posted on December 12, 2001 12:31:38 PM
Finally. Those who were scared senseless or believed it to be unpatriotic are starting to think again. Still a ways to go but nonetheless a turning point. Who knows where it might lead.
Public Is Wary but Supportive on Rights Curbs
By ROBIN TONER and JANET ELDER
Americans are willing to grant the government wide latitude in pursuing suspected terrorists but are wary of some of the Bush administration's recent counterterrorism proposals and worried about the potential impact on civil liberties, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
In general, they remain overwhelmingly supportive of the administration's handling of the war on terrorism. But public opinion on the tradeoff between national security and civil liberties has more nuances than many in the White House and on Capitol Hill have suggested, the survey found.
Fifty-one percent said it was not a good idea to try foreigners accused of terrorism in secret military proceedings, a possibility under a recent presidential order.
And 8 in 10 Americans said they believed the president should make changes in the criminal justice system in consultation with Congress, not by executive order, as he has done recently.
In another sign of Americans' unsettled feelings, when asked what worried them more — that the government would fail to enact strong antiterrorism laws or that the government would enact new antiterrorism laws that excessively restrict the average person's civil liberties — Americans were evenly divided, 43 to 45 percent.
Still, the public shares the Bush administration's hard line on many key issues: Nearly 8 in 10 support indefinite detention for noncitizens deemed a threat to national security. More than 7 in 10 backed government monitoring of conversations between suspected terrorists in jail and their lawyers. Sixty-four percent said that in wartime, it was a good idea for the president to have the authority to change rights usually guaranteed by the Constitution.
And a plurality of Americans see the Republicans as the party better able to make the right decisions in dealing with terrorists, reflecting their traditional advantage on law and order issues, which the Democrats have fought hard to seize in recent years.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has spearheaded many of these changes, is still largely unknown, but 31 percent said they viewed him favorably, compared with 8 percent who said they viewed him unfavorably.
Throughout the poll, there was evidence of two standards of justice in the public's mind — one for ordinary crimes and another for terrorism; one for citizens and another for foreigners. In general, Americans were willing to give the government substantial leeway in dealing with foreigners suspected of terrorism.
But they do express anxiety about their own rights: 65 percent said they were concerned about losing some of their rights. Thirty-six percent said they were worried that some of these law enforcement changes might end up applying to them. Blacks were nearly twice as likely as whites to have that fear.
"My feeling is, once it starts, where does it stop?" asked Vivian Collins, a 52-year-old day-care provider from Delaware, who was interviewed after the poll was taken.
Nearly two-thirds of the public said they were not willing to give the government the right to "monitor the telephone calls and e-mail of ordinary Americans" to reduce the threat of terrorism. And Americans were evenly divided when asked if the federal government should have more authority to use wiretaps to reduce the threat of terrorism — 48 percent were in favor and 44 percent said it would violate Americans' rights.
The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday through Monday, with 1,052 adults, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
The poll found Mr. Bush's standing with the public remained extraordinarily high, with an overall job approval rating of 86 percent. Ninety- one percent said they approved of his handling of the war against terrorism. Seventy-five percent said they approved of his performance on foreign policy.
And even in a recession, 61 percent said they approved of his handling of the economy.
Americans overwhelmingly said they thought the war in Afghanistan was going well for the United States — 51 percent said they thought it was going "very well," twice the number who felt that way in late October.
Most people said they were now confident that Osama bin Laden would be captured or killed by the United States. Men were even more confident than women that United States forces would capture or kill the Al Qaeda leader.
A majority of Americans said they thought the fighting in Afghanistan would lead to a wider war between the West and Muslim countries, but there were signs that people were feeling more secure at home.
In October, 53 percent said they thought it very likely that there would be another terrorist attack in the United States in the next few months. In the latest poll, 23 percent said they expected such an attack. In such a climate, concerns over the economy are getting more attention from the public.
This climate also explains why Americans are increasingly tolerant of criticism of the president: Seventy-three percent said it was O.K. to criticize him on economic or other domestic issues, up from 58 percent who felt that way in early October.
The administration has cited preventing another terrorist attack as its primary goal and the fundamental rationale for many of its actions, including the questioning of Middle Eastern immigrants and the monitoring of conversations between suspected terrorists in jail and their lawyers. While these proposals have generated intense debate in Washington, there are signs that the public is only beginning to pay attention.
For example, when asked if the Bush administration's proposals affecting civil liberties went too far, not far enough, or were about right, 49 percent said they did not know enough about them to say.
The poll also found that the public's view of these issues was extremely sensitive to how a question was worded. For instance, 61 percent said it was "a good idea" for the Justice Department to interview 5,000 young men, mostly recent immigrants from the Middle East, "based on their age and the country they come from."
But the results were quite different when the wording was changed to: "Do you think the United States Government should be allowed to routinely question Middle Eastern men who have come to the United States in the past two years and are here legally, even if they are not suspected of any crime, or does that violate people's rights?" Forty-two percent said it should be allowed, while 54 percent said it violates their rights.
The Justice Department has said that these interviews are voluntary, that those questioned are not suspected of wrongdoing, and that the effort is simply to gather information, like canvassing a neighborhood after a crime.
When it comes to trying suspected terrorists, 50 percent of the respondents said they preferred using open criminal courts — with a jury, a civilian judge and a unanimous verdict — as opposed to military trials that could be secret, presided over by a military judge and would not require a unanimous verdict.
"I'm always concerned about secrecy in terms of military courts," said Henry Lohse, 68, a retired engineer from Franklin Square, N.Y. "There's always the chance that innocent people could be crucified by someone else's lies."
Forty percent said they favored military tribunals.
Officials from the Department of Defense, which is responsible for developing the rules for such trials, are expected to testify on Wednesday on Capitol Hill. Mr. Bush has promised that any such trials would be "full and fair" proceedings.
There were some regional differences in views. Respondents in the West, for instance, were more likely to favor trials in criminal court than people in other parts of the country.
There was strong opposition — 75 percent —- to a proposal the Justice Department is said to be considering: relaxing current restrictions that prevent the F.B.I. from conducting surveillance on groups that gather at religious institutions, unless there is evidence of wrongdoing.
Democrats and Republicans, not surprisingly, saw some of these issues differently.
For instance, Republicans were more concerned about the government enacting laws that were tough enough to deal with terrorists, while Democrats were more concerned about the possibility that the new laws would restrict civil liberties.
posted on December 12, 2001 10:31:26 PM
Interesting. I've noticed in the local papers that,at least on the letters to the editor page, people are starting to wake up and ask questions. It's about time.
posted on December 13, 2001 12:58:21 PM
I hate to say it, but I'm less hopeful than you, Antiquary. It seems to me that people are often willing to go down the wrong road pretty dern far, and they don't stop until they're stopped by someone else, or the road runs out.
posted on December 13, 2001 01:41:09 PM
Besides the people,Congress continues to go along with Ashcroft and even the Senate appears afraid to speak. I watched the Ashcroft Hearing and, with the exception of Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, they were all reluctant to address the problem of civil rights abuse with Ashcroft.
posted on December 13, 2001 02:01:47 PM
Yes, but the proverbial pendulum moves with such short successions that I tend to be overly optimistic at any signs that it may continue a while.
posted on December 13, 2001 06:56:03 PMFor example, when asked if the Bush administration's proposals affecting civil liberties went too far, not far enough, or were about right, 49 percent said they did not know enough about them to say.
That pretty much half of those polled admitted that they didn't understand the proposals was encouraging and intriguing to me. I interpret it to indicate their recognition of the importance of preserving civil liberties, and therefore their reluctance to allow the traditional public voices to supply their opinion about this issue. I don't recall ever seeing a poll in which so many people were willing to admit that they really didn't understand what was going on.
Also what somewhat surprised me was that 78% felt that it was okay to criticize the president on his position on national issues, which would indicate a resilience to the influences of the administration's PR machine.
posted on December 13, 2001 07:54:48 PMFor example, when asked if the Bush administration's proposals affecting civil liberties went too far, not far enough, or were about right, 49 percent said they did not know enough about them to say.
Let's hope these people search for the information that answers their questions and don't merely follow whatever Bush proposes or settle into apathy.
posted on December 13, 2001 09:14:56 PM
Opposition from both the left and the right is going to be difficult to overcome even if quite a few are willing to be herded down the middle of the road that donny so aptly describes. Terrorist threats have lost their political effectiveness, only 23% are now expecting anything in the immediate future. And if there should be another attack of any magnitude, it's pretty dicey to predict on whom the most wrath would fall. Another war might help shore up support.
posted on December 13, 2001 10:12:20 PM
"I don't recall ever seeing a poll in which so many people were willing to admit that they really didn't understand what was going on."
