Public Remains Divided Over Use of "Torture"

[red states rule]

Looks like, at least in this poll, only 1 in 4 would not do whatever is needed to stop terrorist attacks

Can someone please forward this poll to the Dems who want to punish those who have kept America safe for the last 7 years


April 23, 2009
Public Remains Divided Over Use of Torture


Amid intense debate over the use of torture against suspected terrorists, public opinion about this issue remains fairly stable. Currently, nearly half say the use of torture under such circumstances is often (15%) or sometimes (34%) justified; about the same proportion believes that the torture of suspected terrorists is rarely (22%) or never (25%) justified.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted April 14-21 among 742 adults interviewed in English and Spanish on landlines and cell phones, finds little change in opinions about the use of torture against suspected terrorists.

There are continuing partisan differences over the use of torture under these circumstances. Comparable percentages of Republicans (15%) and Democrats (12%) believe that the torture of suspected terrorists to gain important information is often justified, but twice as many Republicans as Democrats say torture is sometimes justified (49% vs. 24%). Similarly, while nearly identical percentages of Republicans and Democrats say torture under these circumstances is rarely justified, 38% of Democrats believe the torture of suspected terrorists is never justified, compared with 14% of Republicans.

A majority of independents (54%) believe that the use of torture against suspected terrorists is often (19%) or sometimes (35%). That is up somewhat from February, when 44% of independents said terrorism was at least sometimes justified.

http://people-press.org/report/510/public-remains-divided-over-use-of-torture

[Noir]

Public opinion is not a good measure of such an issue, people are lead by fear and the unknown, ergo just because something is popular does not make it just.

[Monkeybone]

and just because something is unpopular doesn't make it wrong.

[emmett]

Public opinion is not a good measure of such an issue, people are lead by fear and the unknown, ergo just because something is popular does not make it just.

With all due respect...what opinion is a good measure then? We are a public country. You know...majority rules and all of that. Should we assume that you think government is always best qualified to make these decisions even when the populus disagrees.

Let us conduct a small test. I hardly think you will play but i'll try. Let's assume (God Forbid) that a town in your country has been attacked and a perpretator has been captured. Intelligence tells you, and the Perp confirms that more attacks are eminant. He refuses to give further info. What do you know? Buy him a milk shake and show him to a comfortable cell where he can rest?

Again I repeat, with all due respect, as it is never my intention to be callus, I'm just a passionate person who believes we should have the right to defend ourselves, both country and individual. A criminal, a terrorist or any other undesireable should have given thought to the repercussions of interrogation before they choose to be persoanlly irresponsible. That's the Libertarian in me.

[Noir]

and just because something is unpopular doesn't make it wrong.


Very true, that's why public opinion should count for very little in such serious issues other than a bunch of stats that both side can't pointlessly throw about.

[red states rule]

According to a recently released CIA memo, waterboarding Khalid Sheik Muhammad thwarted the attack on the Los Angeles Library Tower and thousands of lives were saved as a result.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html

People seem to be ignoring this little fact

I wonder why?

And now we have this in the papers Obama released himself

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/20/AR2009042002818.html

It will be pretty hard for the Dems to go after Bush and Cheney - but they will do it anyway for political reasons

[jimnyc]

IMO, things such as this should be left to the military and intelligence experts. Public opinion is useless and 99.99% of them/us truly have no clue what we're discussing. I believe Mr. P is the only one here who has experienced waterboarding, which gives him an insight that none of us could even imagine.

While I'm sure it's not pleasant, I'm still all for it. And while the "supreme law of the land" can be interpreted as making waterboarding illegal - it actually doesn't. It's an OPINION as to whether or not this fits the bill. Our government would need to vote on this specifically and determine whether or not it is "torture", and until then IT IS NOT part of the supreme law of the land aka treaties. An argument can be made either way, which is why a vote would be necessary before any of our citizens can be held accountable for torture based on the treaties.

[Kathianne]

IMO, things such as this should be left to the military and intelligence experts. Public opinion is useless and 99.99% of them/us truly have no clue what we're discussing. I believe Mr. P is the only one here who has experienced waterboarding, which gives him an insight that none of us could even imagine.

While I'm sure it's not pleasant, I'm still all for it. And while the "supreme law of the land" can be interpreted as making waterboarding illegal - it actually doesn't. It's an OPINION as to whether or not this fits the bill. Our government would need to vote on this specifically and determine whether or not it is "torture", and until then IT IS NOT part of the supreme law of the land aka treaties. An argument can be made either way, which is why a vote would be necessary before any of our citizens can be held accountable for torture based on the treaties.

Indeed.