Anti-terror campaign has wide support, even at the expense of cherished rights

By Richard Sobel.

Richard Sobel researches privacy issues at Harvard University. His latest book is "The Impact of Public Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy Since Vietnam: Constraining the Colossus."

November 4, 2001

The anger over the terrorist attacks and killings at the World Trade Center and Pentagon galvanized Americans to go to war to defeat and bring to justice those who planned the devastation. The prospects of a long and costly conflict, with heavy casualties among both civilians and soldiers, have not restrained the resolve to act decisively and pursue longer-term policy aims. And Americans apparently are willing to give up the very civil liberties and rights that distinguish America from the parts of the world from which the terrorist originated.
A shocked, saddened and angered public quickly rallied in support of the president. George W. Bush's approval rating of 86 percent before his speech to Congress in mid-September rivaled his father's after the successful 1991 Persian Gulf war, according to Washington Post/ABC News polls. Even more approved of his initial handling of the crisis, and these figures only rose after the fighting in Afghanistan began three weeks later.

The history of patriotism surrounding major crises suggests the rally will likely last several months, particularly if military efforts succeed and the threat continues. Public support remained especially high for 6 months after Pearl Harbor as world war began. On the other hand, once the gulf war ended, approval dropped more swiftly as the economy weakened.
Support also depends on the risks, costs and outcomes. For example, approval (86 percent) for military action declines in the polls to three-quarters (77 percent) or less if innocent civilians are killed. It falls to two-thirds (69 percent) if "a large number" of U.S. troops die and to half (55 percent) for a ground invasion losing U.S. lives.

On the home front

And polls show that the public has some strong feelings on the home front as well. Many people feel that previous intelligence and security measures were not adequate and that the tragedy could have been prevented. Two-thirds think more could have been done to prevent the attacks. Perhaps the public takes the attacks personally in part because nearly 1 in 5 Americans at least indirectly knew someone affected by the attacks. To regain a sense of protection, much of the public seems willing to trade some privacy for security. Though 56 percent indicate concern over losing civil liberties, 57 percent think sacrifices are necessary, according to one poll.
Most of the public is prepared to endure long waits, searches and identification checks at airports, public buildings and events--68 percent support letting the police randomly stop people who might fit a terrorist profile. But only 23 percent have said they favor random ID checks on streets and highways, and slightly more than half oppose monitoring calls and e-mail. Half support the right to protest the military action, though an equal group expects people to "rally" around country.

The majorities would, however, more carefully scrutinize Arabs and Arab-Americans, including "more intensive security checks" of Arab passengers on airplanes. As many as one-third feel Arab-Americans should be put under special surveillance. Nearly half approve having Arab-Americans carry special ID cards, and 29 percent even approve internment camps for suspect groups.
Classic studies of the 1950s anti-communist era by Robert McClosky found the public willing to give up rights while leaders were more respectful of basic freedoms. Previous egregious rights violations such as the internment of 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II have chastened citizens and leaders enough recently to provide compensation, but anti-terrorist sentiment may parallel anti-communist concerns in willingness to take even ineffective efforts to "protect" against an unseen enemy.
Who will stop either the government or the citizenry from going too far? While restrictions such as reinforcing cockpit doors or adding air marshals do not reduce basis rights, luggage searches, ID checks and wiretapping affect 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search. Will there be restrictions on 1st Amendment rights of free speech or 14th Amendment rights to travel as both war and rhetoric heat up?

Notable warnings

In perilous times, Benjamin Franklin warned, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in "All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime" that "it is too easy to slide from a case of genuine military necessity to one where the threat is not critical and the power either dubious or nonexistent."
Public officials need to lead in identifying effective security procedures that respect privacy and basic rights. Restrictions need to be temporary in pursuit of security that respects rights, and in anticipation of diplomatic and military efforts that root out the causes of terror.
As "grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution," the nation became ready for war against terrorism. How long this virtual unity, its leeway for leaders to act, and the military battle continue will last depends on how effective the U.S. response is, how severely restrictions affect the public and their rights, the resilience of American society, and other unseen factors.
Insightful judgments, considered policy and effective actions will buoy support and increase the likelihood of success against terrorism around the world. Recognizable end points both for the war on terrorism and for restrictions on free society need to be identified and pursued. Diplomatic and policy approaches need to address the sources of terror as parts of national and international strategy.
Thoughtful democratic sentiment, wise leadership and enlightened diplomacy are the best guides for policies that, in fact, protect us, restrain terror and retain our fundamental freedoms.

This information was compiled from surveys by The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, NBC and ABC News, Newsweek, and the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, as well as the Gallup, Harris and Pew organizations.

Copyright (c) 2001, Chicago Tribune