Gallup: Americans Against Torture, But Believe We Do It (74%)

[sabra]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001572382

Gallup: Americans Against Torture, But Believe We Do It

NEW YORK Most Americans believe that U.S. troops or officials have tortured prisoners in Iraq or other countries, and oppose the practice, even if it helps gain information on possible terrorist attacks, the Gallup Organization announced today in releasing poll results.

The survey found that 74% believe the U.S. has tortured prisoners, with 20% disagreeing--with storng majorities of both Democrats and Republicans holding that view.

Asked if they would be willing to have the U.S. torture suspected terrorists "if they may know details about future terrorist attacks against the U.S.," 56% said no, vs. 38% saying yes. The party gap is bigger here, with only 27% of Democrats signing off on torture in that case, vs. 51% of Republicans.

Gallup pointed out that while President Bush recently said, "We do not torture," most Americans "think otherwise."

[tonkatoy57]

1. We're Officially Two Countries

"The party gap is bigger here, with only 27% of Democrats signing off on torture in that case, vs. 51% of Republicans."

51% of Republicans are pro torture. That's kind of hard to wrap your brain around. Otherwise things look better than I would have expected.

[DBoon]

2. this does not surprise me at all

Republicans generally are cruel people who lack any empathy with suffering

[peace frog]

3. I'm uncomfortable with 27% approval of torture

for any reason or purpose. It's difficult to accept that I am in the minority in this respect.

[DrDan]

10. I agree with you - I am also comfortable with 27%

Of the D's I know that would be included in that number, I think they feel it is in the best interest of the U.S. and would in-turn save lives (although I personally disagree with these techniques, as do most other DUers).

Of the R's, however, I think there are a good number of them who secretly delight in seeing pain in those different than themselves - hence their bizarre feelings toward the French, Germans, Canadians, poor, young, old, and on and on and on.

They harbor such feeling of insecurity and lack of confidence, the only way to bolster their feelings toward themselves is to inflict pain on others - hence the bullying techniques of Sean InSanity, Bill O-Lielly, Ann-the-Man Coulter, etc etc, etc

[Tamyrlin79]

12. How are you int he minority?

When a supermajority of Dems and nearly a majority of the Repugs support that position?

When a majority of all Americans support the "no torture" position you take?

[Tamyrlin79]

11. actually, look at it this way...

Only a BARE majority of REPUBLICANS support torture, but only in the most extreme, hypothetical situation possible. One may assume, then, that under any "normal circumstances" even the vast majority of Republicans oppose torture.

Sounds a lot better when put that way, no?

[peace frog]

16. Thank you, but not really

I'm opposed to torture for anyone under any circumstances, even for persons accused of the most heinous crimes. Torture is never acceptable, and the fact that 27% of my fellow citizens are willing to sanction it is both mentally repugnant and emotionally depressing for me.

[mod mom]

4. We must stop torture before we as a nation are held responsible for Bush's

war crimes.

[saigon68]

5. THUG TROOPS GET THEIR JOLLYS

By killing and maiming P.O.W. s

[BoogDoc7]

6. question...

What defines "torture?"

[mod mom]

7. Aide to C Powell says Cheney might be guilty of war crimes

discussion @:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5475822

BBC: Wilkerson says Cheney might be guilty of war crimes
Cheney accused on prisoner abuse

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4480638.stm

A top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell has launched a stinging attack on US Vice-President Dick Cheney over abuse of prisoners by US troops.
Col Lawrence Wilkerson accused Mr Cheney of ignoring a decision by President Bush on the treatment of prisoners in the war on terror.
Asked by the BBC's Today if Mr Cheney could be accused of war crimes, he said: "It's an interesting question."
"Certainly it is a domestic crime to advocate terror," he added.
"And I would suspect, for whatever it's worth, it's an international crime as well."

[mod mom]

17. kick

[Al-CIAda]

8. The kicker is that many of those we tortured were INNOCENT!

Rounded up entire city sections to rape, sodomize and humiliate men, women, and children. Damn, how sick is THAT.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. We need to have an absolute prohibition on torture under all

circumstances.

That said, if I had a prisoner in a 'ticking clock' situation, and I knew that said prisoner had the information that could stop the clock, I wouldn't hesitate. And then I'd take whatever punishment was due me for violating that prohibition.

Fortunately, as a person far removed from those circumstances, I'll never be in that situation.

Torture as a policy, inflicted on general suspects? Never.

[0rganism]

14. "ticking time bomb" situation is bullshit

Even as a hypothetical, it's bullshit.

IF you had a prisoner in custody whom you know beyond any doubt has the necessary information... (the hypothetical premise)

YOU STILL WOULD NOT KNOW WHETHER TORTURING HIM WOULD REVEAL THAT INFORMATION IN A WAY THAT WOULD "STOP THE CLOCK".