Well, I don't have any polling numbers, but I'd guess that Germany of the 40's would be similar. Wasn't that the standard answer of people, when asked afterwards why it had been allowed to happened, why had everyone gone along, why did you go along? I didn't know, I didn't understand what was going on, I'm not a political person.
See why I didn't want to say anything in your thread... What encourages you creeps me out, and why should both of us feel this way?
posted on December 13, 2001 10:42:42 PM
No, I don't see them in the same way. Those were excuses that people made after the fact that you refer to, in order to escape their own cupability. At this point I think that a good number of people don't understand where the terrorism laws could lead, but will begin to pay closer attention and make more of an effort to sort through the issues. They are not on the defensive; they are simply being honest. If they were unconcerned, they would have supported the terrorism provisions without question.
I believe that on many political questions that are surveyed, probably half the respondents don't fully understand the issues, but adopt their position based upon a national authority whom they like, or perhaps even a friend. Only a few usually admit to being indecisive or lacking knowledge. That they recognize the need to know more in this instance, is positive in my opinion, at this time.
posted on December 14, 2001 04:11:34 AM
Ah, but maybe it wasn't an excuse made up after the fact but, instead, as close to the truth as people could get when they were asked, afterwards, - How?
I can imagine a widespread willful ignorance then. And now? You say the 49% response of not knowing enough of what's going on is encouraging and intriguing... I find it downright peculiar, I've never known 49% of any group of people to be so willing to say they don't know enough, have you? Usually, everyone's an expert... But now all of a sudden, nearly half the people say they don't know nothing? What gives?
And why don't they know anything? Information is more readily available now, newspapers, tv's in nearly every home, radio, etc., than at any other time in hisotry. You'd practically have to not want to know, to not know.
My friend works with a guy who, when he was a child, spent some years in a Japanese-American internment camp. Both his parents died there. I've often wished my parents were still alive, so I could ask them what their WWII wartime experiences were like to compare them to now. If I could ask them, why they, why people, weren't outraged about what was happening with the internment camps, would they say - they didn't know?
posted on December 14, 2001 06:45:11 AM
The fact that 49% of those polled don't know much about their rights (or, aren't concerned about their rights) doesn't necessarily mean that those rights are threatened. Go back and read the poll again. You're mixing your own bias into the results. All the poll really says is that some folks are concerned about the effect of Bush's new policies on their rights.
Look, we know why we're involved in Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. The reason couldn't be clearer. What, to me, is disappointing, is that (after the initial shock and subsequent flag-waving) Americans support the war on terrorism, but only to the degree that it doesn't impact their lives.
Despite the flag-waving and armchair patriotism, Americans bristle at the idea of wiretaps or questioning of suspects. The war is fine, as long as it's in someone else's back yard. As long as gas prices are low, and it's someone else's kid going to serve. As long as it's not an inconvenience. Just 100 days after WTC, the war on terrorism holds less interest for many Americans than Monday Night Football.
In WWII, people actually made sacrifices. The war on terrorism will be broadcast on TV. That's the difference. Americans are fat and complacent; that is how Bin Laden was able to flourish.
Re: civil rights: Half don't know and half don't care. And that's not Bush's fault.
posted on December 14, 2001 06:52:28 AM
"What surprised me at first was that most Germans, so far as I could see, did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of their splendid culture was being destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work were becoming regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation.
One soon became aware, to be sure, that in the background there lurked the terror of the Gestapo and the fear of the concentration camp for those who got too far out of line or who had been Communists or Socialists or too liberal or pacifist or who were Jews.... Yet the Nazi terror in those early years, I was beginning to see, affected the lives of relatively few Germans. The vast majority did not seem unduly concerned with what happened to a few Communists, Socialists, pacifists, defiant priests and pastors, and to the Jews.
A newly arrived observer was forced, however reluctantly, as in my own case, to conclude that on the whole the people did not seem to feel that they were being cowed and held down by an unscrupulous tyranny. On the contrary, and much to my surprise, they appeared to support it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow Adolf Hitler was imbuing them with a new hope, a new confidence and an astonishing renewed faith in the future of their country."
