was also clear that the public was still working out its beliefs on civil liberties and terrorism.

During high-crime periods a sense of danger affected public attitudes about the rights of suspects, and it certainly played into attitudes about terrorism in 2001. From the very first surveys after Sept. 11, many Americans told pollsters that the country would have to trade off some rights to fight terrorism. But that belief seems to have faded with time.

For example, shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Newsweek found 63 percent of the public said the "average person" would have to give up some civil liberties to fight terrorism (other surveys came in with even higher support). By August 2003, only 29 percent told Gallup that the government should take "all steps necessary" to prevent terrorism, even if civil liberties were violated. Two-thirds (67 percent) said the government should take steps to prevent terrorism "but not if those steps would violate your basic civil liberties." New attacks on American soil, however, might well change those views.

In the fall of 2001, surveys found the public supporting a broad range of actions, including use of profiling, indefinite detention of suspects and military tribunals. The public's attitudes on profiling have become more complex; for additional details see our section on Racial Profiling and 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, Newsweek found only a third wanted increased electronic eavesdropping and even fewer supported random searches by police.

Finally, personal experience is always a potent factor in public attitudes, and few Americans have ever lived under the restrictions that worry civil libertarians. Nine in 10 voters told Fox News in July 2003 that the Patriot Act hadn't affected them or their families. Indeed, many Americans may not be following these questions closely. In Public Agenda's 2002 focus groups on this topic, many participants seemed to be struggling with this balance for the first time.

The way survey questions are worded seems to make a difference in the response -- another warning sign that public attitudes can change depending on events or as people learn more about an issue. When in 2002 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.

-- by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson