Terrorism 03

Terrorism:
What Should We Do Now?
Results from Citizen Forums
Doble Research Associates
www.nifi.org

National Issues Forums (NIF)
NIF is a nonpartisan nationwide network of educational and community organiza-tions
that deliberate about nationwide issues. NIF forums do not advocate
a specific solution or point of view. Rather, deliberative forums provide a way for
citizens to exchange ideas and experiences with one another and make more
thoughtful and informed decisions. For more information about NIF, contact
National Issues Forums Information, 100 Commons Road, Dayton, Ohio 45459-
2777. Phone: (800) 433-7834. www.nifi.org
Doble Research Associates, Inc.
Doble Research Associates specializes in exploring public opinion about complex
public issues. For more information, contact Doble Research at 375 Sylvan Avenue,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632. (201) 568-7200. www.dobleresearch.com
Copyright © 2003 by National Issues Forums Institutes

Contents
About This Report 1
The Framework for Deliberation 3
Working Through: People’s Thinking as They Deliberated 4
The Impact of Deliberation 15
Questions and Answers about the Forums 16
Appendixes
A. The Role of the News Media 21
B. Forums with International Participants 22
C. An Example of Deliberation 24
D. Questionnaire Results: Show the Results of the
Pre- and Post-Forum Questionnaires 25
E. NIF Terrorism Forums: Where Participants Are From 28
F. Methodology: Explains the Research Conducted for
This Report 29
G. About Doble Research: Provides information about
the firm that prepared this report 30

Terrorism:
What Should We Do Now?

Doble Research Associates 1
The Value of a Public Voice
In the weeks that immediately
followed September 11, the words and
stories that best captured our thoughts
and feelings were those of everyday
people. In ways both large and small,
the strength and courage shown by
citizens from all walks of life — fire-fighters
and office workers; policemen
and airline passengers; victims and
their families — brought us together
and helped us cope. Their words gave
public expression to private grief, and
gave us a common sense of direction.
That kind of collective voice, however,
has been noticeably absent in policy
debate over how to best respond to this
new threat to our national security.
This report is an attempt to make
those kinds of public voices heard
again. Prepared by Doble Research
Associates, it is a unique attempt to
bring a different perspective to the
ongoing policy debate over terrorism
being carried on today in both political
circles and the press. As we as a nation
decide how to best respond to the
threat of terrorism, the thoughts, views,
and beliefs of everyday citizens are
all-important.
What follows is not a product of
traditional opinion polls or a collection
of expert theories. It is the result of
something far more profound: public
deliberation — the collective judgment
of citizens from all across the country
as expressed in literally hundreds of
locally organized, nonpartisan National
Issues Forums.
Finding Common Ground
Involving nearly 2,000 people in 40
different states, forum participants
covered a wide range. They lived in
large cities and rural areas. Their views
on politics and society ranged across
the political spectrum. They came from
all walks of life. Among them were
professionals and factory workers;
housewives and students; college grad-uates
and those whose formal educa-tion
ended with grade school. Working
within their communities to address
the issue of terrorism, they were
charged with finding a common ground
for action — developing an approach
that would help both citizens and their
political leaders address the threat of
terrorism.
Modeled after traditional New
England town meetings, forum
participants typically engaged in
conversations and discussions that
lasted for several hours. Some even
deliberated for days — exploring
options and possibilities before finally
developing an approach all their own.
Their views, not surprisingly, sharply
contradict what passes today for an
accurate picture of public opinion on
terrorism. When it comes to defining
needed U.S. action on both the interna-tional
and national stage, they turn
conventional wisdom almost completely
on its head.
Building Alliances
In spite of the alleged widespread
public support for military action so
often cited by journalists and policy
makers, forum participants declared
that the war on terrorism should
include military action only as a last
resort, and even then only in conjunc-tion
with a broad coalition of allies.
Few saw any clear link between Iraq
and global terrorism. Instead, most
suggested that our political and mili-tary
leaders need to rethink our
current relationship with other
countries — particularly in the Middle
East where our support of unpopular
and undemocratic regimes fuels a
deep, and pervasive hatred of the
United States.
Security and Civil Liberties
While debate in Washington has
centered largely on the newly created
Department of Homeland Security and
About This Report
Kenneth A. Brown

the perceived need for greater police
and surveillance powers, forum partici-pants
saw the issue far differently.
Although they believed that delays and
difficulties at airports and other public
places were perhaps both needed and
inevitable, they saw racial and ethnic
profiling as unacceptable. When it
comes to fighting the war on terrorism
at home, they declared, we must strive
to protect the nation without compro-mising
our most basic democratic
values, rights, and principles.
The Need to Know More
Most importantly of all perhaps,
forum groups felt that both policymak-ers
and the public needed to learn
more about the underlying causes of
terrorism — the social, political, and
economic problems that drive violence
around the world, particularly in the
Middle East. Our policies, they
declared, should not be determined by
rhetoric or simplistic political theories,
but an informed and pragmatic assess-ment
of what is most likely to be effec-tive
in combating terrorism.
Putting the Public into
Public Policy
These deeply felt public judgments
need to be part of our current debate
on terrorism. Most important public
policy decisions are really questions of
value — what we as citizens hold most
dear. And revealing common values are
what forums are all about.
The findings detailed in the pages
that follow are important because they
represent far more than just a collec-tion
of competing views and opinions.
Forums are not popularity contests.
Participants do not merely argue or
vote. Instead, they work together, care-fully
weighing the costs and benefits of
different approaches, struggling to
define a collective course for action.
For both the press and political
leaders alike, these conversations offer
a glimpse into our nation’s most deeply
held public beliefs and desires —
2 Doble Research Associates
invaluable information whether
one’s goal is covering the news or
developing policy.
Bringing People Together
In an era of rising civic detachment
and declining voter participation, delib-eration
helps bring citizens together to
search for solutions to common prob-lems.
National Issues Forums have
helped isolated rural communities
come together to build health clinics
and troubled inner-city neighborhoods
to address the problem of crime in
their schools and streets. For many,
however, a forum’s most important
product is simply the sense of commu-nity
it engenders — the way it brings
people together.
Making Democracy Work
as it Should
A healthy democracy depends on
public participation, not just in regular-ly
scheduled elections, but in the
ongoing and much harder business of
finding solutions to persistent public
problems. Nowhere is that fact more
critical today than in the task of devel-oping
a national response to the threat
of terrorism. For far too long that job
has been defined as one solely for pro-fessionals
and political leaders. The
public need not apply.
By offering a framework for public
deliberation, the NIF network helps
citizens find solutions to the problems
that concern them, a way of connecting
both with others in their community
and their elected officials.
People cannot act together until they
decide together. Deliberation is not just
about talking over issues, but about
talking through them — bringing
divided interests together to find a
common ground for action.
Kenneth A. Brown is a Program Officer with
the Kettering Foundation. He works regularly
with the NIF Network on Outreach and
Research.

The Framework for Deliberations
The participants in this year’s
forums deliberated using the NIF
issue book, “Terrorism: What Should
We Do Now?” written by Keith
Melville in collaboration with the
Kettering Foundation.
The issue book provides NIF par-ticipants
with a framework for deal-ing
with the issue of terrorism. The
issue book outlines the issue in a
nonpartisan way and then presents
for public deliberation three alterna-tive
approaches for addressing it.
Rather than conforming to the ideas
of any single advocate, each of these
three approaches represents a dis-tinct
set of American priorities and
views that informs and structures
the deliberation without persuading
or biasing people. The approaches
are not necessarily exclusionary.
Instead, each presents an array of
ideas and options, along with the
costs and consequences of each, for
participants to consider and deliber-ate
about so that they may, and often
do, construct their own approach to
the issue.
Approach One: The Sword of
All-Out War
This approach holds that global
terrorism is a serious threat today
because the United States was
slow to recognize its danger and
disinclined to take decisive action.
We must use every means at our
disposal — including the use of our
formidable intelligence and military
capabilities — to root out and destroy
terrorist organizations and enforce
severe sanctions for the nations that
sponsor them. It will be important to
recruit as many allies in the war on
terrorism as possible, but if neces-sary,
the U.S. must be prepared to act
unilaterally.
Approach Two: The Shield of
Homeland Security
This approach says that America’s
failure to take its own security
seriously goes a long way toward
explaining why the terrorists were
so successful in carrying out their
attack. We will never be safe until
we make security our overriding
objective. This means making far-reaching
changes in our day-to-day
lives, from ceding more power to
law-enforcement agencies to giving
up some of the civil rights we have
become accustomed to claiming.
Approach Three: The Battle for
Hearts and Minds
This approach says that we will
never be secure unless we acknowl-edge
and understand the resentment
and rage that much of the Muslim
world feels toward the United States.
We will have to reassess and revise
the way U.S. power and influence are
wielded in the Middle East and
elsewhere in the world.

Working Through: People’s Thinking as They Deliberated
The Public’s Starting Point
Terrorism was, for many, as
painful and difficult a National
Issues Forums issue as any they
ever deliberated about. Feelings ran
deep; resolution was manifest; the
mood was sober, and the delibera-tions
were serious and thoughtful.
There was a good deal of pessimism
about whether the world has per-manently
changed, with many
questioning whether life in the
U.S. will ever be as it was.
As the forums began and forum
participants approached the issue,
many shared their experiences:
where they had been on September
11, how they heard the news, and
whether they, their family members,
or friends had been near one of
the sites. A man at a forum in
Hempstead, New York, said: “My
daughter was in Tower One and still
hasn’t fully recovered.” Others
talked about their visits to the
World Trade Center, the Pentagon,
or to Israel during one of the suicide
bombings. Implying that it could
have happened to her, a South
Dakotan said she had flown to New
York City two days before 9/11. A
fair number of people who came
were Muslims and Middle
Easterners, and they described the
attack’s impact in terms of profiling
and prejudice. Some talked about
the impact in terms of missed
flights, airport delays, and civil lib-erties,
while others said they had
friends or family members in mili-tary
service. Indeed, virtually none
of the citizens who participated in
any of the forums was totally
untouched by the issue.
The Nation’s Mood
Some citizens worried about the
mood of the country and what they
saw as a national climate of suspi-cion.
“People are self-deputizing
themselves, which is very scary,”
said a Los Angeles man. “As a pub-lic,
we don’t want Big Brother look-ing
down our throat,” said a man
from Missoula, Montana. “The politi-cal
atmosphere has shifted, debate
has been closed off, the national
focus is on fear,” said a Philadelphia
man. A moderator from Grand
Rapids talked about the experience
of a Sikh cardiologist. After 9/11, he
lost patients and could not leave his
home because of verbal abuse
caused by his turban. “At our forum,
he was upset to the point of crying,”
the moderator said, adding that
while things are better for the doctor
now, the incident “illustrates people’s
ignorance and the dangers of racial
profiling.”
Others had a different view, saying
that, Iraq notwithstanding, the issue
of terrorism has receded in national
importance and the American people
are “so back to normal that they are
asleep” at a time when they should
remain vigilant. “The public is nap-ping
again [and will continue to nap]
until something else happens,” said
a high school student at a forum in
Hempstead, New York. A Los Angeles
man said the many terror warnings
had led to what he called “threat
fatigue” in the sense that people no
longer take them seriously.

Safety
For the most part, forum partici-pants’
concern about the safety of
their family and friends was limited
to being near what they saw as a
high-risk target. A Philadelphia
woman said that her city could be
targeted because of its historic sig-nificance,
adding that she felt
uneasy in center city. At a forum
there in late June 2002, the woman
said she would avoid going into cen-ter
city Philadelphia on that July 4.
A moderator from Rockville,
Maryland, said: “Our participants
were only worried about their per-sonal
safety while traveling in the
D.C. metropolitan area.”
A Missed Opportunity
Forum participants said the
American people had been ready to
make sacrifices in the national inter-est
after 9/11. Americans were, they
said, more than ready to do their
part but were never called on. A
moderator from Austin, Texas
added, “People here said, we’re not
being asked to do anything.” A mod-erator
from Hempstead, New York,
said: “In our forum, people said they
had been willing to make sacrifices
after September 11 but did not know
what to do.”

The first approach holds that the U.S.
must do all it can — including use its
formidable military capabilities — to
root out and destroy terrorist organi-zations
around the world and enforce
severe sanctions for the nations that
sponsor them.
1. A Willingness to Use Force,
Especially in Afghanistan
The NIF participants said that
after the attack on 9/11, the
U.S. had no choice but to
respond as it did in Afghanistan,
with overwhelming military
force.
w “It was totally appropriate to
go in [Afghanistan] militarily
and destroy those training
camps and hideouts in differ-ent
caves. And if similar
events happen down the
road, it would be appropriate
to take military action again.”
Woman, El Paso, Texas
w “While participants were
skeptical of what the govern-ment
was telling them, they
felt that the U.S. was right to
go into Afghanistan because
we had to do something.”
Moderator, Lake George,
New York
w Pointing to the nation’s
response to the attack on
Pearl Harbor, a Dayton par-ticipant
said that though
“slow to anger,” the American
people are, once stirred,
unshakable in their determi-nation
to defend the country.
w After the forums, forum
participants, by a margin of
about two to one, said that in
order “to stop terrorism, we
must be as aggressive with
other countries as we have
been in Afghanistan with the
Taliban.” (See Table 3.)
2. Questions about War
against Iraq
At the same time, many partici-pants
raised questions about
U.S. policy toward Iraq, with
some saying that instead of
solving the problem of terror-ism,
war with Iraq would exac-erbate
it.
w “People worried that military
action [against Iraq] would
encourage even more terror-ism.”
Moderator, Grinnell,
Iowa
w “I worry about retaliation.
How is it going to be
unavoidable?” Woman,
San Francisco, California
3. The Economic Impact
A number of participants raised
questions about the economic
costs of war with Iraq.
w “It will cost billions, and top
that off with a struggling
economy, low consumer
confidence, and the [decline
in the] stock market.”
Man, Athens, Georgia
w “This forum said that war
would divert resources from
domestic programs and into
the military.” Moderator,
Grinnell, Iowa
4. An Opposing View
Others said war was necessary,
reasoning that Iraq, if not
disarmed, would pose a clear
threat in terms of future
terrorism.
Approach One: The Sword of All-Out War

