Miller, Kathryn Elizabeth2021-05-122021-05-122021-05-11vt_gsexam:30253http://hdl.handle.net/10919/103248The competing values of national security and civil liberties have been contested as conflicting ideas during times of national emergencies and war, in which the canonical knowledge asserts that the temporary secession of civil liberties is sometimes necessary to protect national security. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack there has been increased pressure on the U.S. government to provide safety and security, which has required Americans to accept certain restrictions on their freedoms, leading to debates about whether liberty or security should be prioritized. The increasing popularization of securitization in post 9/11 discourse justified by a perpetual state of emergency via the War on Terror, has reinforced the racialization of reified "others," specifically Muslims or people who are perceived to be descendent from the Middle East. The conceptualization of Middle Easterners as 'terrorists' and 'threats' to be securitized has been constructed by political elites and media narratives to garner support for security measures leading to the diminished civil liberties of those stereotyped as "terrorists." Using the theoretical approach of racialized "othering" and the minority threat perception, this research seeks to analyze public opinion on counterterrorism policies when the race/ethnicity and ideological motivations of perpetrators in a hypothetical terrorist attack scenario are manipulated. To investigate this premise, an online survey experiment distributed through Amazon MTurk was conducted to gather public opinion data on counterterrorism policies. Regression analyses were conducted from the 314 respondents to evaluate support amongst various social groups for the counterterrorism policies and whether or not this support was affected by the presence of either American-born, White, men motivated by the teachings of far-right extremism or American-born, men of Middle Eastern descent motivated by the teachings of Islamic extremism. Respondents were asked to evaluate two counterterrorism policies, one that required ceding the civil liberties of the public at large, and the other required ceding the civil liberties of suspected terrorists specifically – which is also referred to as the 'punitive' policy throughout the research. Overall, respondents were more likely to support the policy requiring ceding civil liberties in general, than the punitive policy that would take away the civil liberties of suspected terrorist. When factoring in survey type, respondents in general were more likely to support the punitive policy when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey and were also the most likely to support the policy requiring the public to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey. The willingness to cede civil liberties increased for Black and Asian respondents with the presence of the White/Far-right extremism survey, while willingness to cede civil liberties decreased for White respondents taking the same survey. In general, conservatives were more likely to cede their civil liberties than liberals, and liberals were more likely to view counterterrorism policies as ineffective. When accounting for the effects of survey type on ideology, the results show that conservatives were the least likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey, while liberals were the most likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey.ETDIn CopyrightCounterterrorism policiespublic opinionliberty/security paradigmminority threat perceptioncivil libertiespunitivenessThesis