- William L. Shirer, "Nightmare Years"
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on December 14, 2001 12:54:03 PM
Well, of course, I would have liked to have seen those 49% choose that the restrictions on civil liberties had gone too far. But the logic escapes me of why their choice shouldn't be seen as a more optimistic signal than if they had chosen to support the administration's position overwhelmingly as with most other issues since the attack? If that had been the case, then I would agree that it appears that the administration may continue unchecked. I think that you place unrealistic expectations on the majority of the public, most of whom have even less knowledge of law and government than we do and have few occasions, if any, in their lives to research and analyze abstractions. But even undertaking that process, then one finds strong arguments from intelligent lawyers, politicians, authorities presenting differing viewpoints, often accompanied by nuanced distinctions.
I do think that given enough time, people will be able to identify and sort through the issues basically and if nothing else there will be enough doubt that the traditional distrust of government will kick in. Ten or twenty or fifty or a hundred years from now that may no longer be the case.
grammatical
[ edited by antiquary on Dec 14, 2001 12:55 PM ]
posted on December 14, 2001 04:07:17 PM
Well, I'm cynical and usually think that, given enough time, people will do the worst sorts of things.
"I do think that given enough time, people will be able to identify and sort through the issues basically and if nothing else there will be enough doubt that the traditional distrust of government will kick in."
Do you think there is a "traditional distrust of government?" I touched on this subject a bit when I in NYC, I outraged my sister during a beery political discussion when I said that people of her generation and mine (her childhood was "I like Ike," and mine was Watergate, there's 20 years between us), had different trust levels because of when our opinions were formed. She very indignantly informed me that she and my mother liked Adlai Stevenson, and neither had ever voted Republican in their lives!!
But, just this past weekend, she let slip that she had, in fact, been the possessor back then of an "I Like Ike" button. She couldn't remember where she had gotten it, but she had had it. It was my view that even if you were a lifelong Roosevelt Democrat, like my mother was and my siblings are (in the second generation), that you still "Liked Ike," and had a view that the government was, for the most part, benevolent. Whereas I, coming into an awareness of the government at the time of Watergate, had my view of government shaped differently, and it's remained much darker and more cynical than hers.
Even though our ideological bents are nearly identical, we do differ pretty dramatically in this one respect, and we can be agreeing with each other about everything we're discussing and yet still get annoyed with each other because our basic feelings about government are so different.
posted on December 14, 2001 08:59:48 PM
I'm cynical, too, at least in the classical sense that I believe that people will always act in what they perceive to be their best interests, and skeptical, but not basically pessimistic. That we have been and will continue to move toward a totalitarian state I have no doubt, barring of course, a cataclysmic intervention of some sort. So I would hardly describe myself as an optimist either.
I think that the key in the development of public opinion is whether or not a majority of the public is able to conceptualize that the Patriot Act may not be in its best interest and then move to the potential threats to others and then themselves. The most compelling reason for people to support it is self-preservation of themselves and then others. But if this fear lessens, as it appears to be, people will be open to the potential abuse of power. There's no guarantee that this senario will occur, but I believe that it will. I don't know that the majority of people have ever trusted elected officials, but they will support them if they believe that they are acting in their best interests. Some freedom will be lost regardless.
I suppose that overall my attitude about political issues is best summed up in a line from Eliot's East Coker, "For us there is only the trying/The rest is not our business."
posted on December 14, 2001 09:27:01 PM
I ascribe to Sir Karl Popper's view on democracy- see his book The Open Society and Its Enemies ( he was knighted for this work).
Popper claims, and I agree, that we can never really be sure a politician is working in our best interests, but we can act with a given level of certainty when a politician does harm to our interests. Therefore, elections are not best used to elect the right man to the job as much as to defeat the wrong person for the job.
Of course this assumes that the electorate will get out and vote, and second that the electorate is intellectually able to assign the harm to given candidates (which they were never able to do with Regan).
In the end, it is the ability of democracies to change that makes them valuable.
Bush is in office now, as well as a majority of his party in the house of Reps. If the public perceives harm and can assign it to Bush and his party, then we should be in for some political changes in the comming elections.
