New GallupPoll: Anti-Terrorism Tactics Evaluated In U.S. (39% OK Torture)

[truthpusher]

http://www.cpod.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=5593

(Angus Reid - CPOD Global Scan) – Many adults in the United States say they would be willing to have their government assassinate known terrorists, according to a poll by Gallup released by CNN and USA Today. 65 per cent of respondents support the tactic.

(snip)

Polling Data

Would you be willing—or not willing—to have the U.S. government do each of the following, if the government thought it were necessary to combat terrorism?

Willing Not/willing/No opinion

Assassinate known terrorists

65% 33% 2%

Assassinate leaders of countries
that harbour terrorists

37% 59% 4%

Torture known terrorists if they
know details about future terrorist
attacks in the U.S.

39% 59% 2%

Use nuclear weapons to
attack terrorist facilities

27% 72% 1%

Source: Gallup / CNN / USA Today
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 480 American adults, conducted from Jan. 7 to Jan. 9, 2005. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

http://www.cpod.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=5593

[NYC Liberal]

1. What they REALLY mean is

foreign Muslim terrorists.

See, if they had been asked if they supported torturing white, Christian Americans -- even if they knew about a future attack -- I bet that 39% would be a lot lower.

[Todd B]

2. And you know...

And you know that all of those people that answered "willing" are the same people that cry foul when Americans suffer these attacks (be it when the beheadings where occuring or what not).

It amazes me that they can't realize that we're just making it more dangerous for our troops by sanctioning the use of torture.

[coloradodem2005]

5. What if it is someone like Tim McVeigh?

Would they be ok with it then?

[otohara]

11. Who Is The Other Guy in Your Sig. Pic

those white republican's all look the same to me.

[NYC Liberal]

13. Victor Ashe.

Bush's, erm, man-date. :D

[BikeWriter]

16. ROFLMAO@NYC! n/t

[TheFarseer]

3. 27% are willing to use nukes?!?!

I don't think people realize the implications of that. I think those dip$h!+s should have their right to vote taken away if they really think that. If over 1/4 of us believe in using nukes for any reason other than nukes being used in mass on us first, and especially for a weak ass reason like attacking a camp of camels, then we have real problems.

but to answer the question, I really don't have a problem with anything that doesn't physically hurt the prisoner. People forget that some of these guys were sodomized with broomsticks and 2 or 3 of them died from torture. People focus on the naked pyramids and think that's what the outrage is about, but personally, I could give a rats behind about naked pyramids.

[gottaB]

6. My jaw dropped at that too --n/t

[daleo]

7. Physical harm and psychological harm are never far apart

A co-worker of mine lived with a man who had been tortured by the Pinochet regime. According to her, he was still haunted by the loss of control and humiliation of the experience as much as the physical damage done.

The other problem with the naked pyramids and the like is that it produces intense indignation in the wider population. I doubt most Iraqis will ever really have very positive views of the U.S. for that very reason. These stories probably generated ten enemies for every one person they cowed into submission.

[neweurope]

26. I must suggest more information then.

"I really don't have a problem with anything that doesn't physically hurt the prisoner."

People have been damaged for life from torture that didn't physically harm them. Matter of fact psychological harms often is much worse.


-----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[leesa]

4. Gallop works for the GOP. Don't take it to heart. It's child's play to

manipulate polls.

[NYC]

8. Would the 39% think it was okay if THEY were tortured?

Is torture really okay? If so, I guess it is okay for everyone. Are they willing to be subjected to torture?

I already know the answer to that question. So, why is it acceptable to torture other people, but not yourself? Since you don't know what the other person knows, how do you know he has the information that you think justifies torture?

Unfeeling, uncompassionate psychopaths. Okay to torture other people, just don't torture me.

[truthpusher]

9. Then 'animalization' of others is the hallmark of genocide...

They approve of it because the others are not human in their eyes, they are animals...next stop genocide? (don't flame on this comment before you think about what the war on terror really is all about)

[NYC]

10. Okay, what is it all about?

Re "animalization", I wouldn't torture animals, either. I really can't understand people who condone torture under any circumstances.

I wouldn't flame you for what you said, but I would like to know what you think this war on terror is about. I think it is power and money.

[truthpusher]

18. I honestly think that beyond Afgahnistan...

...and the initial effort to find OBL, it has a lot to do with hate. Just talk to a few war supporters, get down to basics, and it has a lot to do with disliking 'those' people.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

23. Here's why: 'Dirty Harry' president and an 'NYPD Blue' public.

This is TV Nation we're talking about now, right?

I stopped watching 'NYPD Blue' when I realized that every episode consisted of 'good-hearted cops' harassing, beating, torturing 'perps' until they confessed and repented like sinners 'getting Religion' at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition.

Dozens of movies of renegade he-man cops who get their man despite an 'imperfect' world of laws, treaties, and 'bleeding-heart liberals.'

The White Hat Sheriff America of Cold War America has been replaced with Dirty Harry-the bad cop who gets his man BY IGNORING THE LAW.
"I won't ask for a permission slip to defend America."

The autonomy of America Uber Alles won't be stopped by the girlie-men of the UN, International Criminal Court, Geneva Conventions, OSHA or EPA. (“We now torture and kill prisoners, gotta problem with that, faggot? United We Stand Under God.”)

So the more we point out the impunity and lawlessness of the Repubs AND the permanent War Machine that is USA, Inc. THE MORE THE UNINFORMED MASSES EMBRACE the power implied in the winning values of 'their son-of-a-bitch' in the dog-fight over the bone called Planet Earth.

[NYC]

31. I never watched NYPD Blue.

I didn't know that it glorified the law enforcement officer who acted outside the law to achieve his objectives. Doesn't set a good example, does it? It was a very popular program.

This is frightening, but it makes sense:

So the more we point out the impunity and lawlessness of the Repubs AND the permanent War Machine that is USA, Inc. THE MORE THE UNINFORMED MASSES EMBRACE the power implied in the winning values of 'their son-of-a-bitch' in the dog-fight over the bone called Planet Earth.

Wasn't it Poppy Bush (during his term in the White House) who said something about "let's kick ass"? (Or was that just Giuliani?) I guess thugs are revered these days. People don't seem to realize that they, too, can become the victims of these very same thugs.

[Taxloss]

27. My thoughts exactly.

I'm guessing that 39% has never been tortured, and would answer differently if the question was: "If the state suspected you of a terrorist act, would you support your own torture to gather intelligence?"

Yes, it's an unfair question, and a hypothetical question, but it's not as absurd as the pro-torture argument, which is even more tenuously hypothetical.

[NYC]

29. It's not an unfair and hypothetical question.

People should view the question in that light before condemning other people to senseless torture.

Do unto others...

[Taxloss]

33. It is unfair because it is structured to achieve only one answer.

And it's hypothetical because it deals with an entirely hypothetical situation.

But it's still the RIGHT question, precisely because it is the perfect answer to the absurd "ticking timebomb" hypotheticals floated by pro-torture pundits.

We agree on this.

[tedzbear]

64. Good point.

That 39% better hope they aren't captured and sexually abused because they voted for the chimp. In the eyes of much of the world, voting for the chimp makes one a "known terrorist."

:kick:

[sunnystarr]

12. Maybe they should have asked if it was OK to use those methods

on their children. Wonder how the percentages would change.

[Ouabache]

48. how would they feel if it was their college kid & just an honest mistake

that she wasn't REALLY a terrorist, but that fact is not discovered until after SHE is disfigured from the torture?

Would they be down with it then?

My guess is their stock answer will be that if there is nothing to hide it is still ok, regardless that torture has been shown to be unreliable. Torture any person enough, and they will make shit up to avoid more torture.

Are they ok with it if their 20 year old makes up some shit about THEM in order to avoid more torture?

[BikeWriter]

14. Fascist bastids! n/t

[Book Lover]

15. No one asked me

So from a sample of 480 people, I am supposed to believe anything from this poll?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

17. This is the sad reality of what happens when you preach intolerance

The small minded, weak willed people buy the fact that any one "not with us is against us". "Us" is beginning to mean any non-christian not just like you person to far too many people. Preach fear and intolerance and this is the result. They are succeeding in dehumanizing other races and faiths. How soon people forget the horrors committed by "their own kind".

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to have a good cry over the death of intelligence in this country.

[arwalden]

19. Holy Crap! I'm Astounded... And Embarrassed. -- What is WRONG with us?

[saigon68]

28. We have sunk to the level of Beasts

In the future this is how we will deal with "Subhuman" Rag-heads.

[The Flaming Red Head]

20. They beat on their leather bound bibles

What'd ya expect.

[The Flaming Red Head]

21. Jesus is treated like a Bush terrorist suspect in a movie

and they call it passion.

[LynnTheDem]

22. America; Land of the Torturers

Not my country.

[proudbluestater]

24. Just a few comments...

"Would you be willing—or not willing—to have the U.S. government do each of the following, if the government thought it were necessary to combat terrorism?"

First of all, I think they should distinguish between the Bush Regime and the government under ANY other leadership BUT his. He has zero credibility on this issue. He lied us into a war on false pretenses, knowing all along there were no WMDs. This had nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with further a neocon agenda while capturing oil supplies and privatizing all of Iraq to American interests.

Second, I am bothered by the "if the government THOUGHT it were necessary to combat terrorism." Again, they're asking people to trust a government that is not worthy of our trust. MOST of the people being held in Guantanamo Bay are NOT terrorists. They have been questioned, interrogated, tortured, and it turns out -- hey, they've got not much at all to do with terrorism. But the regime is TOO arrogant to simply release them and showcase more missteps, so it will defy the Supreme Court ruling that says they can't be held there indefinitely without charge or representation. In the meantime, they are busy constructing a PERMANENT prison there for these folks, and who knows what others may come.

Third, here's a good one for ya all: "Assassinate leaders of countries that harbour terrorists". I guess that means that 37% of the good citizens of the US think it's okay if we go ahead and take out a few members of the Saudi Royal Family, then, since they harbored most of the 9/11 hijackers. Oops, that's right. We don't publicize that one much, do we?

Give me a break you freaks! First it was the cold war-Russia bogeyman. After that, we had no justification to keep spending to support the military-industrial complex. So we had to invent someone new. Military spending is again back up to cold-war era levels. And the citizens continue to suffer and protest and soldiers and civilians lose their lives needlessly so more $$ can be made by the capitalists.

[neweurope]

25. Shame.

These numbers are terrible and very scary. Now it just takes one specatular murder of an American somewhere and then where will these numbers be?

27 % are for "using nuclear weapons to attack terrorist facilities". Your government calls each and everyone "terrorist" these days. If 27 % of all agree even now with nuking other countries then what will you actually DO after another "LIHOP/MIHOP"?

Are Americans aware (I know DUers are) of what nuclear war MEANS? After all you should know first hand...?

:scared:

------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[NYC]

30. As for knowing first hand,

we weren't on the receiving end of it. Makes a big difference.

There are still Americans who say it "ended the war sooner & saved lives". When you ask why the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki 3 days later, they don't have an answer.

People are unkind. So many of them are unkind and uncaring.

[Taxloss]

34. There's an argument that the second bomb was necessary to

demonstrate that the feat was repeatable. This was a new technology, remember.

Jus' playing devil's advocate.

[NYC]

35. It wasn't necessary.

All the words in the world can't make it "necessary". (I know you are playing devil's advocate.)

Did you ever see the pictures of the women of Nagasaki? It wasn't necessary, and it isn't forgivable.