w “Some will say our interest
in Iraq is oil. [But] we saw
what happened when terror-ism
hit the United States. If
it happened once, it’ll happen
again.” Man, Athens, Georgia
w “Countries that support
terrorism need to be held
accountable.” Man, San
Francisco, California
w “Our high school students
said we might have to deal
with other threats later if
the Iraqi regime is permitted
to violate U.N. resolutions.”
Moderator, Cedar Rapids,
Iowa
5. A Strong Preference that the
U.S. Not Act Alone
While people did not always
agree about what to do in spe-cific
cases, they nearly all felt
that the U.S. should not be the
world’s policeman, and that as a
rule, the U.S. should enlist
broad-based support from its
allies and the international
community before taking mili-tary
action against terrorism.
w “The more international sup-port
we have, the more it
helps us in the long term.”
Man, Hempstead, New York
w “My group said acting alone
is why people hate us.”
Moderator, Austin, Texas
w “Our group said it would be
arrogant for the U.S. to go at
it alone and that we should
always look to [help from our]
allies.” Moderator, Warrenton,
Illinois
At the same time, many said
that if it were necessary, they
would support military action
without international approval.
After the forums, 59 percent
said the U.S. should “punish
any government that harbors
or supports terrorism, with or
without international support.”
[See Table 4.]
6. The Loss of Life
As they deliberated about using
force, participants’ top concerns
were American and civilian
casualties.
w “There was great concern
about American lives and
about innocent people. People
[in our forum] said we should
concentrate on the terrorists
themselves rather than
endangering civilians, and
they worried that women and
children would be at risk.”
Moderator, Carbondale,
Illinois
w “There was a lot of support
here for the military personnel
involved in the war against
Iraq. There was more support
for the military than of the
actual presidential decision to
go to war.” Moderator, Cedar
Rapids, Iowa
7. Effectiveness Is Key
The more they deliberated, the
more participants said the most
important criterion for using
force against terrorism, including
in Iraq, is effectiveness.
w “Instead of having us take on
the world, our group wanted a
strategic military response.”
Moderator, Rockville,
Maryland

w “People here said we must act
with a cool head, not act out
of a sense of revenge.”
Moderator, Athens, Georgia
8. Support for Covert Operations
Several said that beyond direct
military force, the best way to
combat terrorism is through
covert operations.
w “Our group wanted more
emphasis on covert action
and less all-out action.”
Illinois
w “People said our most suc-cessful
security forces are
invisible but effective, like the
secret service and profession-al
security companies that
take care of issues quietly
and efficiently.” Moderator,
Rapid City, South Dakota
9. Terrorism May Be Impossible
to Eradicate
Many said the war against ter-rorism
will go on for years.
w “Terrorism is like poverty —
we’ll never wipe it out.”
Man, Panama City, Florida
w “People here compared it to
the war on drugs — a war
we’ll never win.” Moderator,
Custer, South Dakota and
New Castle, Wyoming
w “Killing won’t end it because
there are too many support-ers
with the same political
agenda.” Woman, Hempstead,
New York
10. Force Alone Is Not the Answer
While they favored military
action after September 11, peo-ple
also said that force, by itself,
is not the answer and that the
war against terrorism requires a
multifaceted solution.
w “People said that history
proves a military response to
aggression works, but that
force by itself is not the
answer.” Moderator, Austin,
Texas
w “A limited use of force is a
useful way to deal with this
problem. But I don’t under-stand
the long-term goals
of a military campaign and
so I see it as a frightening
long-term strategy.” Man,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
w “We can’t expect everything to
be solved by dropping bombs
and declaring war.” Man,
El Paso, Texas
In Sum
Participants had a sober view about
using force, and acknowledged real
risks. “If you take a baseball bat and
hit a beehive, you’re going to kill a
few bees, but you’re going to anger a
lot of others,” said an El Paso man.
The consensus was that the use of
force should be measured, well
thought through, and the option of
last resort. “Do it in ways that don’t
add fuel to the fire,” a Philadelphia
woman said. In general, people did
not want the U.S. to be the world’s
policeman and strongly favored using
military power only with broadly
based international support.

Approach Two: The Shield of Homeland Security
This approach holds that the country
will never be safe until homeland
security becomes our overriding
objective.
1. The Importance of Homeland
Security
Participants saw homeland
security as a top priority.
w “Prevention is better than a
cure. I’d rather prevent a
crime than have to clean up
the aftermath.” Police officer,
Missoula, Montana
2. People Localized the Issue
While people talked about the
Trade Towers and the Pentagon,
a great many, when thinking
about homeland security, local-ized
the issue and talked about
the threat where they lived.
w “People here said a small
town can be a potential
target of terrorism as well as
a big city, saying we’re not far
from a nuclear power plant.
Participants felt that if
something happened in
Warrenton, it would send a
message that no one is safe.”
Moderator, Warrenton, Illinois
w “People talked about this area
being a target because of our
nearby dam.” Moderator,
Norman, Oklahoma
w “Our group seemed most
afraid of bioterrorism than
other forms of terrorism.”
Moderator, Grinnell, Iowa
3. Compromising Civil Liberties
Was Generally Unacceptable
For the most part, participants
insisted that civil liberties not
become casualties in any “war
against terrorism.” Indeed, the
more they deliberated, the more
they voiced this view.
w “The protection of our
constitutional rights and
liberties should be foremost,
and we should not be threat-ened
into compromising them
under the guise of combating
terrorism.” Man, Missoula,
Montana
w “People here said the terror-ists
would win if we give up
what we’ve been willing to die
for.” Moderator, Rapid City,
South Dakota
w “It’s very important that we
not take our lives and the
values we’ve cherished since
the beginning of the country
and just hand them over and
say, okay, this isn’t important
anymore.” Woman, El Paso,
Texas
Some worried that an effort to
combat terrorism, no matter
how earnest, might lead to a cli-mate
of fear and suspicion in
which neighbors spy on each
other.
w “People here said we must be
mindful of the costs of fight-ing
terrorism on our personal
liberty. We have to be careful
we don’t go down a slippery
slope to fascism.” Moderator,
Rockville, Maryland
4. Confusion about Particular
Liberties
But while many opposed com-promising
civil liberties in a
general sense, they did not
identify exactly which liberties
might be at risk.

w “There was no mention of
anyone being held without
being charged or of military
tribunals.” Moderator, forums
in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
and Lake George, New York
w “There was no real sense of
the kind of particular freedoms
people would have to give up,
no sense of what the exact
tradeoffs would involve.”
Moderator, Carbondale, Illinois
w “Some were concerned that
restrictive policies like those in
the Patriot Act are too vague,
but most were unaware of that
law, let alone its specifics.”
Moderator, Hempstead, New
York
5. A Narrow Majority Opposed
More Surveillance
Participants opposed giving the
government additional powers to
conduct wiretaps.
w “My friend’s afraid her phone
has been tapped.” Woman,
w After the forums, participants
opposed broadening the
government’s authority to
conduct wiretaps by a margin
of 53 percent to 39 percent.
(See Table 4.)
6. Broad Opposition to Profiling
There was broad concern about
singling out or profiling Muslims,
Arab Americans, or others who
might be seen as potential
terrorists.
w “Our group had a real problem
with profiling.” Moderator,
Rockville, Maryland
w “Don’t single out Arabs or
Muslims or discriminate
against them — that’s what my
groups said.” Moderator,
forums in Lock Haven,
Pennsylvania and Lake George,
New York
w “We had a lot of concern about
the civil rights of Muslims and
other minorities.” Moderator,
Grand Rapids, Michigan
w “I’m Hispanic and I’m fre-quently
mistaken for an Arab.
They ask me for identification,
and when they see a Spanish
last name, I can see the relief
in their faces. Believe me,
there is a lot of anti-Arab
sentiment right now.” Man,
Los Angeles, California
A few pointed out that terrorism
would not end, no matter how
much profiling there is, because
we do not know who to target.
w “In 1995, [terrorism was
caused by] Timothy McVeigh.
At Columbine, it was Anglo
kids. Racial profiling goes
against the Constitution and
the values of why everyone is
here.” Man, El Paso, Texas
7. Disagreements about Privacy
While many were concerned
about privacy, a fair number
were not.
w “My group was not concerned
about privacy because they
reasoned that if you’re not
doing anything wrong, you
have nothing to hide.”
Moderator, Rockville, Maryland
w “People here said we’ve already
given up our privacy, so what
difference does it make?”

