The new millennium was not yet one year old when it was rocked by the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. The attack was unprecedented in many ways; it was immense, unexpected, cunning, ferocious, and devastating. For millions of Americans, it portended a grim new world order for the days ahead, where even the most secure society might be penetrated and devastated by a small band of determined zealots. (1) The anthrax deaths later that September only added to people's feelings of vulnerability. (2) It is no wonder that barely six weeks later, on October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush quickly signed into law (3) the USA PATRIOT Act (4)--by all measures one of the most sweeping and controversial acts in United States history, (5) intended to dramatically increase government powers of investigation and enforcement, many would argue at the expense of individual liberties. (6) The complex and daring 342-page Act had been hastily passed by overwhelming majorities in the U.S. Senate (98-1) (7) and House (357-66), (8) without public hearings or debate, (9) even though the Act resembled portions of the Antiterrorism Act of 1996, (10) which had already been ruled unconstitutional by federal courts. (11)

More than a year-and-a-half later, how does the U.S. mass media and the public regard this federal anti-terrorism legislation and its abridgement of traditional liberties? This three-part Essay offers an interdisciplinary examination of: (I) the legal provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act; (12) (II) the distinct shift in U.S. media reporting on this legislation over time; (13) and (III) in-depth public opinion findings on people's mixed views of post-9/11 civil liberties. (14)

I. THE USA PATRIOT ACT

Under the pretense of enhancing national security, the USA PATRIOT Act concentrates increased new powers in the executive branch of government, while decreasing judicial oversight. (15) These measures included:

A. Creation of a New Crime

Section 802 of the Act creates a new federal crime of "domestic terrorism," (16) which includes any dangerous acts that "appear to be intended ... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." (17) Broadly applied, this could be used to silence any political dissent critical of government policies. (18)

B. Diminished Due Process for Immigrants

Section 411 of the Act expands the term "engage in terrorist activity" to include any use of a weapon, as well as such nonviolent acts as fund-raising for suspect organizations. (19) Moreover, it allows for the detention or removal of non-citizens with little or no judicial review. (20) The U.S. Attorney General and Secretary of State can claim a domestic group to be a terrorist organization, (21) and deport any non-citizen members. (22)

C. Diminished Privacy

The Act severely curtails the right to privacy at several turns, including broadening the grounds for increased surveillance and wiretap authority, (23) sneak-and-peek searches, (24) tracking Internet usage, (25) and accessing private records. (26)

D. Lowering Standards of Probable Cause

Section 215 of the Act reduces the traditional Fourth Amendment requirements for probable cause, (27) as previously interpreted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"). (28)

E. Sharing of Intelligence

Section 203 of the Act now permits unprecedented sharing of sensitive information across several independent agencies, including the FBI, CIA, INS, and other state and federal agencies. (29)

As a result of the USA PATRIOT Act, more than 1,200 immigrants in the United States were taken into custody and detained for an extended period without being charged with committing a terrorist act. (30) In response to criticisms of this policy, Attorney General John Ashcroft tersely replied: "Let the terrorists among us be warned ... if you overstay your visas even by one day, we will arrest you." (31) Moreover, because habeas proceedings are civil rather than criminal, (32) the government has no obligation under the Sixth Amendment to provide non-citizens with free counsel in such proceedings. (33)

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 goes far beyond the Antiterrorism Act of 1996, enacted in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma bombing, which legal critics at that time termed "one of the worst assaults on the Constitution in decades." (34) Despite the mounting criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union and other proliberty lobbies, the federal momentum continues to move away from individual rights, with public discussions of a Terrorism Information and Prevention System ("TIPS") Program (35) to encourage people to report each other's suspicious activities to the government, (36) and even use torture to extract useful information from some detainees. (37) Compared to most other nations today, America has certainly prided itself as a nation of laws, liberty, and due process, which have "made America the envy of the world, inspiring other nations' freedom movements for over 200 years." (38) One must, therefore, wonder how the American public and its mass media are reacting to this current anti-liberty trend embodied in the USA PATRIOT Act and other U.S. anti-terrorism legislation.