Information of any sort gained through torture is notoriously unreliable; the prisoner will say anything s/he thinks will end the pain. If that included giving the bomb squad a boatload of time-wasting disinformation, then it could be worse than useless. You'd be gambling, regardless; the only way to check on the validity of information gained during interrogation is to cross-check it with other sources for correlations on key points. Where are your other sources in this scenario? How did you get the information from them? Are we going to add them into the premise as undisputedly guilty? Did you torture them, too? If not, then maybe you didn't need to torture the first prisoner, either.

Fuck Dershowitz for putting this pathetically unrealistic scenario into the talking-points list in the first place, and then conflating it with the blatant and egregious abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Guantanemo Bay.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. The hypothetical situation has been around far longer than

Dershowitz, and the potential for it happening is exceedingly, vanishingly remote. And, yes, it would be gambling. But if there was any remote chance of stopping the clock, it would be better than letting hundreds or thousands die.

And it doesn't make it right. But stretching the hypothetical, you cornered a cell of terrorists, all but one were killed in the battle to capture them. You find indisputable proof in the hideout that there is a cannister of Sarin set to go off in three hours, but nothing there tells you where it is. You would just book the last terrorist like any other suspect? You know he's not going to talk without pressure. You just let him twiddle his thumbs in a holding cell? If you were the interrogator, and you did nothing to find out, willing to accept the casualties in the name of your ethics, you're made of sterner stuff than I.

But as I said, the chances of this situation happening are close to nil, and no reason to have a policy that allows for it. And it has nothing to do with the treatment of prisoners, in Iraq, or Guantanamo, or anywhere else. As stated before, policy should unequivocally ban torture. There's no argument about that.

[fujiyama]

19. Torture is bad policy

in all circumstances for several reasons - one of them of course being the moral argument against it (it's just plain wrong), and the fact that IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK!

It's been documented that when a person is being tortured they will say whatever they can to make it stop. It doesn't have to be real. It just has to be something.

The odds of finding a cell that has knowledge of something about to happen, right before is very slim. I enjoy '24', but the situations in the show are pretty fuckin ridiculous. You can't just break bones, electrocute people, and expect to extract CREDIBLE information that way.

On the other hand, psychological games might be more effective in such a situation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. And what ever happened to those cool drug they use in the

movies? The so-called truth serums - Sodium pentathol or whatever?

OK. I see the error of my ways (though my innate stubborness still urges me to keep arguing for an indefensible position :shrug: )

Peace.

[0rganism]

20. Dershowitz was the one who inserted it into the mass media debate

As you say, "the potential for it happening is exceedingly, vanishingly remote," certainly not the kind of thing one should build day-to-day policy around. We seem to agree on this.

Within your extended hypothetical, the problem still remains: how would you know that the information you gained from the prisoner, whether under torture or not, was helpful and true, or just a dodge to waste your time? Maybe the cell even leaves a few physical decoys around to add to the time-wasting impact of the disinformation; you aren't going to be able to break through that set-up with torture. The entire premise is of a "ticking clock", a finite time within the information has to be obtained and used. From the terrorists' perspective, since they would ostensibly know when zero-hour is, all they have to do is stall you until that clock runs out.

That doesn't mean the interregator should do NOTHING, it means s/he needs to use other means, like appealing to the terrorist's motivational principles, religious ethics or any shred of human decency s/he may posess, or deceiving him/her by providing disinformation about what other intelligence regarding the terrorist cell have already revealed. Torturing the prisoner worsens both best-case (attack is prevented) and worst-case (attack proceeds) results, compared to not torturing the prisoner, with absolutely no guarantee that the best-case scenario has been made more likely. If the prisoner reveals information during torture, you don't know that he wouldn't have revealed it without torture. If the prisoner happens to have a weak constitution and DIES during the torture before revealing any useful information, you just went and made your situation immeasurably worse.

My contention is, there is no logical outcome premised in what could possibly be empirically known in which torturing the prisoner improves the situation compared to not torturing the prisoner. To make the hypothetical case justifying torture, one has to assume not only its success but its exclusive success (i.e., nothing else would work) beforehand. See what I mean?

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. Yes I do. Well said.

And I yield.
Any situation that has degenerated to such a degree that torture is the only remaining option is one that is irrecoverable anyway, negating its efficacy as an option.
Thank you for walking me through it. I am, justly, ashamed of my original stance :blush: .

I DO love the reasoned debate here!

[BoogDoc7]

21. Definition...

Tried this earlier, but wouldn't this discussion work better with a definition of what torture really is? All we're hearing is that torture is occurring...but who is defining torture, and what is really going on?

[Solon]

23. Here is the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE definition

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

[muryan]

13. seeing as how torture works

which it doesn't, why the hell would we need to use it. Even in a "ticking bomb" situation it would be useless. I think a person being interrogated in that situation would be less apt to talk than in any other situation.

[LiberalFighter]

18. You would think those 51% Republicans would support their prez

[Faryn Balyncd]

22. What fraction of Republican Senators

believe we don't torture enough?