Skip to comments.Poll finds broad approval of terrorist torture. Most in U.S., ....say torture justified
Posted on 12/07/2005 5:48:52 AM PST by .cnI redruM
WASHINGTON - 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Take that MEDIA!!!!
McCain must have the absolute worst advisors known to science. They know how to get on the wrong side of nearly every issue.
If a terrorist had information that could save thousands or tens of thousands of lives, there is no question as to what should be done. All other questions are rendered obsolete after considering this one vital question.
McCain can outlaw torture of terrorists in home state of ARIZONA if he wants to. But - when it comes to the entire nation, I don't trust him to always do the 'right thing' when it comes to the defense of all the U.S. citizens!
Well, I didn't need a poll to tell me this.
I do find it interesting AP/IPSOS couldn't manufacture another result. This clearly isn't what they wanted.
Too bad McCain and the cowardly Republicans that will not challenge him, saving nine, would rather protect terrorists against the will, more importantly, SAFETY of the public.
And this means what exactly? Most Americans support abortion, so I suppose that makes it right.
"...If a terrorist had information that could save thousands or tens of thousands of lives, there is no question as to what should be done..."
You're 100% exactly correct. Imagine for a moment if we had captured Mohammad Atta a few days before the September 11th terrorist attacks and knew that he had information about an upcoming attack. It would have been morally wrong for us not to utilize coercion/torture in order to spare the lives of those 3000 innocent Americans that died that morning.
~ Blue Jays ~
One is more than enough for me.
RINO's must be wrong most of the time. Republicrats play to their constituencies to get reelected. A wet finger in the wind is all they need. Conservatives do what is right based on faith and law. Libs are ideology driven to Marxism.
Everyone but the most dense know its wrong to tie our troops hands when fighting an enemy bent on destroying us. McCain and others grabbed onto this anti-terrorism, not because they thought it was right but because they thought it scored political points.
The problem that this poll shows is that those political points are not there. The problem with abortion is that it is both wrong yet many support it and can be used to obtain political advantage.
What are your feelings about using coercion/torture on a committed Islamic terrorist to obtain attack information if the life of your mother, father, sister, brother, husband, wife, son, daughter, boyfriend, or girlfriend is on the line?
Should those gentle innocents die because the U.S. doesn't wish to employ certain interrogation techniques?
~ Blue Jays ~
The media continues to lump all torture into the same boat.
Does torture mean
- rape and dismemberment, or
- panties on the head and the comfy chair?
As soon as "rules" are allowed in wars, asinine results like these discussions ensue.
You want me to fight your war for you? Don't give me any rules!
You want to make rules? You better be there beside me, experiencing the results. Otherwise don't bother me!
A false conclusion based on a false premise.
I don't believe a majority of Americans support late term killings. Not even close.
Just as most Americans do not support the rampant intrusion of the "pervert" lifestyle in our daily life.
And yet we must deal with that, too.
That is my hope also. "Wrongway McCain" feels (along with the media) that he is entitled to the 2008 nomination. He has a good chance to win in New Hampshire and Iowa but South Carolina will thumb their noses at him. I hope that he has a melt down during or after the South Carolina primary.
When it comes to this issue, why does everyone resort to playing on people's fears and emotions? Isn't that a tactic normally employed by the left?
Okay, I'll play along. I'm just as human as the next guy, so if someone I loved were in danger, I have my doubts as to what extremes I would go to ensure their safety. But this goes above and beyond mere personal interests. We're talking about official policy.
You think it's fine to torture a "committed Islamic terrorist." Why be so specific? Why not include the friends and family of a committed Islamic terrorist? If torturing them might reveal his location, would it be worth it?
And why limit torture to the military? Wouldn't it come in handy in domestic criminal investigations such as kidnapping cases?
Since you are the one advocating torture, what restrictions (if any) would you set on its use? How would we know that we have gone too far? And what assurance do we have that giving the government an inch won't mean they will take a mile? Or two? Or 100?
The so-called "torture techniques" allegedly being used by the United States would cause a fraternity or sorority pledge to burst out in laughter! I knew kids in college who were compelled to drive the length of state toll roads completely naked paying for $0.25 tolls with crisp $100.00 bills. They suffered no permanent psychological damage and now laugh about it decades later. I'm sure the tollbooth collectors are still chuckling, too.
If innocent student can handle the temporary stress, I would have thought that committed jihadists were a bit tougher. Perhaps I'm wrong about those swarthy desert sissies.
~ Blue Jays ~
We are losing this debate by allowing the left and our enemies to redefine torture. The Geneva convention clearly defines torture, and the US isn't torturing anyone.
Yeah, and many polls show that Americans think Bush is doing a bad job.
Polls are useless and this one is no different.
"...You think it's fine to torture a "committed Islamic terrorist." Why be so specific? Why not include the friends and family of a committed Islamic terrorist? If torturing them might reveal his location, would it be worth it?..."
Now you're talking like a patriotic American again! I'm glad to see that you're coming around to recognize what needs to be done at pivotal times in our nation's history. We could break someone like Mohammad Atta if we had his mother on the telephone along with pictures of her with the current day's newspaper.
The fact-of-the-matter of why peoples' fears and emotions are brought into the discussion are because innocent terror victims ARE someone's family and friends. Terrorists have to learn one way or the other that there will be negative consequences to harming U.S. citizens anywhere in the world.
As far as your unlikely concerns about coercion/torture techniques being employed for domestic law enforcement, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. I'm just as concerned about statists as anyone else, but I think your fears are unfounded.
~ Blue Jays ~
Naw. It's just McCain.
If a terrorist had information that could save ONE American life, I'd pull out the pinchers and blowtorches and get to work.
With all the discussion devoted to this issue, it's becoming quite clear who will be leading the charge across that bridge. My fear, unfounded as it may seem, is that once we are on the other side, we will burn it as we have so many others.
"It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again!"
Most Americans support abortion, so I suppose that makes it right.
Could someone give me a definition of "torture" by the US in the war on terror?
no sugar with your coffee? No hi def TV? No access to Ramsey Clark?
That brings up an interesting historical question. Who really won The American Civil War? A lot of people say Ulysses S. Grant. I beg to differ. Sheridan, Custer, Butler and Sherman won the war. They burned the limited industrial capacity of The South to the ground and broke the will of The CSA. That's how you win. That's what we have to do to every enclave the Bin Ladins of the world hold fast in.
No Game boy? That would be torture go for some of these disgusting savages.
"Does torture mean
- rape and dismemberment, or
- panties on the head and the comfy chair?"
Good point or might torture be....
having to listen to bad music and be pointed at?
So the Constitution really is a suicide pact? You remind me of the inhabitants of a city in ancient Israel who would not fight on the Sabbath. Guess when their enemies attacked and destroyed them? To borrow a Napoleon quote (that was a favorite of George S. Patton): "Do not take counsel of your fears".
And who do you think developed the strategy that those other generals implemented. Grant, of course.
Seems to me the pro-torture/pro-war crowd cannot help but take counsel of their fears. (Isn't that why we're in Iraq in the first place?) But those are "post-9/11" fears, so it's justified.
I suppose one could make that argument, if one buys into the "WMDs were the only reason we invaded Iraq" rationale. Since I have taken the time to read the use of force resolution that authorized Mr. Bush to move against Iraq, I know that there were other reasons. Had I been in Clinton's shoes (a terrifying prospect, I know) I would have asked Congress for a declaration of war after the bungled assassination attempt on George H. Bush. This one have given Clinton the "wartime President legacy" he so desperately craved, and it would still have been the right thing to do.
Terrorists are NOT SUBJECT to the Geneva Convention. They do not wear uniforms and attacks civilian targets. Get whatever info you can from them, then shoot them.
Actually I'm not sure that's correct. Maybe the right to an abortion but not the act of abortion.
I agree. It is the "Powell Doctrine", which I am in favor of with modification. Instead of overwhelming force as the mainstay I believe the force should be a crushing, obliterating, no barriers hell storm of fire and destruction. No distinction should be made between civilian and military structures. This type of response will infuriate the world, to be sure, but it would also serve to make the savages tread very lightly in our presence, knowing that even as much as a single and relatively inconsequential act of terror would bring the very heavens down upon them.
I know, I know!!! America?
The price for earning the "civilized" PC label was "only" a few dozen American deaths. It could have been close to zero.
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.