II. THE MASS MEDIA

Historically, during troubled times, the American public has turned to the mass media for information and solace. (39) Trusted reporters such as Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite informed the nation that Nazi Germany had fallen to Allied troops, (40) that President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated, (41) and that the Vietnam War was not as "winnable" as predicted. (42)

A. The Media's Coverage of September 11

On September 11, 2001, many Americans turned to TV news to learn about the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history. On September 12, a CBS news survey showed that ninety-eight percent of those polled said they were following the news about the attacks. (43) A few weeks later, attention to the news had not waned. A survey conducted the last week of September 2001, found that ninety-five percent of respondents were following news about the attacks; eighty-five percent of them very closely. (44)

Most of those polled said they were thrilled with the manner in which the press handled the coverage. (45) The news in the days following the attacks was straightforward, with facts outnumbering opinions and few anonymous sources cited. (46) A poll taken the week of the attacks revealed that eighty-nine percent rated the media's coverage as good or excellent. (47) In November, polls showed the public's opinion of the media had increased for the first time in sixteen years. (48)

But how did the American media handle the events that unfolded days and months after the crisis? It is difficult to maintain objectivity in the best of times. When the world we all knew came tumbling down with such well-known American symbols as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, American reporters found it difficult to resist the chest-puffing patriotism that enveloped the nation. (49)

Many commentators, including members of the media itself, say the press has failed to do its job as the guardian of democracy. (50) Very few news reports filled in the basic blanks--the who, what, where, when, and why--about U.S. policy, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the government's insistence on the need for secrecy and more power. Very few news reports discussed the dangers involved in pushing aside civil liberties during a national crisis. In fact, most stories about the country's response were positive. (51) The military strikes were reported as necessary and effective, and the USA PATRIOT Act was hailed as a unified nation's quick response to the terrorist strike. (52) Some of the more troubling aspects of the legislation received little or no scrutiny by the media until months after it became law. (53)

According to John MacArthur, publisher of Harper's Magazine and author of a book on censorship in the Gulf War, the September 11 attacks had a depressing impact on the institution of the free press in the United States: (54)

There isn't even the spirit any more that was in Vietnam, of     
   skepticism, and the sense that the patriotic thing to do is to tell                                                                   
   the American people the truth and to try to be impartial and not 
   to be the cat's paw of the government. But when I say this on    
   TV the reaction is overwhelming; there is tremendous hostility   
   to the free press in this country. (55)     

The bulk of the stories about the attacks and their aftermath had pro-American slants. A Project for Excellence in Journalism survey found eighty percent of coverage was pro-American in September, a figure that did not dip below seventy-one percent by the year's end. (56) Those polled shortly after 9/11, however, said they did not believe the media should become a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration. (57) A November poll revealed that fifty-two percent believed reporters should dig to get all the facts and seventy-three percent preferred news coverage that portrayed more than the pro-American point of view. (58) The troubling element of the coverage was not the patriotic slant, however, but the media's decision to suppress debate over sensitive topics, like the "why's" behind the terrorist attacks, the history of U.S. policy in the Middle East, and the long-term impact of the government's new powers. Even newsman Dan Rather fell victim to the times, weeping with talk show host David Letterman a few days after the attacks and pledging: "George Bush is the President.... Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where." (59)

   [A] reflexive, pro-diversity newsroom climate survives, especially
   with respect to post-9/11 coverage of Arab- and Muslim-Americans, 
   who have become the objects du jure [sic] of journalistic         
   piety and skittishness. Although many Muslim-Americans            
   are appalled by the terrorist attack, a larger proportion         
   than has been admitted have expressed approval. (68)              

   The War on terror must be aggressive, but it must be smart. The   
   government needs to adopt measures that reflect our core values   
   and that meaningfully promote security. It needs to explain       
   how its tactics achieve both goals. It should not squander its    
   own credibility with measures that undermine our nation's guiding 
   principals but do little to make us safer. (90)                   

   We are absolutely patriotic. But our patriotism doesn't derive    
   from a law that tries to cram the word "patriot" into its title so
   that it can wrap itself in the flag, but rather a patriotism ... that                                                                  
   derives from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the civil
   liberties that have really made this country ... the greatest nation                                                                   
   there is. (97)                                                    

   Reeling off the success of the discovery of Al-Qaeda cells in     
   New York, Michigan, and Oregon, the United States has put the     
   emboldening PATRIOT Act to excellent use.... Though the           
   U.S. has enacted new laws such as the PATRIOT Act to combat       
   terrorism, the other nations of the West have not followed our    
   necessary lead. (104)                                             

APPENDIX A 
POLITICAL OPINIONS SURVEY 

Please give us your frank opinions in this anonymous survey. Answer 
each item by circling A (Agree strongly), a (agree), d (disagree), or
D (Disagree strongly). There are no right or wrong answers, only your
personal opinions. Save any comments for the end of the survey. For 
your free summary of the survey's results next month, contact Fordham
University at 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
  THANK YOU. 

