Posted on 06/11/2002 6:39:05 AM PDT by Boonie Rat
Poll: Four in Five Americans Would Give Up Some Freedom for More Security
By Jennifer L. Brown Associated Press Writer
Published: Jun 11, 2002
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - Four in five Americans would give up some freedoms to gain security and four in 10 worry terrorists will harm them or their family, a new Gallup poll shows.
About one-third of those polled favor making it easier for authorities to access private e-mail and telephone conversations. More than 70 percent are in favor of requiring U.S. citizens to carry identification cards with fingerprints, and 77 percent believe all Americans should have smallpox vaccinations.
"It was amazing the percentage of people who are willing to give up freedom to get back some sense of personal security," said Elaine Christiansen, senior research director for The Gallup Organization. "These aren't people who were necessarily near the twin towers, near the Pentagon, near the Murrah building. These are average people."
The telephone survey, conducted in March, included 934 people across the country. Researchers also polled about 500 people in each of three cities where terrorist attacks occurred - New York City, Washington, D.C., and Oklahoma City - to compare results with the general population survey.
The poll showed 8 percent of Americans are very worried and 31 percent are somewhat worried that they or someone in their family will become victims of a terrorist attack in the United States. In New York City, the level of worry is higher - 19 percent said they are very worried and 34 percent said they are somewhat worried.
Washington, D.C, and Oklahoma City reported levels of fear close to the national average.
Scientists involved in the poll said they were not surprised many Americans remain fearful after Sept. 11.
"The magnitude of the event was just so profound," said Carol North, a psychiatry professor at Washington University in St. Louis, who said talk of the war in Afghanistan, airline security and terrorist threats is propelling the fear.
The study was co-sponsored by The University of Oklahoma psychiatry department through a grant from the Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The main survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points, while the margin of error for the survey in the three cities is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Meanwhile, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that 60 percent of New York City residents think the threat of a terrorist attack in their city is greater than it is in any other big city.
Barely 40 percent of respondents believe the city is safer than it had been four years ago, a decrease of 20 percent from those polled in August. Even so, nearly two-thirds of those surveyed said that given a choice, they would prefer to be living in the city four years from now than any other place.
The poll, conducted by telephone in English or Spanish June 4 through Sunday, surveyed 940 adults. It has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
A rather odd little war it is. No military draft? Why, if we're all going to die, if the nation itself is in peril, then one would think that we would have able-bodied young person in uniform.
Ask your parents or grandparents about WWII - people were asked to make real sacrifices. Other than relinquish our civil liberties, what does our government ask of us? Why, shop till you drop for democracy!
Well, we all know that "5" is the answer. This is what makes me so mad about the "Reaganman" types. They claim we are "in a state of war" to dodge the Constitutional requirements for war, but then support a government who has done nothing that a country who is "at war" would do.
I knew the government was not serious when they didn't deport all known(and yes, they know who is and where they are) terrorists, supporters, foreign nationalists and sympethizers. They have not stopped imigration from countries who support terrorists. These would be the first two steps done by any country at war.
I would add that if there was imminent threat of getting the chair for COINTELPRO-style abuses, I suspect there would be less resistance to expanded surveillance targeted at the real bad guys.
(Yes, I'm quite serious. I fail to see why the misuse of federal power against law-abiding citizens is not considered an act of treason, given that it undercuts the Constitutional Republic and undermines support for measures against legitimate targets.)
I believe this statement comes from your naieve understanding of laws. Laws protect rights by outlining punishments for violating the law/rights. We as a country, do not "vigorously" enforce our laws. If we did, we would not have 70% of violent crimes committed by prior felons and felons on parole.
You can not legislate a change of heart. That's exactly why laws have punishments for violating them.
And some of these assaults on freedom seem to have little to do with catching terrorists. As is becoming increasingly evident our multibillion dollar spy apparatus had Excellent ability to collect information on terrorists. It just didn't go anywhere. This latest dirty bomber was shadowed and caught under old rules, not new ones. We already have the tools. Instead of new laws we need good old Attention and Analysis.
Huh? Would you care to re-think your question?
Is your answer more and more laws for them to ignore? That will put more restrictions on those of us who obey laws.
Put them in prison whey they break the law and get rid of parole boards relative to violent offenders!
There is one basic reason politicians pass laws and that is to make us "feel good" and shows us they are doing something about it. Why do you suppose that many criminal laws have "loopholes" in them?
You do know the p.a.t.r.i.o.t. law was passed overwhelmingly by both houses and they didn't even read it because it was not in PRINTED form when they voted on it?
Politiciana, at best, are self-serving and, at worst, are duplicitous.
You can not legislate a change of heart.
Exactly; and thank you.
[The "Patriot Law" was] "passed overwhelmingly by both houses and they didn't even read it because it was not in PRINTED form when they voted on it?"
Yep.
That seems as treasonous as any terrorist attack.
What I do say is that there is a vast difference in making sacrifices and giving up freedoms. Governments by their nature wish to gather more power, sometimes with the best of intentions. People like you make that possible, and take no offense, most are like you.
We must stand fast against both the enemy and the weak willed friend.
BTW My IQ tests between 132 and 141 and I did very well in reading comprehension, but thank you for your concern. Now my typing is another matter entirely .......
The people who are here in this country, who are "suspected" con-sonspirators or sympethizers are here because the government let them in via work or student visas. Most of them, that is. Most will never talk, and there obviously is not enough evidence to link most of them to a crime. So, they must be deported. If they "get back in", then it should be because they sneaked in.
Some people say, "But FT, these people are more than likely terrorists; we can't give them another chance to act!" Well, what we have then is one of these "I know, but I can't prove it" hunches. It may be valid. We have two choices in that case. 1) We disregard the rule of law, and imprison or execute anyone the government "claims" is a terrorists, supporter or sympethizer. Or 2) We deport them, and don't let foreign nationals and radicals in our country.
I'll go with number two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.