Americans On: Civil Rights Fighting Terrorism
With President George W. Bush
criticizing congressional Democrats and Republicans who have thus far
blocked renewal of the Patriot Act, most Americans express reservations
in principle about violating their civil rights in order to fight
terrorism, though relatively few think the Patriot Act "goes too far."
A recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup
poll finds 65% of Americans saying that while the government should make
efforts to fight terrorism, it should not take steps that violate basic
civil liberties. On the other hand, 31% would allow the government to
take counter-terrorism steps to prevent terrorism, "even if that means
your basic civil liberties would be violated."
Which comes closer to your view --
[ROTATED: the government should take all steps necessary to prevent
additional acts of terrorism in the U.S. even if it means your basic
civil liberties would be violated, (or) the government should take steps
to prevent additional acts of terrorism but not if those steps would
violate your basic civil liberties]?
BASED ON 522 NATIONAL ADULTS IN
FORM B
|
|
Take
steps, even if
civil liberties violated |
Take
steps but not
violate civil liberties |
No
opinion |
| |
% |
% |
% |
| 2005 Dec
16-18 ^ |
31 |
65 |
4 |
| |
|
|
|
| 2003 Nov
10-12 ^ |
31 |
64 |
5 |
| 2003 Aug
25-26 ^ |
29 |
67 |
4 |
| 2003 Apr
22-23 |
33 |
64 |
3 |
| 2002 Sep
2-4 ^ |
33 |
62 |
5 |
| 2002 Jun
21-23 |
40 |
56 |
4 |
| 2002 Jan
25-27 |
47 |
49 |
4 |
|
^ Asked of a half sample |
Americans were more permissive in their
responses in a Jan. 2002 poll, only four months after the 9/11 terrorist
attacks, when they were evenly divided about allowing the government to
fight terrorism by violating basic civil rights -- 47% in favor, 49%
opposed. But almost one year after 9/11, 62% of Americans were against,
and just 33% in favor, of allowing civil rights violations in the war
against terrorism -- a pattern of division that has persisted since
then.
When asked specifically about the
Patriot Act -- a broad anti-terrorism law which was initially enacted
shortly after 9/11 and expires at the end of this month, unless renewed
by Congress -- 34% of Americans say the law goes too far in restricting
people's civil liberties, 41% say it is about right, and 18% say it
doesn't go far enough. These views are little changed from a similar
measure last June.
As you may know, shortly after the
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, a law called the Patriot Act
was passed. That law deals with the ways the federal government can
obtain private information on people living in the U.S. who are
suspected of having ties with terrorists. Based on what you have read or
heard, do you think the Patriot Act -- [ROTATED: goes too far, is about
right, or does not go far enough] -- in restricting people's civil
liberties in order to investigate suspected terrorism?
BASED ON 481 NATIONAL ADULTS IN
FORM A
| |
Goes
too far |
About
right |
Not
far
enough |
No
opinion |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 2004 Dec 16-18
^ |
34% |
44 |
18 |
4 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 2005 Jun 24-26 |
30% |
41 |
21 |
8 |
| ^
Asked of a half sample |
Partisan Differences
Given that President Bush and most
congressional Republicans support the Patriot Act, while most Democrats
(and only a few Republicans) oppose it, public opinion about this matter
is likely to be highly related to party affiliation. The poll confirms
that hypothesis: Only 13% of Republicans say the law goes too far,
compared with 40% of independents and 48% of Democrats. On the other
hand, 65% or Republicans say the law is about right, compared with 37%
of independents and 31% of Democrats.

The poll finds a similar pattern on
whether the government should be able to violate basic civil liberties
while fighting terrorism. A slight majority of Republicans, 51%, opposes
such violations, compared with 73% of independents and 70% of Democrats.

Related Links:
|