Terrorism Fears Fuel Support for Limits on Liberty

In the wake of the explosion of TWA Flight 800 and the bombing at Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, a majority of Americans are willing to give up some civil liberties in order to fight terrorism, according to a Los Angeles Times Poll.

But Americans appear reluctant to use military force to retaliate against those found to be responsible for downing Flight 800--assuming investigators determine that the crash was caused by a bomb. Instead, they prefer the use of economic sanctions and the U.S. judicial system, the poll found.

The responses to a Times Poll conducted Saturday through Tuesday also suggest that a growing segment of the nation believes that even if law enforcement authorities are given additional abilities to fight terrorism, they will not be able to thwart most attacks.

“There’s this feeling of resignation,” said Susan Pinkus, who directed the poll. “I don’t think they feel as secure as they once did. Their naivete has gone away.”

Yet as that sense of security has eroded, the nation has grudgingly begun to believe that it will have to relinquish some freedoms in the name of safety, the poll found.

Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed said they are willing to give up some civil liberties in order to fight terrorism, while 23% said they are not willing to do so. Thirteen percent said their response would depend on which liberties would be curtailed. Respondents were not asked which specific liberties they would be willing to relinquish.

“We’re going to have to function differently with regard to our safety,” Paul Kurtz of Marietta, Ga., said in an interview after responding to the poll. Kurtz offered that opinion even as he expressed support for free speech and other civil liberties, and for limited government intrusion into private lives.

Overall, the poll found that 65% of respondents were somewhat or very concerned that the fight against terrorism could bring restrictions on civil liberties. But more than half of that group, 54%, said they were willing to give in to those restrictions to enhance safety.

“It would be really sad to have that happen,” Terry May of New Braunfels, Texas, said in a follow-up interview. “But if things keep going the way they are, we may have to accept some loss of privacy.”

The Times Poll interviewed 1,572 adults nationwide by telephone. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Americans expressed pronounced willingness to put up with additional cost and inconvenience in order to gain greater security aboard airplanes and in airports. Government officials and aviation experts have indicated that security improvements could mean more thorough and time-consuming inspections of baggage, the questioning of travelers and higher fares.

Of those surveyed, 66% said they strongly favored making airports more secure--even at such costs--and another 17% said they “somewhat” favored such a course. Thirteen percent said they opposed it, and 4% said they didn’t know what course they preferred.

And as for punishment of those responsible if the crash of the Trans World Airlines jetliner is found to have been the work of terrorists sponsored by a foreign power, 40% said the individuals should be tried in U.S. courts and the United States should impose economic sanctions on the nation involved. Fourteen percent favored taking military action against the nation in addition to prosecuting the individuals in court, while 10% favored a combination of all those steps.

Twenty-six percent favored prosecuting the individuals but taking no action whatsoever against the nation that sponsored them.

But Tom W. Smith, director of general social surveys at the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago, said responses to the question--which Times pollsters could only pose hypothetically--almost certainly would change if investigators find conclusive evidence that a terrorist nation is responsible.

Indeed, May said that while she did not generally favor a military response, if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was to blame, “you can blow that country off the map as far as I’m concerned.”

While terrorism proliferated in the Middle East and Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, it is a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States.

It was not until a series of attacks--the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland; the 1993 blast at the World Trade Center in New York and the 1995 explosion that destroyed the federal building in Oklahoma City--that Americans began to sense their vulnerability.

The crash of TWA’s Boeing 747 with 230 people aboard and the explosion of a pipe bomb at the Atlanta park, which killed one person, have refocused the nation’s attention on such concerns.

Still, the poll suggests that Americans are becoming somewhat inured to terrorist attacks, or do not see such incidents as a threat to them individually.

In a Times survey taken immediately after the Oklahoma City bombing, 49% of respondents said the explosion had undermined their sense of personal security. But the recent poll found that just 39% of respondents said they thought the TWA and Atlanta explosions had made them feel less secure.

“The vast majority of people are not concerned about the personal threat of terrorism,” Smith said.

Similarly, the percentage of poll respondents who said they believe that terrorism is a very serious problem in the United States has fallen somewhat, from 49% after the Oklahoma City bombing to 41% today.

And 56% of respondents said they believe that even if law enforcement officials are given the tools they need to fight terrorism, they will be able to prevent only a few of any future terrorist attacks. Shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, a less pessimistic 48% of those surveyed said they thought that such support would prevent only a few attacks.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Terror in U.S.

A number of Americans say they are concerned that their civil liberties may be restricted because of new measures to fight terrorism, but many are still willing to give up some of those liberties to curb such attacks.

Retaliate or Not?

If the TWA crash is connected to a country that supports terrorism, should we--in addition to trying the person responsible--retaliate against the country that sponsored the terrorist by using economic sanctions, or by using military force, or should we not retaliate against that country at all?

Economic sanctions: 40%

Military force: 14%

Should not retaliate: 18%

Use economic sanctions and military force (Vol.): 10%

Just try the person/group that caused the crash: 8%

Don’t know: 10%

****

Restricting Civil Liberties?

How concerned are you that new measures enacted to fight terrorism in this country may end up restricting some of our civil liberties?

Concerned: 65%

Not concerned: 32%

Don’t know: 3%

****

Willing to Give Up Civil Liberties?

Would you be willing to give up some civil liberties if that were necessary to curb terrorism in this country, or not?

Willing: 58%

Not willing: 23%

It Depends (Vol.): 13%

Don’t know: 6%

Source: L.A. Times Poll

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

How the Poll Was Conducted

The Times Poll contacted 1,572 adults nationwide, by telephone Aug. 3 through Aug. 6. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the nation. Random-digit dialing techniques were used so that listed and non-listed numbers could be contacted. The sample was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age, education, region and party identification. The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus 3 percentage points; for certain sub-groups the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results can also be affected by other factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented.