61% of Americans think torture is okay?

[Manedwolf]

>> AP Poll: Most Say Torture OK in Rare Cases

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 24 minutes ago

"Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling."...

"In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions."
--------------------------------

The old warning...when you fight monsters, take care, lest you become a monster yourself.

If we do what THEY do, even just at times...how, in the end, can we claim to be better than them? And how can we tell other nations not to torture captured US troops, if WE do it?

Good lord. What have we become...

 

[1 old 0311]

Counting me? Make that 62%

Kevin

 

[GunnySkox]

Of the opinion that the barbaric butchers who blow up busloads of kids and crash planes into towers full of innocent businessmen and women aren't human beings, but rather just clever animals who've figured out how to work AKs, RPGs, and explosive devices pretty effectively.

Which is satisfying in a visceral, Old Testament sort of way, but still wrong.

~GnSx

 

[ArmedBear]

>> AP Poll: Most Say Torture OK in Rare Cases

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 24 minutes ago

"Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling."...

"In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions."


Good lord. What have we become...

A tad more realistic, perhaps?

BTW the word "suspects" is a bit misleading. It's a standard newspaper term but it's misused in the above sentence. I doubt a majority of people advocates torturing "suspects", as opposed to actual terrorists caught red-handed with information that could save the innocent.

 

[Tequila_Sauer]

For fiction, I usually prefer a good Tom Clancy novel over skewed polls.

The Times did polls in San Francisco and Manhattan that revealed that 97 percent of Americans want state sponsored healthcare and more funding for social programs.

.........meh, I still prefer Tom Clancy.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Polls. I would like to see the lead-in material to the question,
and the question actually asked, rather than the question
reported as something like Do you justify torture of terrorism
suspects under rare circumstances?

Polls are often geared more toward affecting public opinion
than reflecting public opinion.

 

[Manedwolf]

A tad more realistic, perhaps?

BTW the word "suspects" is a bit misleading. It's a standard newspaper term but it's misused in the above sentence. I doubt a majority of people advocates torturing "suspects", as opposed to actual terrorists caught red-handed with information that could save the innocent.

Some would say that it's better to die honorably than to save your own life dishonorably. You don't take a seat in a lifeboat before all the children have been saved, and you pass the injured people out the window of a burning building before climbing out, yourself.

And even if you're at risk from a plot, you don't lower yourself to the level of torturing.

I consider torture dishonorable. And I think that that sentiment can apply to an entire society, as well.

And for the Christian sorts, well, "what would Jesus say about torture?" And also, "If you said torture was okay, and even ONE innocent person who had the wrong name or was in the wrong place was tortured...can you say that's not on your soul?" Seriously.

 

[Justin]

Hey, if Jack Bauer would do it, it must be right!

 

[ArmedBear]

Some would say that it's better to die honorably than to save your own life dishonorably.

I consider torture dishonorable. And I think that that sentiment can apply to an entire society, as well.

So the passengers on a plane on 9/11 manage to overpower the terrorists. The pilots land the plane at the next runway. The FBI runs aboard the plane.

They want to know what the terrorists' targets are. They beat the living crap out of the terrorists to get the information. One talks; the other two die of trauma.

The World Trade Center is evacuated. Fighter escorts force the other planes to land. They have to shoot one down. A few hundred people are killed, rather than a few thousand.

Do you really think that it would have been more "honorable" to read the terrorists their Miranda rights and let thousands of innocent people die?

Do you think you have any right to tell the people in the WTC that they have to give their lives so that YOU can sit on your ass in rural New England and feel "honorable"?

Sorry, but I don't believe that you have that right.

 

[Baba Louie]

It depends on HOW the question was asked/worded and then HOW the news people decide to slant their take on the poll.
Define torture. Is it sleep deprivation? Not letting someone go to the toilet? Not letting them pray 5 times a day? Bamboo splinters under the fingernails?

Give us a link to the article with the poll questions if available.

What have we become? To quote Pogo (old comic strip for the youngsters) "We have met the enemy, and he is us"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206/ap_on_re_us/torture_ap_poll_6

(edited to add link to AP article)

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Of the opinion that the barbaric butchers who blow up busloads of kids and crash planes into towers full of innocent businessmen and women aren't human beings, but rather just clever animals who've figured out how to work AKs, RPGs, and explosive devices pretty effectively.