8. Immigration
A number of participants were
concerned about the number of
immigrants entering the United
States.
w “The terrorists walked right
in the front door.” Man,
Hempstead, New York
w “Our group favored more
stringent guidelines for immi-grants,
especially those com-ing
from the Middle East.”
Moderator, Germantown,
Maryland
9. Willingness to Be
Inconvenienced
Participants saw waiting at air-ports
and similar inconveniences
as a small price to pay to combat
terrorism.
w “Most people are going to the
airport and taking extra time
and saying, ‘I’d rather be
safe.’” Woman, Denver,
Colorado
w “They checked my bag at
Disney World. So what!”
Woman, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
w “Airport security in other
countries is better than in the
U.S. We need to learn from
them.” Man, Dayton, Ohio
But others voiced displeasure
about the national alert system.
w “People here said the public
seemed bored with [the
heightened alert] after a
while.” Moderator, Conway,
South Carolina
w “Participants here said that
there has been a tendency
toward overkill [with home-land
security.] It gives the
appearance of doing some-thing,
but we won’t be safer
with it.” Moderator, Oak
Arbor, Washington
10. Two Conspicuous Omissions
Two issues were scarcely men-tioned
in the forums, even
though they were heavily
covered in the national media.
First, there was virtually no
mention of the anthrax scare,
which dominated national
attention in the fall and early
winter of 2001.
Second, there was almost no
talk of the controversy sur-rounding
the creation of a
Department of Homeland
Security, a result suggesting
that this was an “expert” or
“technical” issue, not a
“public issue.” Though of great
concern to leadership, narrow
issues involving the creation of
the Department of Homeland
Security did not directly affect
people in the forums and,
implicitly, most Americans.
In Sum
The great majority of forum partici-pants
said the U.S. must take steps
to safeguard domestic security and
that they are willing to be inconve-nienced
at airports and other public
places. While there was confusion
about what exact infringements on
“civil liberties” may involve, partici-pants
generally opposed profiling,
saying we must protect the nation
without compromising our rights,
values, and principles.

This approach holds that we will never
be secure unless we get at the roots
of the problem by acknowledging and
understanding the resentment and
rage that much of the Muslim world
feels toward the United States.
1. Concern about Perceptions of
the United States
Participants were concerned about
what they saw as foreigners’ low
regard for, or even hatred of the
U.S., especially in the Middle
East and Arab world. After the
forums, an overwhelming majority
said that “a root cause of the
September 11 attack is the hatred
that many Arabs feel toward the
U.S.” (See Table 3.)
2. We Don’t Understand Them
Participants broadly agreed that
both Americans, including both
policymakers and citizens, need
increased understanding of Islam
and Arab countries. Education,
people said, is essential to address
this global problem.
w “Participants wanted to exam-ine
why would people want to
do this to us.” Moderator,
Rockville, Maryland
w “We need to understand where
they’re coming from.” Woman,
w “The problem is how we see
the world. We need to educate
ourselves, understand how little
we know, and understand the
world we live in.” Moderator,
Lake George, New York and
Lock Haven, Pennsylvania
w “Participants admitted to
knowing very little about
Afghanistan and Muslim reli-gion
and peoples.” Moderator,
Rapid City, South Dakota
3. And They Don’t Understand Us
Participants said this country
has done a poor job of telling its
story, of presenting itself and its
intentions. While foreigners know
a great deal about our movies
and music, they do not, people
said, understand how average
Americans live, or what we value
and believe. As a result, partici-pants
said, there is a great deal
of unwarranted hatred of
Americans around the world,
especially among Arabs and
Muslims.
w “People said the population as
a whole does not hate the U.S.
but that their perceptions are
twisted by religious leaders.”
w “People here said hatred stems
from the fact that the populous
in Arab countries is not well
educated.” Moderator, Rapid
City, South Dakota
4. The Causes of Anti-American
Sentiments
As participants deliberated,
they named a number of factors
underlying what they saw as
hatred of the U.S. in the Arab
world:
a. U.S. Support for Unpopular
Regimes: A large number said
that a good deal of the Arab
and Muslim rage stems from
U.S. support for unpopular
governments, which act con-trary
to our own beliefs and
ideals.
w “We seem to be closely
aligned with dictatorial
governments that could
care less about religious
freedoms, women’s rights,
and other things that the
Approach Three: The Battle for Hearts and Minds

American people strongly
believe in.” Man, Missoula,
Montana
w An overwhelming number
agreed that “Arabs have
some legitimate grievances
about the U.S., including
our support for governments
that have long neglected
their people’s welfare.” (See
Table 3.)
b. The Need for Oil: Many said
Arab and Muslim feelings stem
from the U.S. presence in
Saudi Arabia, and that the way
to lower this country’s profile is
to reduce U.S. dependence on
Middle Eastern oil.
w “People said we must reduce
our addiction to oil and
develop energy alternatives.”
Illinois
w “The trade off of higher oil
prices would be a small
price to pay to end terror-ism.”
Man, Missoula,
Montana
w After the forums, partici-pants
said they would favor
reducing our dependence on
Persian Gulf oil, EVEN IF
that meant higher gasoline
and home heating oil prices.
(See Table 5.)
c. Corporate Interests: Some
saw the root of the problem as
fundamentally economic and
corporate.
w “We need to take a close
look at our corporations
and how they do business,
like building Hardees in
the Middle East.” Man,
w “All the problems in the
world can be traced back to
economics.” High school stu-dent,
Hempstead, New York
d. A Clash of Cultures: Others
said terrorism is rooted in a
conflict between cultures.
w “[People said] a clash of
civilizations is inevitable
because of the conflicting val-ues
of Muslims and the U.S.”
w “We attach strings [to our aid]
and insult their culture. It’s
not fair to expect them to be
like us.” Woman, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma
But others felt that cultural
differences do not pose insur-mountable
problems.
w “A ‘clash of cultures’ is not
the root cause because just
look at the ‘clash’ behind the
culture in the U.S. and in
Japan.” Man, Los Angeles,
California
w “People here said Americans
are not purposely offending
people but that we are
offensive because of our
arrogance and because
we’re not paying attention
to the needs of people in
other countries.” Moderator,
Rockville, Maryland
e. Poverty: Some said a primary
underlying cause of terrorism is
widespread Arab and Muslim
poverty.
w “Poverty and depravation are
the underlying cause of the
hatred toward the U.S. [We
must] increase the standard
of living and help people stop
listening to Middle East radi-cals.”
Moderator, Austin,
Texas
But not everyone shared that
view.