 1. A a d D Human nature being what it is, there will always be 
 war and conflict. 

 2. A a d D A few strong leaders could make this country better 
 than all the laws and talk. 

 3. A a d D People cannot be trusted. 

 4. A a d D Most people who don't get ahead just don't have 
 enough will power. 

 5. A a d D An insult to your honor should not be forgotten. 

In recent history, all sorts of groups have used terrorism, "the use of 
violence against civilians to achieve a political goal." These include 
religious groups, such as Christians in Ireland, Moslems, Jews, and 
Hindus in the East; national groups, such as Latins, Armenians, and 
Africans; and ideological groups, such as communists and fascists. Is
terrorism "freedom-fighting?" Please answer these questions on 
terrorism in general: 

 1. A a d D Terrorists must be considered the enemy of 
 civilized society, regardless of their motives. 

 7. A a d D It is sometimes understandable if people resort to 
 terrorism as their only way to be heard. 

 8. A a d D Only a cruel, cowardly group would resort to 
 terrorism to achieve its goals. 

 9. A a d D Most terrorists seem like disturbed people who 
 would act violent even in an ideal society. 

10. A a d D Terrorism is sometimes morally justified. 

11. If terrorism involves "killing innocent civilians to achieve a 
political goal," I feel this tactic: 

a. is a morally acceptable tactic: 

 [] never [] rarely [] occasionally [] sometimes [] often. 

b. has been an effective tactic: 

 [] never [] rarely [] occasionally [] sometimes [] often. 

Add any comments on back. 

In particular, about the 9/11 terrorists and their world-wide al-Qaeda 
network, I feel: 

12. A a d D they would have exploded nuclear weapons in New 
 York City if they had the chance. 

13. A a d D they have some legitimate basis for their anger at 
 the United States and its citizens. 

14. A a d D they are the enemy of all civilized people, 
 including moderate Moslems. 

15. A a d D outside the U.S., the government should be 
 aggressive to eliminate their network. 

16. A a d D inside the U.S., the government should be 
 aggressive to eliminate their network. 

About the treatment of suspects in the United States, I feel the 
government should: 

17. A a d D "profile" people at U.S. airports and elsewhere if 
 this can increase public safety. 

18. A a d D probe the otherwise private files of U.S. students 
 and workers from suspect nations. 

19. A a d D torture U.S. detainees linked with al-Qaeda if 
 their information could save lives. 

20. A a d D expand its wiretaps of suspects in the U.S. 

21. A a d D ensure the right to an attorney and other legal 
 rights of suspects in U.S. custody. 

22. Since 9-11-01, I have felt more: 

 a. A a d D fearful or anxious 

 b. A a d D angry 

 c. A a d D suspicious of strangers 

 d. A a d D spiritual 

 e. A a d D proud to be an American 

23. Since 9-11-01, I have: 

 a. A a d D reduced my air travel 

 b. A a d D acted more alert in public 

 c. A a d D stayed at home more 

 d. A a d D gone out more to support the economy 

 e. A a d D displayed the U.S. flag more 

24. About the 9-11-01 attack, I would say its impact on New York City
really has been: 

[] none 

[] mainly negative 

[] both negative and positive 

[] mainly positive. 

Any comments on back. 

25. I have personally visited and seen Ground Zero. [] no 
[] yes, --time(s). If yes, what was its immediate or long-term impact
on you? Add any comments on back. 

26. My age: --. 

27. My gender: [] M [] F. 

28. The country where I was raised: --. 

29. Of my four grandparents, the number born in the U.S. is (circle 
one): 

0 1 2 3 4 

30. My education: 

[] Grammar school 

[] High school 

[] Some college 

[] College graduate 

[] Graduate school 

31. My ethnicity: 

[] Hispanic 

[] White 

[] African-American 

[] Asian 

[] Other: --. 

32. My religion: 

[] Moslem 

[] Christian 

[] Jewish 

[] None 

[] Other: --. 

33. I would say my degree of religiosity is (circle #): 
(less) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (more) 

34. I live in the New York area: 

[] Yes [] No, in: --. 

35. (Optional) Which words would you use to describe individual 
terrorists today? Put an N beside words you feel are never true, an A
beside those you think are always true of terrorists. Leave blank all
the other words you think might apply to some terrorists but not 
others: 

--Rational --Mature 
--Dedicated --Immature 
--Cruel --Sincere 
--Idealistic --Mentally disturbed 
--Strong --Self-sacrificing 
--Clever --Malcontent 
--Fanatic --Selfish 
--Sensible --Selfless 
--Calculating --Thrill-seeking 
--Cowardly --Sadistic 
--Misguided --Brainwashed 
--Effective 

Any additional comments (optional): 

... 11. An acceptable or effective tactic? 

... 24. 9-11 impact on New York City? 

... 25. Impact of seeing Ground Zero? 

36. Any further comments on terrorism, 9-11, its impact, this 
survey ...? 

TABLE 1 
PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD TERRORISM, AL-QAEDA, 
INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES 

Percent 

 0 1 2 3 4 Mean 

82 8 5 5 0 .3 Acceptable tactic? (0-4) 

41 21 19 11 8 1.2 Effective? (0-4) 

53 29 16 1 .9 Terrorists must be considered the enemy 
 of civilized society, regardless of 
 their motives. [r] 

38 31 24 7 1.4 It is sometimes understandable if 
 people resort to terrorism as their 
 only way to be heard. 