Which is satisfying in a visceral, Old Testament sort of way, but still wrong.

~GnSx

Ok, Gunnyskox, I suspect that you are a terrorist. Off you go to Egypt for a series of near drowning sessions under interrogation. When not being near drowned, you will spend your time in a small upright coffin which is just a little too short to fully stand up in, and just a little too narrow to fully sit down in. Even if you give us a list of names of other terrorists, the torture won't stop, because you are suspected of terrorism, and terrorists are low down scum, and you might just be holding out on us. Forget about a chance to disprove our evidence against you. Terrorists don't deserve a chance at that. And forget about a lawyer, or the presumption of innocence, or the right to face your accuser. Terrorists don't deserve that. Oh, you protest that you are not a terrorist? Well tell it to your interrogators. No judge will ever hear your protests. Is that the America that you were taught to love?

 

[Manedwolf]

They want to know what the terrorists' targets are. They beat the living crap out of the terrorists to get the information. One talks; the other two die of trauma.

I don't know if you've seen the reports or not. Beating up on an actual terrorist caught in the middle of an act of terrorism isn't quite the "torture" as is being used.

Waterboarding, electric shock, humiliation, sexual, homosexual humiliation of sorts I won't go into here, leaving people lying in their own filth...

I'm talking about methods you'd expect more out of the Viet Cong, but they're in OUR book. They're methods WE are using. And how is that okay?

And how can we tell other nations not to do it to our troops, if captured? Doesn't that put THEM in more danger?

 

[Kramer Krazy]

<Applauding to ArmedBear's post>

 

[GoRon]

Good lord. What have we become...

If you think that we as a people and nation have treated our enemies better in the past than we do now, I think you have a unrealistic view of the past.

We just didn't air our dirty laundry in public in the past.

That was before the feminization and emasculation of a good percentage of the men in this country.

 

[ArmedBear]

I don't know if you've seen the reports or not. Beating up on an actual terrorist isn't quite the "torture" as is being used.

Waterboarding, electric shock, humiliation, sexual humiliation of sorts I won't go into here, leaving people lying in their own filth...

I'm talking about methods you'd expect more out of the Viet Cong, but they're in OUR book. They're methods WE are using. And how is that okay?

That's not the question at hand, and never was, wolf.

I quote from your original post: "justified at least in rare instances."

Standard operating procedure and "justified at least in rare instances" are completely different. The poll did not ask whether torture should be the SOP for handling suspects, at least as you posted it.

I named a rare instance that is entirely plausible; a similar situation may yet happen. Do you, or do you not believe that, in such a rare instance, our society should be "honorable" so you can feel good up there in New Hampshire?

 

[Manedwolf]

Oh, you protest that you are not a terrorist? Well tell it to your interrogators. No judge will ever hear your protests. Is that the America that you were taught to love?

That, too. No matter how heinous the crime, it's still the America I grew up in that gives due process and a fair trial, not secret prisons and torture.

It says...or said, now, "Look at us, we are the shining example, we are BETTER than you scum, because we give a fair trial to the accused, we stand for freedom and justice."

Now we say "well, we need to be 'realistic', and it's a 'different kind of war', so we're going to use the same methods you scum do."

That just lowers us.

 

[Joejojoba111]

So the passengers on a plane on 9/11 manage to overpower the terrorists. The pilots land the plane at the next runway. The FBI runs aboard the plane.

They want to know what the terrorists' targets are. They beat the living crap out of the terrorists to get the information. One talks; the other two die of trauma.

The World Trade Center is evacuated. Fighter escorts force the other planes to land. They have to shoot one down. A few hundred people are killed, rather than a few thousand.

Do you really think that it would have been more "honorable" to read the terrorists their Miranda rights and let thousands of innocent people die?

Do you think you have any right to tell the people in the WTC that they have to give their lives so that YOU can sit on your ass in rural New England and feel "honorable"?

Sorry, but I don't believe that you have that right.

LOL. Or how about this: The FBI is tipped off by several credible leads, and picks the terrorists up with plenty of time to spare before they can launch their attack. But they don't really give a darn about what happens, they don't even bother to investigate the guys, and they let them go and do their deed after denying agent's requests to monitor these highly suspicious individuals who are obviously up to something.

Then after 9/11 the FBI and other agencies start pretending that they couldn't stop the terrorists because they need police-state powers to protect us. And 62% of people agree.