w “Poverty is not an excuse.
Suicide bombers aren’t all
poor.” Man, Los Angeles,
California
f. Israel: Quite a number of
participants questioned U.S.
support for Israel in light of
that nation’s policies toward
the Palestinians and its disre-gard
of U.N. resolutions.
w “One source of rage has to
do with U.S. support for
Israel.” Man, Austin, Texas
w “You won’t see a single
Middle Eastern country
support the U.S. against
Iraq because of the double
standard policies in the
Middle East. [The U.S.]
supports Israel, yet Israel
occupied Palestinian land
and does not abide by U.N.
resolutions to end the
occupation. Yet it asks Iraq
to abide by U.N. resolu-tions,
otherwise they’re
going to bomb people. That
is a double standard.”
Middle Eastern man, El
Paso, Texas
w By a post-forum margin
of 54 to 25 percent, forum
participants favored chang-ing
“U.S. policy toward
Israel so that our support
depends on their being
restrained toward the
Palestinians.” One in five
were not sure.
(See Table 4.)
5. Interest in a Long-Term
Solution
Participants wanted to talk
about the roots of the problem
and a long-term solution to the
issue of terrorism.
w “People in our group said
that getting to the root caus-es
of terrorism leads to long-lasting
success, but they also
said that this is something
that will take a long time.
Doing this well would be diffi-cult.”
Moderator, Grinnell,
Illinois
In Sum
Although focused on both a strong
military response and on domestic
security, participants said the U.S.
must develop a thoughtful, informed,
long-term strategy in the war on
terrorism.
They said:
First, Americans must become
better informed about the Arab
world and Islam.
Second, the U.S. must do a bet-ter
job of telling its story, of
helping foreigners understand
who we are, what we value and
believe, and what we struggle
with on a day-to-day basis.
Third, this country must under-stand
and combat the wide-spread
hatred so many Arabs
and Muslims feel toward the
U.S.
Fourth, the U.S. must take a
hard look at current policy and
practices, including support for
unpopular, undemocratic gov-ernments
and practices, and
policy driven by our dependence
on Middle Eastern oil.
Finally, we must think in terms
of the long run, with a clear-eyed
realization that the war
against terrorism will not be
won quickly or easily, or per-haps
even in our lifetime.

While there is no single, uniform
effect of participating in a National
Issues Forum, deliberating with other
citizens about a public issue often
has an impact, sometimes a dramatic
impact, on people’s thinking. After a
forum in Wayne, Nebraska, a high
school teacher said, “I’m going to
change how I am approaching teach-ing
my civics class.” But the nature of
that impact is sometimes similar and
sometimes highly variable.
Young people in particular respond-ed
with interest and enthusiasm to
the forum process. A moderator from
Rapid City, South Dakota, said that
after a forum among teenagers in that
part of the county, one commented,
“This is just what we do over the
dinner table — except we don’t have
a moderator.” Other young people
there, the moderator said, liked
the process, with one at a Youth
Correctional Center in Custer saying,
“We’re not arguing, and we’re not
being judged.”
Participants appreciated the fact
that it was a civil conversation and
the fact that while they deliberated
about three different options, they did
not have to choose any one of them.
They had the opportunity to consider
other ideas and to pick and choose
those they thought made the most
sense. Several moderators said that
as participants deliberated and
learned more about the issue of
terrorism, they began to develop a
deeper, clearer, more certain
The Impact of Deliberation
judgment about what to do. Others
simply appreciated a chance to learn.
A woman from Bloomington, Illinois,
said, “While I still haven’t chosen or
designed an answer to the problem, I
just feel more well educated and open
about this subject.”
Some participants left the forums
wanting to focus on other issues
related to terrorism. In Athens,
Georgia, for example, participants
said that after deliberating, they felt
more threatened by nuclear prolifera-tion
and environmental issues than
by another terrorist attack like the
one on 9/11. Others walked away
from forums mulling over or stewing
about the issue. “I understand now
that this is all very complicated and
that finding one true answer is next
to impossible,” said a woman from
Rapid City, South Dakota. “While I’m
more confused about the issue [than I
was before the forum], it’s a thought-ful
kind of confusion,” said another
woman from Denver, Colorado.
National Issues Forums are moder-ated
so that all points of view are
aired and people have a chance to
express their views, no matter what
they may be. Suggesting that they
were impressed by both the integrity
of the NIF process and the fact that
all points of view were respected, a
moderator from Grand Rapids,
Michigan, said that several Muslims
who had participated in forums there
had joined that community’s NIF
steering committee.

Questions and Answers about the Forums
The Public Approach
No, with regard to at least three aspects of the issues.
First, there was almost no mention of the controversy surrounding
the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a result sug-gesting
that this was an expert issue, which is of great concern to
leadership, but not a public issue that most people feel directly
affects them. (People see expert issues as “over their head” or
“out of their hands” and thus something they cannot influence, even
if they want to. Public issues, by contrast, are issues that people
care about and directly connect to.) And so, despite its prominence
in the 2002 election, the results suggest that while important to
some swing voters in certain states, this was not a key concern of
the general public.
Second, participants’ thinking also did not align with another aspect
of conventional wisdom — that the public wanted to lash out after
the attack on September 11. In these forums, the citizen participants
strongly favored using military force only after the most careful con-sideration.
“If we’re a ‘road-raged’ nation, we’ll be trigger-happy
internationally,” said a woman from Philadelphia.
Third, the dramatic extent to which participants were willing to
sacrifice in the war against terrorism was evidenced by two results:
w Forum participants said they would pay higher gasoline and
heating oil prices to reduce dependence on Persian Gulf oil.
(See Table 5.)
w While minimizing casualties was a key concern, forum partici-pants
also said they would accept a loss of lives among U.S.
troops and civilians in other countries if required by an effective
military campaign. (See Table 5.)
1. Does the
public
connect to
this issue
as the con-ventional
wisdom
suggests?

2. How does
the public
approach
the issue?
With resolution. But also with some confusion, and a fair degree
of pessimism that the issue will be resolved in their lifetimes.
Forum participants said the U.S. had no choice but to use military
force against Afghanistan, saying the country had been attacked
and must defend itself. Participants were resolute in their sense
that the U.S. has the right to defend itself against aggression. But
many also expressed hesitation about war with Iraq, saying they
did not see an imminent, terrorism-related threat to the U.S.
Many did not understand the reasons for what they saw as the
hatred so many Muslims and Arabs feel toward the U.S., adding
that the American people are poorly informed about Afghanistan,
the Middle East, Arab countries, and Islam. Moreover, and especial-ly
in forums with participants from other countries, people raised
questions about the exact definition of what “terrorism” is, as well
as about a strategy to fight it.
Finally, given the depth and breadth of the hatred the terrorists felt
toward the U.S. and their utter ruthlessness, participants doubted
whether terrorism is a problem that will be fully resolved any time
soon.
3. Are there
other dimen-sions
to the
issue that
people in the
forums see?
Forum participants were deeply concerned about what they saw to
be a fundamental lack of understanding, saying:
w People in the Middle East, and Muslims throughout the world,
are poorly informed about the U.S. Instead of understanding
who Americans are, what we value, and what we believe and
stand for, Muslims’ views, participants said, stem from our
movies and popular culture.
w The American people, including policymakers, are poorly
informed about Afghanistan, Arab countries, the Middle East,
and Islam. Moreover, instead of informing us, the news media,
they said, exacerbate the problem.
Such misunderstanding makes it not only easy to misread inten-tions
and actions but also to stereotype other people and countries.

Courage: The citizen participants said the U.S. must defend itself
and do whatever is necessary to fight terrorism, even if that involves
real sacrifice on the part of ordinary citizens.
Determination: Saying the war on terrorism is likely to go on and
on, forum participants said they were prepared for the long haul.
Effectiveness: Participants said U.S. policy in the war against
terrorism should be driven by questions about what will be most
effective, not about what is justified in the abstract.
Education: Forum participants said Americans must become better
educated about the Middle East and Islam, particularly about the
cause of so much Arab and Muslim hatred toward this country.
Many also felt that policymakers are poorly informed, making what a
Montana man called “naive and ill-advised foreign policy decisions.”
Restraint: The citizens who participated in these forums called for a
carefully calibrated military response that minimizes civilian casual-ties.
The Deliberation
In short, the use of force should never, as one man put it,
“make the problem worse.”
Prudence: Participants said the U.S. must be far-sighted and devel-op
a strategy to combat terrorism in both the long and short term.
4. What values
were at
play in the
discussions?
The two-to-three hour forum deliberation helped people see the com-plex,
interconnected nature of this issue, which led them to favor,
instead of any single approach to terrorism, a multifaceted strategy,
drawing on many ideas. While people may not have reached a defi-nite
conclusion, nearly half said that as a result of the forum, they
saw new ways to work on the issue, while more than 80 percent said
they now have a definite idea or general sense about what should be
done. (See Table 1.)
5. What effect
did delibera-tion
have?
Three things: first, saving the lives of U.S. troops and minimizing
civilian casualties; second, protecting the country domestically
without compromising civil liberties; third, developing a strategy to
address the problem in both the short and long term.
6. What
mattered
to people
as they de-liberated?

