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.
Giggle, snort, guffaw. Below is a few lines from an article, dated today, from the British press. I've bolded a few that lines that show that, once handed over, big gov doesn't like to release their authoritarian powers.
snip - Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said the new powers, to be enshrined in law next week, will remain useable only under carefully monitored circumstances.
"These powers are not taken lightly," he said, stressing the safeguards involved.
He said information could only be sought on grounds of national security, crime prevention, Britain's economic wellbeing, public safety or public health, tax or duty matters, to prevent death or any damage to a person's health.
But pressure groups were furious at the long arm of the law being allowed to stretch further.
"I am appalled at this huge increase in the scope of government snooping," Ian Brown, director of the Foundation for Information Policy Research told the Guardian newspaper.
"Two years ago, we were deeply concerned that these powers were to be given to the police without any judicial oversight. Now they are handing them out to a practically endless queue of bureaucrats in Whitehall and town halls. end-snip"
The U.S. is (and has been) heading in exactly the same direction as the UK for years. First their guns, now their privacy. What do you suppose they'll lose next? I hope your children and grandchildren enjoy living in the cage being built for them.
Hey, just because commas are free doesn't mean you have to use one every three words. Tauzero points out a very telling flaw in what passes for logic with you. He didn't twist your words, he made a good point against you. I guess that means it's time for you to call him a racist libertarian fringe reactionary or something.
P.S. Today's alert is baby poop yellow. Don't get it confused with the mustard yellow, which is another shade and another level of alert.
amen! what we have is an illusion of freedom.
I shall leave you with a quote, stolen from a fellow FReeper:
“There is nothing more tiresome than the assumption that intellect consists of agreeing with you.” ~ A.J. Armitage, FReeper ~
Really? Throughout the Cold War we faced an adversary who possessed tens of thousands of nuclear warheads, and they had the means to deliver them (and they still do, come to think of it).
During those days, the people who constantly harped "times have changed" had a rallying cry - Better Read Than Dead. Like many here, they also presented us with a false dilemna - We'd better do (fill in the blank) or we're all dead! Basically, the left used fear-mongering as a tactic to advance their politcal agenda - just as many on the right are doing now.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. I'll stick to the wisdom of Ben Franklin.
That is exactly the argument Sarah Brady and her followers make for gun registration and disarmament.
And, for doing away with the Second Amendment.
I'm willing to discuss this rationally.
Let us start by either of you telling me if the expectation that our leaders and those in political parties should be accountable for the crimes they commit is something we will have to sacrifice in this "War on Terror"? That seems to be the logic pushed by those who advocate ignoring the many crimes that Clinton and his democRAT friends committed the last nine years.
So, tell me, is this the case? During this "War On Terror" will leaders and those in political parties be above the law? Can we expect Bush and the GOP to do what ever is necessary to stay in power and win this war? Afterall, Bush supporters have also been telling us this war would be lost if the DNC were now in power. Do you think the DNC can be trusted 6 years from now to take the reigns of government? They might mess up the war and we'd all die! Perhaps the GOP should just make sure that doesn't happen by ignoring the election laws for a while. What do you think?
And, speaking of the election 6 years hence, just how long will this "short term" suspension of the laws be the necessary? Afterall, the administration has indicated this is going to be a long, long war. A decade? Two? Hummmm. Perhaps the GOP better just suspend the Constitution altogether so they can make sure the democRATS don't muck things up from now on. Afterall, the world is just going to get more and more dangerous what with nanotechnology, recombinant DNA, and god knows what else on the horizon. And we all know we can't trust democRATS, can we?
That "rational" enough for you?
Exactly right. Over the years I have learned to be skeptical and suspicous of anyone who relies on fear-mongering to advance their agenda.
Ya know, I've had people hold up the United States Post Office as a function of government that works. I've gotta ask now just how good they are--when they have to ask for rate increases NOW for the next umteen months/years because they're 'losing their ass'.
So why can't other Amerikans ask how fingerprinting foreigners from terrorist nations is going to make us safe....it doesn't take rocketry science to realize that a fingerprint is NOT going to stop a crime!!! Pathetic. Pitiful.
Not at all.
If anything, you're making trouble for yourself and that's fine with me.
But....but.....but.....didn't you read where Reagan Man said he's old! LOL. As though what passes as 'politicians or statesmen' today [with very, very few exceptions] could hold a candle to the Founding Fathers.
But there are some here at FR, more than one would think, who believe the Constitution is merely a guide. Of course, they maintain, like the liberals, that it is out-dated. Funny though, if they believed anything at all in the Constitution, they would realize the way to change this 'outdatedness' would be to get a Constitutional Amendment. Where are all their screams and demands for CA's to cover all these 'outdated' ideals? Where are all the essays and articles here at FR to support that idea?
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.