 

[ArmedBear]

If you think that we as a people and nation have treated our enemies better in the past than we do now, I think you have a unrealistic view of the past.

We just didn't air our dirty laundry in public in the past.

Or maybe we did. But we were a lot happier about the fact that we WON the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan (both brutal torturers) than we were sad about some of what we had to do to their spies. If we'd have lost, our "honor" wouldn't have been worth diddly.

Life isn't always conveniently simple.

 

[Alex45ACP]

Torture is great, as long as it's only happening to "terrorists".

But when your neighbors start disappearing in the middle of the night, you'll be singing a different tune.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

LOL. Or how about this: The FBI is tipped off by several credible leads, and picks the terrorists up with plenty of time to spare before they can launch their attack. But they don't really give a darn about what happens, they don't even bother to investigate the guys, and they let them go and do their deed after denying agent's requests to monitor these highly suspicious individuals who are obviously up to something.

Then after 9/11 the FBI and other agencies start pretending that they couldn't stop the terrorists because they need police-state powers to protect us. And 62% of people agree.

+1

 

[Manedwolf]

I named a rare instance that is entirely plausible; a similar situation may yet happen. Do you, or do you not believe that, in such a rare instance, our society should be "honorable" so you can feel good up there in New Hampshire?

What does the fact that I've actually given my location and you've kept your hidden have to do with anything?

Last I checked, it was the United States of America, and I travel all over it.

 

[ArmedBear]

LOL. Or how about this: The FBI is tipped off by several credible leads, and picks the terrorists up with plenty of time to spare before they can launch their attack. But they don't really give a darn about what happens, they don't even bother to investigate the guys, and they let them go and do their deed after denying agent's requests to monitor these highly suspicious individuals who are obviously up to something.

Then after 9/11 the FBI and other agencies start pretending that they couldn't stop the terrorists because they need police-state powers to protect us. And 62% of people agree.

What you posted (a great and concise point) bothers me a LOT more than whether we might use torture in "some extreme, rare instance".

 

[ArmedBear]

What does the fact that I've actually given my location and you've kept your hidden have to do with anything?

Last I checked, it was the United States of America, and I travel all over it.

Still not answering a simple question.

San Diego, CA; never intended to "hide" it.

 

[Baba Louie]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002668089_webpollabout06.html?syndication=rss

About the U.S. results

By The Associated Press

The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on attitudes about torture is based on telephone interviews with 1,001 randomly selected adults in the United States. The interviews were conducted Nov. 15-17 by Ipsos, an international polling firm.

The results were weighted to represent the population by demographic factors such as age, sex, region and education.

No more than one time in 20 should chance variations in the sample cause the results to vary by more than 3 percentage points from the answers that would be obtained if everyone in the United States was questioned.

This margin of sampling error is larger for responses of subgroups. There are other sources of potential error in polls, including the wording and order of questions. Response totals that are less than 1 percent are marked by X. Totals may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding.

The questions and results:

1. Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain information about terrorist activities can...

—Often be justified, 11 percent

—Sometimes be justified, 27 percent

—Rarely be justified, 23 percent

—Never be justified, 36 percent

—Not sure, 3 percent

strong> 2. Would you support or oppose allowing the United States to secretly interrogate known terrorists in the U.S. in order to gain information about terrorist activities?.

—Support, 63 percent

—Oppose, 32 percent

—Not sure, 5 percent

Note that only 38% said torture can either be "Often" or "Sometimes" justified in question #1
Note the 63% response does not use the word torture in question #2

Yet no one defines exactly what torture is. Doesn't it all hinge and depend on what your definition of "Is" is? Or "Torture" in this case?

 

[Tequila_Sauer]

It's quite typical in charged issues like this to examine both ends from the most extreme of angles. All of the anti's are screaming how we're violating rights by yanking innocent people from their homes and sticking knives through their hands, and the pro's are screaming that we're saving thousands of lives. Are both true? Yes, are both extreme? Of course.

The answer, to me, is somewhere in the middle. Should we make absolutely sure that, before we school some scum bag, the person we're doing this to is, on some level, guilty of something? Sure.

But I definitely think we need to be tougher on some of these people when we want answers. It's no incentive to prisoners to talk when the worst we have for them is "You're just going to have to sit in your cell even MORE than you were before."