Participants felt that the use of force in the war on terrorism should
be measured, focused, direct, and carefully thought-out. Force
should be used with two overriding imperatives: attacking terrorists
effectively, while minimizing casualties among both U.S. troops and
civilians.
The citizens who participated in the forums were willing to be incon-venienced
to enhance domestic security. Participants also generally
did not want to trade off civil liberties for increased security, and
they opposed profiling Arab-Americans and Muslims, saying we must
enhance domestic security without compromising the rights, values,
and principles we fight to defend. At the same time, this sentiment
seemed a bit less pronounced in forums held in the winter of 2002-
2003 and the spring of 2003 than in those held in 2001 and early
2002.
People in the forums said we must get at the problem behind the
problem — the deep hatred of the U.S. in the Arab world and the
Middle East. The threat of terrorism will remain until we understand
and address the problem’s roots.
The Outcomes
7. Is a “public
voice” rec-ognizable?
Participants wanted to become more active in the fight against terror-ism.
Many said they had been willing to sacrifice after 9/11 and were
ready to take action in their community now but did not know what
to do.
But some forum sponsors were taking action. The Chiesman
Foundation for Democracy in South Dakota is working with organi-zations
like Participate America, to honor the courageous spirit of
the American people, including those lost on September 11, by
educating citizens about American democracy and promoting volun-teerism,
voting, and an active civic life. In Oklahoma, NIF groups are
working with the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism
(MIPT), founded after the terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah
Building in Oklahoma City. But in many cases, participants wanted
to know what they could do.
8.Was any
firm com-mon
ground
for action
revealed?

Seeing this threat as serious and direct, participants’ deliberations
were sober and serious; they demonstrated what one moderator
called “sophisticated skepticism” about each approach. Instead of
seizing on any one answer, participants said this is a complex issue
and something about which Americans must do a great deal of
thoughtful deliberation.
A comparison between participants’ views this year and last year
shows how different their thinking was. In 2002, after deliberating
about “Money and Politics,” participants felt cynical, resigned, and
powerless. Money, they said, hopelessly corrupts our political system,
and nothing will ever be done about it. The system, they said, is
impervious to being fixed.
But participants said terrorism is so threatening that it must be dealt
with because American lives are at risk. Participants’ thinking was
characterized by a sense of purpose, determination, and courage.
9. At what
stage is the
public on
this issue?
Has the
public’s
thinking
evolved?
If we imagine the public not as just many individuals but as citizens
and civic actors who are a source of potential energy and if we imag-ine
the public’s political will as a latent resource, a vast reserve that
has yet to be tapped, we can reconceptualize what happened in these
forums. While many do not know how to become involved, they des-perately
want to be, they want to become kinetic energy and have
their energy tapped and converted so that they can be active
contributors in the war against terrorism.
Participants want to connect to this issue, to find ways to take an
active part. One illustration of this is their willingness to accept
higher gasoline and heating oil prices to reduce our dependence on
Persian Gulf oil. While this result should not, of course, be taken at
face value, it is noteworthy because the public, historically, will pay
higher taxes or prices only for something that it deeply cares about.
If leadership frames this issue in public terms, and taps into and
converts this resource, the public’s potential energy will be trans-formed
into kinetic energy, thereby creating political will to enable
the country to mobilize with new possibilities for public action.
10. What needs
to happen
next in the
national
dialogue?

Although none of the three
approaches to the issue mentioned
the news media directly, the topic
came up spontaneously in a number
of forums, with many participants
expressing negative views.
One frequent complaint involved
what some participants felt was the
media’s overly narrow focus.
w Implying that media coverage
of the war on terrorism is
influenced by special interests,
a Hempstead, New York, high
school student said, “Lobbyists
and people with agendas have
too much power to influence
the media because cash rules
everything.”
w Participants in Athens,
Georgia, said that instead of
presenting an unbiased or
comprehensive view of the sit-uation,
the media are focused
on [things like] access to oil.
Others talked about what they saw
as discrepancies between what the
public is told and what is actually
occurring.
w A moderator in Hempstead,
New York, said that people in
forums there felt that unlike
Europeans, who enjoy a far
more diversified media that
print and air a variety of view-points,
Americans get a rather
homogenized presentation of
the news with the result that
“Americans are not getting the
full story.”
Participants did not differentiate
between television and newspapers
and seemed to criticize both equally.
Some said the news media recklessly
endangered American lives and
compromised national security by
printing information about U.S.
troop movements and other military
operations in Afghanistan. Others
complained that the media do not
help the public understand the “roots
of rage,” the reasons why this country
is the object of hatred in the Arab
world and the Middle East. Still
others complained that the media
have not examined or brought to light
what, to general agreement, one par-ticipant
called, “the hidden economic
motives behind this war [against
Iraq].” A man from Mount Vernon,
Iowa said, “I believe we have to affect
the media portrayal of America
toward more balance and inclusion.”
Although some did complain that
the media are too liberal or conserva-tive,
most of the criticisms were not
ideological. Criticism also did not
seem to be limited to any particular
region, age group, gender, or racial
and ethnic group. Rather, it seemed
to reflect a broader public mind-set,
almost a widespread, free-floating,
negative predisposition with the
potential to attach itself to a wide
variety of issues beyond terrorism at
any time. In a democratic society,
which requires a public that appreci-ates,
values, and relies on a free
press, such a state of mind would
seem to be an unhealthy symptom
or a troubling indicator.
Appendix — A
The Role of the News Media

In National Issues Forums with
participants from other countries,
the conversations tended to be
qualitatively different, with interna-tionals
Appendix — B
bringing a more diverse
perspective to the issue.
1. Terrorism Is a Global
Problem
Especially in forums with
international participants,
questions were raised about a
national versus an internation-al
perspective.
w “International participants
said Americans are isolated
from the rest of the world
and that terrorism’s been
going on elsewhere for
decades.” Moderator,
Panama City, Florida
w “In my country, terrorism’s
been a fact of life for a long
time. But only now, after it
happened to the U.S., are
people here paying attention
to it. And even still, the
focus is ethnocentric, not on
what’s happening in other
countries.” Colombian man,
w A man from Kenya said
that especially after the
terrorist bombing at the
U.S. embassy in which
Americans and Kenyans
were killed, people in his
country felt great sympathy
for the U.S. after 9/11.
2. The Definition of Terrorism
As they began to deliberate,
international participants raised
questions about just what
“terrorism” is.
w An international participant
in Philadelphia said that the
definition of terrorism deter-mines
the war. “Is this a war
against individuals or against
other counties? If it’s a war
against individuals, that
means that the U.S. shouldn’t
attack or invade other coun-tries,
right?”
w In some forums, participants
raised the question of a
definition of terrorism, even
without it’s being raised by
an international participant.
For example, a moderator
from Grand Rapids, Michigan,
said: “People here felt that
‘terrorism’ already exists in
their neighborhoods, that it’s
caused by drugs, criminals,
and even by many in the
police.”
3. Far More Support for the U.N.
While many participants wanted
the U.S. to proceed in the war
against terrorism only with
international support, interna-tional
participants were even
more inclined to talk about the
importance of multilateral sup-port,
especially from the United
Nations.
Forums with International Participants

