Skip to comments.AP Poll: Most Say Torture OK in Rare Cases
Posted on 12/06/2005 1:41:37 PM PST by Ben Mugged
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.
The United States has drawn criticism from human rights groups and many governments, especially in Europe, for its treatment of terror suspects. President Bush and other top officials have said the U.S. does not torture, but some suspects in American custody have alleged they were victims of severe mistreatment.
The polling, in the United States and eight of its closest allies, found that in Canada, Mexico and Germany people are divided on whether torture is ever justified. Most people opposed torture under any circumstances in Spain and Italy.
"I don't think we should go out and string everybody up by their thumbs until somebody talks. But if there is definitely a good reason to get an answer, we should do whatever it takes," said Billy Adams, a retiree from Tomball, Texas.
In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost nine in 10 in South Korea and just over half in France and Britain felt that way.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Just put'em in solitary....they'll talk..you don't need to torture them, you dumb axes.
Not suprising. We are a mean people.
parsy, the disgusted.
If anyone can listen to Hillary's voice, then torture is a cakewalk.
Hmm. I have no problems with torture of criminals, as well, but it must be prescribed by a judge.
I wish they would tell us what 'torture' they are doing; are we talking sleep deprivation/drugs or tearing out thumbnails
Torture is an instrument of necessity, not consensus, which waxes and wanes.
After a couple more 9/11's, everyone would support it. The problem is that the next 9/11 may look more like Hiroshima, and our government can't afford to wait.
It seems to me that if the people support it, then there is no reason to pussyfoot around and open prisons in Romania.
Change the federal law that prohibits it, close GTMO, and fly the intended victims right into the States.
I would have been interested to see the numbers for Germany.
It doesn't surprise me that the Italians and Spanish are strongly opposed to torture under all circumstances, while majorities of the French and British support it when necessary. I believe that I saw death penalty statistics that were similar, with the Southern Europeans outright opposing it, and majorities of the British and French both supporting it.
I would be interested in seeing the statistics for Germany.
"I have no problems with torture of criminals, as well, but it must be prescribed by a judge."
You're kidding, right? This is sarcasm, right? Like a judge has any idea whatsoever of the real world.
Naked pictures of Bella Abzug
I think it should be well done myself.
And I think we must do some things in private which we deny in public.
AP Poll: Most Say Torture OK in Rare Cases........Mel Gibson to make million dollar movie.......
Our Republicans capitulate to only the Democrats.
To date I have not heard a single allegation that any US forces tortured anyone.
Nothing that rises above the level of a fraternity initiation has been alleged.
Unnecessary. "Illegal" is not a synonym for "impossible".
"Change the federal law that prohibits it"
"Unnecessary. 'Illegal' is not a synonym for 'impossible'."
True, but you still need to change the law. Because if you do not, whoever commits the torture is guilty of a felony and can be prosecuted for it. If the victim dies, the torturer, whether acting from necessity or not, is guilty of premeditated first degree murder under any state or federal law, and can be prosecuted just about anywhere, for the rest of his life. There are plenty of people who oppose torture so adamantly that if you simply allow government agents to torture on a "necessity" basis, but without giving them legal immunity for doing it, those agents will be exposed to prosecution and blackmail by enemies of torture for the rest of their lives, and if they ever come into the possession of such authorities, there is no law that can protect them.
Massachussetts, for example, could arrest and prosecute a military person passing through the Commonwealth, were Massachussetts state law to prohibit torture and allow prosecution in Massachussetts regardless of where the crime was committed. And if torture were not legal by a superseding US law, the US government would have no jurisdiction at all to remove its servicemen from Massachussetts prisons.
Also, having a law that says one thing, but allowing a whole secret society of torturers to exist, above the law, in government is another thing. A bad one. It sets a clear precedent. If THAT can be justified by a loose and unspecified doctrine of necessity, so can anything else.
The laws need to be clear, and enforced.
So? You do what you gotta do, and take the consequences. That's the only way to limit it to cases of true dire necessity.
...if you simply allow government agents to torture on a "necessity" basis, but without giving them legal immunity for doing it....
Since I reject any notion of legal immunity, this argument is irrelevant.
...allowing a whole secret society of torturers to exist, above the law, in government is another thing...
Who said anything about them being above the law? If somebody believes that it's genuinely necessary to do something illegal, then the subsequent trial and punishment is simply part of the price, just like the risk of disfigurement and death is part of the price of defending the nation in more conventional ways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.