[Taxloss]

36. I know.

I recommend "Hiroshima", by John Hersey. Really gives a clear picture of what "the living shall envy the dead" really means.

I still don't know why they didn't detonate the bomb offshore in view of Tokyo, or blow off the top of Mount Fuji or something. Even giving forewarning might have worked. "Tomorrow, at noon, we will destroy Hiroshima."

Imagine how cold it must have been in the room where these decisions were made.

[NYC]

38. No, I can't imagine how cold it must have been where the decisions

were made, especially for the second bomb. It amazes me. It truly does.

I saw many pictures and some films of the women in Nagasaki. It is unforgettable. A picture is worth a thousand words.

I read Hersey's updated Hiroshima as well as the original. I think he updated it 10 years after writing it.

You're right about offshore in view of Tokyo. Radiation drifts, but that still would have been less harmful.

No matter what people say to justify or explain the first Hiroshima bomb, there's nothing that can justify the second Nagasaki bomb. Horrible.

[Taxloss]

39. I feel Mount Fuji might have worked.

Visible, and a national symbol. Compared to what actually unfolded ... preferable, to say the least.

Those rooms where megadeath is plotted and discussed. I wonder what they talk of today.

[NYC]

40. Perhaps more radiation from Fuji than the offshore plan.

Still better than what they did, and it certainly would have put a dent in the national symbol.

What do they talk of today? I think turning cities into rubble. Eliminating the people. Impoverishing Americans, and razing the rest of the world that stands between them and "natural resources".

That's what I think. I think the plan is to put the wealth of the world in the hands of a very few. Any destruction along that path is just fine with them.

People say the war in Iraq is a disaster, but is it a disaster for Bush & friends? Isn't Halliburton profiting nicely? Only the "little people" are dying, and they are just cannon fodder. Maybe that's why Bush called Iraq a "catastrophic success". It's a catastrophe for Iraq and American people; it's a success for the money grabbers.

[Taxloss]

47. Follow the money. See who gains, and who backed the war.

But I feel they have bitten off more than they can chew.

[NYC]

50. I hope they have bitten off more than they can chew.

I hope they cannot succeed at their plan. We would all be their victims.

[NuttyFluffers]

45. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were unnecessary

it was just there to scare russia from going in and taking all of china. japan was making repeated overtures for surrender in several neutral countries, all they were asking was to keep their emperor. we kept harping on 'unconditional surrender.' when those two bombs were dropped the emperor himself offered unconditional surrender and in turn we let them keep their emperor. we never cared that much about getting rid of the emperor that much, all we cared about was those intoxicating words 'unconditional surrender' and scaring russia from gaining hegemony over east asia.

i used to believe in those bombs, just like most american's that were raised on the wwii propaganda. but after reading gore vidal's writings on this, and following up with his book recommendations and bibliography, i realized i was completely fed bogus tales as i grew up. we didn't need to drop those bombs; we did it to establish hegemony and scare away competitors. when a country asks well over half a dozen times for peace talks and is willing to give absolutely everything -- except for a living link to their cultural history -- what could possibly be gained directly by dropping those bombs? if we hated the living line so much we could've shot to shit the castles they lived in, not vaporize several 10s of thousands of people and kill 100s of thousands more through aftermath.

no, the bombs were unnecessary. just scared imperial competitors a bit and gave conservatives a hard-on, that's all.

[DukeBlue]

51. The Japanese

Were evil. They were evil in china, they killed millions. If anyone ever deserved to be nuked it was imperial japan.

They started ww2 for us and we finished it. The dead were no more dead than the women and children in London, Tokyo, or Dresden.

Different war, different times, different rules.

It is not fair to apply modern thought to ww2.

[BUSHOUT]

61. That's the biggest pile of BS I've ever read.

The "Japanese" were not "evil". A nation of people cannot be "evil". Put down the koolaid.

And the point you're responding to is whether or not the two A-bombs in Japan were neccessary, not if they were deserved. They were most certainly NOT neccessary, as most non-far-right-wing-nut historians agree.

You appear to care little about civilians being killed.
You say: "The dead were no more dead than the women and children in London, Tokyo, or Dresden."
Which I don't quite know how to interpret. Do you mean that if others have died, why shouldn't more die? Or are you wondering what is the big deal about large numbers of deaths given that large numbers of deaths have happened previously?

[neweurope]

42. I don't think that the first was "necessary". Nuclear weapons are

not "necessary". They are a crime against life. As to Japan - peace negotiations were already under way. It was only to test what they had finally developed. A crime.

---------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[DukeBlue]

49. Revisionist

My father worked in that industry for his entire career. He worked for Groves as a young man.

The bombs were necessary and did their jobs. Japan had not come to peace talks with unconditional surrender (stay keeping their war criminal emperor) and Russia would have split japan. If the bombs were ready in 43 we would have incinerated cities in Germany and japan.

Nuclear weapons did not have the stigma then that they do now. WW2 killed 20 million people or more, Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed 300,000 including cancer deaths. 56,000 out right in Nagasaki. About the same number died in the battle of the Somme, in one day.
If you want a real historical read try R. Rhodes books on the subject.

[neweurope]

52. I don't agree with you and in Europe nobody does.

Thank God.

-----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[Taxloss]

53. That's a rather sweeping statement, speaking for all of Europe.

Certainly, a friend of my grandfather's was involved in the British part of planning for landings in Japan, and he said the anticipation was for hundreds of thousands of allied deaths and millions of Japanese deaths.

As you should be able to see from the other branch of this exchange, I don't like the dropping of the bomb any more than you, and feel that other options could have been used, but the allies were planning for 20 Stalingrads. Most Japanese cities would have been levelled by conventional bombing. Many Hiroshimas, but in slow motion.

But I wish we could uninvent the damn things.

[neweurope]

55. True - I should have said "I never met anybody who didn't condemn it

and I also never saw or heard anybody or anything who excused it". It's true that there might be people who thought it was the thing to do though - but once again: never in my life have I heard anybody say this. These two bombs were the beginning of the bad US-image in the world for many people.

And I agree - I wish we could uninvent them and also uninvent nuclear power plants. I'm scared.

--------------

Remember Fallujah!

Bush to The Hague!

[NuttyFluffers]

58. illogical, then why did we revert to their terms after we got it?

we got our unconditional surrender, but we let them keep their (puppet) emperor. all they asked was to keep their emperor, but nooo we needed to vaporize several thousand people, and then acquiesce at the end of it all. *it doesn't add up*. it was blatantly for keeping russia out of china and japan (which they were wholly able to do at the time, they were moving unbelievably fast). the only justification for dropping the bombs were USA hegemony in the region and dissuading russia. too bad china, vietnam, and half of korea fell to communism in the end (even though they were wholly different than russian communism) and we ended up doing two meat grinder wars in trying to maintain our influence. peace, and working with less corrupt democratic local leaders (yeah right, we wanted puppets, pure and simple) would've worked better for american hegemony. our tools of (supposed) open and friendly coalition building using the UN and NATO, etc helped create a more powerful web of dependency on american hegemony, which explains why the world has been taking so long in overt hostility to the USA (though i can almost guarantee they are thinking it and preparing contingency plans).

[BUSHOUT]

62. The word of your father means nothing.

The bombs were not neccessary.

[American Tragedy]

63. That is bullshit, Dookie.

Japan was ready to surrender, to the very terms that we ultimately accepted.

Incidentally, the American military was not uniformly supportive of the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. General Dwight Eisenhower opposed it, as being gratuitous and punitive action against a clearly defeated nation. Unfortunately, the scope of his influence was limited to the European side, and the administration seems to have been set on the idea from the beginning anyway.