w “I would like the United
Nations to call for an inter-national
conference to
define terrorism because
there seems to be disagree-ment
among many nations
about what terrorism is.”
International participant,
El Paso, Texas
4. Combating Terrorism
International participants
said that the situation in
other countries is complex,
filled with people holding
different points of view, and
that sometimes Americans
tend to oversimplify. In
response to a suggestion
that the U.S. try harder to
open a dialogue with those
who feel hatred toward it, a
Nigerian woman said:
You cannot talk to extrem-ists.
This is a naïve view.
Only the moderates will talk
to you. The fanatics will not
talk to you. The situation is
so much more complex than
we realize.
5. Broader Perspectives
International participants
tended to raise questions
that others did not, thereby
encouraging more of an in-depth
deliberation due to
additional perspectives. For
example, in a forum in
Philadelphia, a man from
Colombia questioned whether a
military response to terrorism,
even after Afghanistan, was wise
and warranted, thereby causing
people there to approach the
issue from a perspective they
may never have considered.
In Sum
International participants tended to
bring greater diversity of opinion and
a broader, more global perspective to
the forums. The deliberations were
often richer and more informed, with
Americans happy to hear from, and
valuing comments made by, those
with quite different experiences.
Forums with International Participants
Appendix — B

Appendix — C
An Example of Deliberation about Wiretapping
First Woman:
They should increase wiretapping …
I’m not really worried about someone
listening to me talk about what I did
on my dates [or] my girlfriends any-way,
so I don’t have anything to hide.
[Laughter]
Second Woman:
Suppose they misinterpreted what
you said? What if [they hear you]
saying that her dates are strange,
and they start looking at you.… And
suppose they’re listening and you’re
taken to trial and suddenly you have
to get a lawyer and you’re on trial for
something that was completely misin-terpreted.
So, I think you have to be
extremely careful with wiretapping.
Extremely.
First Man:
I would never agree to wiretapping.
Third Woman:
[You] have to understand that the
times are different. It’s not like it
used to be before, when we were very
open and civil liberties were more
important.
Fourth Woman:
We have to try to keep our country
open.… We don’t want terrible things
to happen to our individual rights.
That’s not what this country is about.
That’s not what people died for....
Second Man:
Amen.
Fourth Woman:
It’s not what the Founding Fathers
had in mind. I mean, yes, times
change but you have to temper
[change] with a lot of thought behind
it. There has to be thought before you
change anything. You can’t just go
and change something. It affects too
many people.
Third Man:
Somebody was asking a question —
when are things going to return to
normal? Someone else said, this is
normal.
Fourth Woman:
[Things will] probably never [return to
what they were].
First Man:
I agree with you, people should not
have a knee-jerk reaction to certain
things. There has to be a lot of debate
and a lot of thought [behind] funda-mental
changes that are going to
change our lives. When you go
through an airport, everybody is self-deputizing
themselves. You look at
the person the wrong way, you’re
going to be pulled aside. You might
miss your flight. You don’t dare say
boo anymore.
Fourth Woman:
People don’t trust each other
anymore like they used to.
Second Man:
But I’m concerned about people get-ting
paranoid about this. I mean you
[can] go too far.
(From a forum in Los Angeles on July 12, 2002)

Appendix — D
Questionnaire Results
NIF issue books include a Pre- and Post-Forum Questionnaire that partici-pants
may fill out at the forum. In the tables on the following pages, we report
the questionnaire results from 1,923 participants who sent in questionnaires
by March 4, 2003.
Those who fill out a questionnaire are a self-selected group and thus the
outcomes should not be construed as polling data using a probability
sample yielding results within a statistically precise margin of sampling error.
Rather, the results should be considered in conjunction with the rest of this
analysis as indicative of how a diverse group of Americans think about terror-ism
after deliberating together, considering other points of view, and weighing
the costs and consequences of different approaches to the issue.
Table 1 Agree with Statement
Pre-Forum Post-Forum Difference
% % %
58 61 +3
19 24 +5
20 11 -9
Participants’ Pre-Forum and Post-Forum Views
Which statement best describes what you think
should be done about responding to terrorism?
I have a general sense about what should be done.
I have a definite opinion about what should be done.
I am not at all sure what should be done.
Table 2 Post-Forum
Yes No
% %
47 40
Do you see ways to work on this issue that
you didn’t see before?
Agree Disagree Not Sure
% % %
85 9 6
71 17 12
59 30 11
53 38 8
51 41 8
43 44 13
Post-Forum Agree/Disagree with Statement
Table 3
Do you agree or disagree with
the statements below?
A root cause of the September 11 attack is the
hatred that many Arabs feel toward the U.S.
Arabs have some legitimate grievances about
the U.S., including our support for governments
that have long neglected their people’s welfare.
To stop terrorism, we must be as aggressive with
other countries as we have been in Afghanistan with
the Taliban.
The September 11 attack stems from the United
States’ failure to employ the same security
precautions that other nations use.
Terrorism is a threat today because we did not take
decisive action against it in the past.
In the past, the U.S. has placed too much emphasis
on individual rights at the expense of national
security.

Appendix — D
Post-Forum Favor/Oppose Statement
Table 4
Post-Forum Favor/Oppose
Table 5
Favor Oppose Not Sure/NA
% % %
59 31 10
58 32 10
54 25 21
50 33 16
46 41 14
39 53 8
Do you favor or oppose each of these actions?
Punish any government that harbors or supports
terrorism, with or without international support.
Root out and destroy all the terrorists responsible for
the September 11 attack, no matter where in the
world they may be.
Change U.S. policy toward Israel so that our support
depends on their being restrained toward the
Palestinians.
Offer Marshall-Plan type economic aid to countries in
the Middle East to help end the economic hardship
that has fueled Arab rage.
Institute the use of a national ID card.
Broaden the authority of the federal government to
conduct wiretaps and other forms of surveillance.
Favor Oppose Not Sure/NA
% % %
70 20 9
50 41 10
39 46 15
Do you favor or oppose each of these actions?
Reduce our dependence on Persian Gulf oil, EVEN IF
that means higher gasoline and heating oil prices.
Take strong military action to combat terrorism,
EVEN IF that means a loss of lives among U.S. troops
and civilian casualties in other countries.
Use military tribunals to conduct the trials of non-
U.S. citizens accused of terrorism, EVEN IF these
tribunals may be held in secret and military judges,
not juries, will decide the cases.

Appendix — D
Participants’ Demographics
Table 6
Are you male or female? %
Female 52
Male 44
No Answer 3
Table 7
How much schooling have
you completed? %
Some high school or less 23
High school graduate 7
Some college 23
College grad or more 21
Master’s degree or Ph.D. 24
No Answer 3
Table 9
Are you? %
African American 4
Asian American 3
Hispanic/Latino 6
Native American 2
White/Caucasian 74
Other 6
No Answer 4
Table 8
How old are you? %
17 or younger 21
18-29 27
30-49 17
50-64 20
65 or older 14
No Answer 3
Table 10
Have you attended an NIF forum before? %
Yes 24
No 72
No Answer 4
Table 11
If you have previously attended an NIF forum, how may forums have
you attended? (asked of the 13 percent answering yes in Table 10) %
1-3 59
4-6 12
7 or more 22
Not Sure/No Answer 7
Tables may not equal 100, due to rounding.