38 23 29 9 1.6 Only a cruel, cowardly group would 
 resort to terrorism to achieve its 
 goals. [r] 

23 30 33 13 1.9 Most terrorists seem like disturbed 
 people who would act violent even in an 
 ideal society. [r] 

51 28 16 4 1.0 Terrorism is sometimes morally 
 justified. 

 6.8 Accept Terrorism (0-20). 

In particular, about the 9-11 terrorists and their world-wide al-Qaeda 
network, I feel: 

56 26 14 4 1.0 they would have exploded nuclear 
 weapons in New York City if they had 
 the chance. [r] 

24 22 40 13 1.9 they have some legitimate basis for 
 their anger at the United States and 
 its citizens. 

35 37 24 4 1.1 they are the enemy of all civilized 
 people, including moderate Moslems. [r] 

48 33 17 3 0.8 outside the U.S., the government should 
 be aggressive to eliminate their 
 network. [r] 

68 21 9 3 0.6 inside the U.S., the government should 
 be aggressive to eliminate their 
 network. [r] 

 5.4 Accept al-Qaeda (0-20) 

About the treatment of suspects in the United States, I feel the 
government should: 

34 31 25 9 1.3 "profile" people at U.S. airports and
 elsewhere if this can increase public
 safety. [r] 

20 31 35 11 1.8 probe the otherwise private files of 
 U.S. students and workers from suspect 
 nations. [r] 

19 18 33 28 2.3 torture U.S. detainees linked with 
 al-Qaeda if their information could 
 save lives. [r] 

31 31 28 9 1.4 expand its wiretaps of suspects in the 
 U.S. [r] 

12 16 42 26 2.7 ensure the right to an attorney and 
 other legal rights of suspects in U.S. 
 custody. 

 9.5 Favor civil liberties over security 
 (0-20) 

Notes: The four columns of numbers to the left indicate percentage of
respondents who agreed with that view, from 0 (low) to 4 (high). The 
fifth column indicates the mean score for each item (0-4) or scale 
(0-20). Some items marked [r] are reverse-scored, so "disagree" is 
scored high for that item. 

TABLE 2 
INTERRCORRELATIONS OF PEOPLE'S VIEWS AND BIODATA 

 Liberties Terror al-Qaeda Authorit. 

 2. Terrorism (0-20) .39 ** 
 3. al-Qaeda (0-20) .45 ** .47 ** 
 4. Authoritarianism (0-20) -.46 ** -.11 -.12 
 5. T-accept (0-4) .08 .30 ** .19 ** .20 ** 
 6. T-effective (0-4) .18 ** .32 ** .22 ** .01 
 7. Ground Zero (number) -.11 -.05 -.09 .07 
 8. Age -.13 * .03 -.18 -.06 
 9. Gender (1=m, 2=f)] .00 -.08 .02 -.05 
10. Raised in U.S. (N/Y) .03 .15 ** .11 * .03 
11. Grandparents (0-4) .06 -.16 ** -.17 ** -.05 
12. Education (1-5) .07 .01 -.07 -.17 ** 
13. Religiosity (0-9) -.19 ** -.06 .01 .16 ** 
14. Away (N/Y) .08 -.07 -.03 -.15 *

Note: Pearson correlations were significant at p <.05 * or p <.01 **.  

Attitudes and biodata:                                               

(1) LIBERTIES scale score, from 0 (national security) to 20 (individual                                                                   
liberties).                                                          

(2) TERRORISM scale score, from 0 (abhorrence) to 20 (support).      

(3) AL-QAEDA scale score, from 0 (rejection) to 20 (support).        

(4) AUTHORITARIAN personality scale score, from 0 (low) to 20 (high).

(5) T-ACCEPT = One item on the acceptance of terrorism, from 0 (never)                                                                    
to 4 (often).                                                        

(6) T-EFFECT = One items on the effectiveness of terrorism, from 0   
(never) to 4 (often).                                                

(7) GROUND ZERO, number of times personally visited by respondent.   

(8) AGE, in years.                                                   

(9) GENDER, 1 (male), 2 (female).                                    

(10) RAISED IN U.S., 0 (No), 1 (Yes).                                

(11) GRANDPARENTS, the number born in the USA, from 0 to 4.          

(12) EDUCATION, 1 (elementary school) to 5 (graduate degree).        

(13) RELIGIOSITY compared to others, from 0 (none) to 9 (high).      

(14) AWAY, living outside of the New York area, 0 (No), 1 (Yes).