[tedzbear]

65. Who cares who your father worked for?

You are just spouting the Truman propaganda of that time. The Japanese were willing to unconditionally surrender and Truman knew it. His ridiculous sticking point was over whether the Emperor could remain the symbolic head of Japan (just like Queen Elizabeth is symbolic head of England). That was too conditional for Truman! He couldn't wait to drop the bomb on people in order to intimidate Stalin into giving in to all of his post war demands.

Of course it didn't work because Truman acting crazy didn't faze a man like Stalin who was just as capable of being crazy.

[NNN0LHI]

32. I bet that at one time 39% of Germans thought Nazi death camps were OK

[rodeodance]

37. perhaps Bush thought he would have 51% -then he would have his mandate

??? on this one?? Still, 39% is a high number to approve of torure!!

[neweurope]

41. Possibly - though I don't know. Talking of death camps was punishable.

But which point are you making? If you think that the German Nazis and the American Nazis of nowadays think the same - then we agree.


-----------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[nickine9]

43. my wife and daughter are coming to the USA soon...

to visit with some of her friends (ex-pat brits living near Boston). In the past have travelled a lot in the USA for both business and pleasure but not since your current president weaseled his way into office. I will not be joining them on this trip because of stories like this. It saddens me really becasue when i was visiting your country i meet wonderful people in both "red" and "blue" states along with the occasional nutjob in both areas but nowadays:

Support for torture of "known" terrorists! - who gets to decide who is a terrorist and what level of proof would be required? I think i know the answer - your government and they dont need proof.

Support for assassination of "terrorists" and and leaders of sovereign states who support "terrorism". Just remember what goes around comes around and a lot of sovereign states view your leader as a supporter of terrorism.

Support for the use of nuclear weapons against terrorist facilities - presumably these would be the smart nuclear weapons that only harm terrorists and their weapons rather thgan the ones that vapourise everything in a 10 mile radius and leave the area uninhabitable for years.

I've has some good times in the USA in the past but as they say "the past is another country".

[indepat]

44. We the people must truly ratify the actions and policies of this Adminis-

tration.

[Plaid Adder]

46. This is just infuriating.

I hate polls, always, but this one is just the pits.

1) What's a 'known terrorist'? Who's doing the 'knowing'? The same people who 'knew' that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

2) How exactly would it be determined that a potential torture victim knew 'details about future terrorist attacks in the U.S.'? Unless said potential torture victim is saying, "I know details about future terrorist attacks in the U.S., nyah nyah nyah," you can't ever 'know' that, it can only be a guess.

3) Funny that there's no question up there to ask "Would you be willing to be tortured even though you're innocent, to spare our government the trouble and inconvenience of having to go through due process all the time every time they pick up a suspected, sorry, 'known' terrorist?"

@#$!,

The Plaid Adder

[ernstbass]

54. What a slippery slope we're on

[moobu2]

56. I'd like to see more breakdown

in polls such as this -"adults in the United States" doesnt tell us very much.

For instance,
What percentage was male/female
What percentage was republican/democrat
What percentage was evangelical/other Christians
What area of the country they resided in,
Educational breakdown and so on,

Just American adults?.... Much to vague

The majority of people who agreed that torture was justifiable could have been Republican/southern/evangelical/6th grade drop-outs for all anyone knows.

[truthpusher]

57. Exactly, the regular torture set n/t

[demgurl]

59. And in the latest news........

Al Jazeer network recently took a pole and it was determined 98% of the population believed in torturing terrorists. The word terrorist, in their poll, was meant the Americans committing war atrocities against the country of Iraq. The other two percent, who were against torture, are thought to be puppets of the American government.

Would those 1/4 of people who say torture is OK against terrorist make a huge outcry if our soldiers were tortured because they are the real terrorists right now in Iraq? Of course they would. Shame on them.

[agincourt]

60. Sometimes I wish they didn't reveal these polls,

as they only give a possibly wobbly terrorist more incentive to attack us. OBL always tried to whip up his followers support by showing public opinion polls of a presidents approval rating going up, after the bombing of a mideast country.