Appendix — E
NIF Terrorism Forums:
Where Participants Are From
People who participated in the NIF forums analyzed for this report are a
sample of thousands of people who continue to deliberate about this issue in
communities across the country. Forum participants represented in this report
come from the following states and communities:
Shaded States = No Forums
Alabama Florida Kentucky Nebraska Oklahoma Texas
Arizona Georgia Maine New Hampshire Oregon Virginia
Arkansas Hawaii Maryland New Jersey Pennsylvania Washington
California Illinois Michigan New Mexico South Carolina West Virginia
Colorado Indiana Minnesota New York South Dakota Wisconsin
Connecticut Iowa Missouri North Carolina Tennessee Wyoming
Delaware Kansas Montana Ohio
40 States

Appendix — F
Forum Observations
Doble Research observed seven National Issues
Forums, listening to people’s initial concerns
and learning how deliberation influenced their
thinking. In addition, we interviewed two partici-pants
and the moderator after each forum.
These forums were held at:
1. Gulf Coast Community College,
Panama City, FL
2. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
3. KCOS (Channel 13) live broadcast,
El Paso, TX (video tape)
4. Liberty Museum, Philadelphia, PA
5. Norman Public Library, Norman, OK
6. The University of Georgia, Athens, GA
7. The University of Montana, Missoula, MT
(video tape)
Before and after a forum, participants were
asked to fill out a questionnaire that frames
the issue and identifies key tradeoffs for differ-ent
choices. In preparing this report, Doble
Research analyzed 1,923 Pre- and Post-Forum
Questionnaires, received by March 4, 2003.
Research Forums/Focus Groups
Doble Research conducted six research forums
or focus groups, each with a demographically
representative cross section of up to a dozen
people. The sessions paralleled NIF forums in
that participants viewed the starter video, filled
out the Pre- and Post-Forum Questionnaires,
and deliberated together about the four choices
for three hours. The research forums/focus
groups were held in:
1. Charlotte, NC 10/25/01
2. Cleveland, OH 10/24/01
3. Denver, CO 07/11/02
4. Los Angeles, CA 07/12/02
5. New York, NY 10/18/01
6. San Francisco, CA 02/05/03
Methodology
This analysis of people’s thinking about
“Terrorism: What Should We Do Now?” draws on
a sample of forums from 40 states from the hun-dreds
that took place across the country. Four
research methods were used:
Moderator and Convenor Interviews
In 28 telephone interviews, forum moderators
and convenors were asked to describe people’s
concerns, their starting points on the issue, the
costs and consequences they took into consider-ation,
and the shared understanding or common
ground for action that emerged. The forums were
held at:
1. Custer Youth Correction Center, Custer, SD
2. Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC
3. Deliberative Democracy Workshop, Marriott
Hotel, Dayton, OH
4. Democracy Center at The Chiesman
Foundation, Rapid City, SD
5. Edison Community College, Piqua, OH
6. George Bush Library, College Station, TX
7. Gerald R. Ford Museum, Grand Rapids, MI
8. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
9. Honor Conservation Camp, New Castle, WY
10 Kennedy High School, Cedar Rapids, IA
11. Livonia Central Schools, Livonia, NY
12. Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA
13. Montgomery College, Rockville, MD
14. The Newman Center, Carbondale, IL
15. NE Regional Honors Council,
Lake George, NY
16. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
17. The Old Glove Factory, Grinnell, IA
18. Portland Community College, Portland, OR
19. Roberto Clemente Middle School,
Germantown, MD
20. Rose State College, Midwest City, OK
21. Skagit College, Oak Harbor, WA
22. The University of Georgia, Athens, GA
23. University of Missouri Outreach and
Extension Center, Warrenton, MO
Special thanks to the convenors and moderators who shared their forum reflections with us: David
Bobell, Matthew Cole, Brenda Crimmins, Jim Davis, Michael D’Innocenzo, Miranda Duncan, Tina
Frank, Sheldon Goodridge, Kay Haaland, Jeanmarie Heriba, James Knauer, Elaine Manglitz, Neal
Naigus, Dave Patton, Michael Ridgeway, Frank Sehnert, Conor Seyle, Jennifer Shinaberger, Yvonne
Sims, Nathan Starr, Sue Tate, Bonnie Vaughn, Val Vetter, Bob Walker, Dana Warner, Taylor
Willingham, Roger Wolff, Virginia York

Appendix — G
About Doble Research Associates
Public Opinion: A Map, Not a Snapshot…™
Doble Research Associates is a public interest consulting firm that specializes
in exploring people’s thinking about complex public issues.
Especially when it comes to complex issues or policy initiatives, the formation
of public opinion is usually dynamic and evolutionary, a work in progress as
opposed to a still life or a finished product. At Doble Research, we map people’s
thinking by identifying the public’s “starting point” — what people think about
an issue now, before learning more about it. Then we lay out how people’s think-ing
evolves as they consider other points of view and have time to deliberate
about an issue. We give clients and partners a blueprint of how and why people
feel as they do — A Map, Not a Snapshot.
Foundations
The Center for Crime, Communities and Culture
(Open Society Institute/The Soros Foundation)
The Chiesman Foundation
The Community Life Foundation of Owensboro
The Public Life Foundation of Owensboro (PLFO)
The Englewood Community Foundation
The Fetzer Institute
The Walter and Elise Haas Fund
The Hager Educational Foundation
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
The Kellogg Foundation
The Kettering Foundation
The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
The Peninsula Community Foundation
The Pew Charitable Trust
The Seva Foundation
Government Agencies
The Board of Pardons and Parole, State of
Georgia
The Department of Corrections,
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
The Department of Corrections, State of Indiana
The Department of Corrections, State of Vermont
The Environmental Protection Agency
The Governor’s Family Council, State of Delaware
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
The National Parks Service, Nebraska
Vermont Commission on Public Healthcare
Values and Priorities
Public Service Organizations
The American Judicature Society
Audubon Area Community Services,
Owensboro, Kentucky
The Buckeye Association for School
Administrators
The Center for Community Corrections
The Center for Effective Public Policy
The Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM)
The Cleveland Summit on Education
™
The Council of Governors’ Policy Advisors
The Council of State Governments, Eastern
Regional Office
The Educational and Social Science Consortium
The General Federation of Women’s Clubs (GFWC)
The Harwood Institute
The National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC)
The National Conference of State Legislatures
The National Academy of Social Insurance
The National Environmental Policy Institute (NEPI)
The National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI)
The Oklahoma State-Centered Project
The Pennsylvania Prison Society
The Points of Light Foundation
Public Agenda
The South Carolina State-Centered Project
The Southern Growth Policies Board
The Southern Regional Council
The Study Circle Resources Center (SCRC)
The Upper Room
Weavings, A Journal of the Christian Spiritual Life
The West Virginia Center for Civic Life
The Western Governors’ Association
States
The State of Indiana
The State of New Hampshire
The State of North Carolina
The State of Oregon
The State of South Carolina
The State of Vermont
Colleges and Universities
The College of DuPage
The Institute on Criminal Justice, University
of Minnesota
The Mershon Center at The Ohio State University
The University of California at Davis
The University of Delaware
Corporations
Clark, Martire & Bartolomeo, Inc.
Simon and Schuster, Prentice Hall Division
Weiner’s Stores, Inc.

For information, contact:
National Issues Forums Information
100 Commons Road
Dayton, Ohio 45459-2777
1-800-433-7834
LGD-0655-DR-2000-TG-8-03
www.nifi.org

Terrorism 03

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Terrorism 03

Similar to Terrorism 03 (13)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Terrorism 03