P&N Torture Poll

[aidanjm]

Pew Research Center has released some new polling on US citizens' attitudes to use of torture. Results are interesting:

1. a majority of Americans actually approve of the use of torture under some circumstances.

2. Catholics approve of its use by a wider margin than the general public.

People who claim no religion (secular) were the least approving of torture - See article below for the numbers:

Americans, especially Catholics, approve of torture

I thought it might be interesting to repeat the poll question here, to see what attitudes P&N folks have on this subject.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Pew Research Center has released some new polling on US citizens' attitudes to use of torture. Results are interesting:

1. a majority of Americans actually approve of the use of torture under some circumstances.

2. Catholics approve of its use by a wider margin than the general public.

People who claim no religion (secular) were the least approving of torture - See article below for the numbers:

Americans, especially Catholics, approve of torture

I thought it might be interesting to repeat the poll question here, to see what attitudes P&N folks have on this subject.

I don't know if you can justify your heading on that link. Only 46% say often or sometimes, while 49% say rarely or never. And more say never than say any other single thing. That says, to me, that Americans DON'T approve of torture.

 

[Tab]

For those who say something other than never, why?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Tab
For those who say something other than never, why?

Most likely a combination of fear and hope. People are generally afraid of things...pain, uncertainty, public speaking, death, etc. That fear leads them to seek hope, any hope. Most people don't understand that torture is overwhelmingly ineffective at providing accurate or useful information in a timely manner. Therefore they consider torture as a way to provide hope that they might avoid pain or death. They're wrong of course, but the desire for hope is stronger than any rational or ethical appeals that could be made.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I don't know if you can justify your heading on that link. Only 46% say often or sometimes, while 49% say rarely or never. And more say never than say any other single thing. That says, to me, that Americans DON'T approve of torture.

It's not my heading - that is the title of the article, as posted on the National Catholic Reporter website.

If you add up the percentages of people in the general population who support torture under at least some circumstances, the total in favor is slightly over 60%. That's a clear majority. The figure is slightly above 70% for Catholics. Other christians are not far behind. It is the atheists and agnostics with the lowest levels of support for torture. I think that is very interesting.

 

[shira]

The problem with polls like this is that many/most of those answering "sometimes" or "rarely" have in mind hypothetical situations in which the authorities somehow "know" that the person they're about to torture actually has useful information, and the assumption is that torturing the person is such situations will produce actionable intelligence that will prevent massive loss of life.

In reality, this speculative situation has probably never actually occurred: Even if the authorities have someone in custody that they suspect or even know is a terrorist or terrorist supporter, they have no way of knowing whether that person has knowledge of an imminent attack, and they certainly cannot reliably coerce the person into revealing such information.

This would be like asking: Would it be moral to go back in time and assassinate Hitler before his rise to power? I assume most people would answer "Yes." But such a result is meaningless, as we can NEVER "know" ahead of time what a person will do many years hence.

 

[palehorse]

Jack Bauer for President!

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh man, there goes shira making sense again. I'm going to assume he reached this understanding all on his own and nobody beat the crap out of him to make him confess.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Tab
For those who say something other than never, why?

"in order to gain important information"

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Tab
For those who say something other than never, why?

"in order to gain important information"

Even having absolute statistical proof that torture seldom results in gaining valid, timely information?

 

[judasmachine]

cake please...

inbetween rarely and never. maybe a little S&M but not electrified testicles.

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Tab
For those who say something other than never, why?

"in order to gain important information"

Even having absolute statistical proof that torture seldom results in gaining valid, timely information?

I do not know how effective it is as compared with other methods. So I do not know how often it will be useful. However as long as it is effective some of the time (even "seldom") my answer would not be "never".

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Tab
For those who say something other than never, why?

"in order to gain important information"

Even having absolute statistical proof that torture seldom results in gaining valid, timely information?

I do not know how effective it is as compared with other methods. So I do not know how often it will be useful. However as long as it is effective some of the time (even "seldom") my answer would not be "never".

Fair enough.

 

[Stuxnet]

I support it if the suspect is known to have firsthand information regarding a plot to kill innocent people.

For instance, if they have surveillance proving that Mohammad Smith is going to be the trigger guy for Operation Blowupflorida, then they have my express permission to remove each of his organs, a cubic centimeter at a time, with an olive fork.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: shira
The problem with polls like this is that many/most of those answering "sometimes" or "rarely" have in mind hypothetical situations in which the authorities somehow "know" that the person they're about to torture actually has useful information, and the assumption is that torturing the person is such situations will produce actionable intelligence that will prevent massive loss of life.

In reality, this speculative situation has probably never actually occurred: Even if the authorities have someone in custody that they suspect or even know is a terrorist or terrorist supporter, they have no way of knowing whether that person has knowledge of an imminent attack, and they certainly cannot reliably coerce the person into revealing such information.

This would be like asking: Would it be moral to go back in time and assassinate Hitler before his rise to power? I assume most people would answer "Yes." But such a result is meaningless, as we can NEVER "know" ahead of time what a person will do many years hence.

And yet so many people act on a much lower burden of proof, simply assuming that anyone captured, tortured, or killed in the 'war on terror' is a terrorist and deserved what they got.

Good post, btw.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I support it if the suspect is known to have firsthand information regarding a plot to kill innocent people.

For instance, if they have surveillance proving that Mohammad Smith is going to be the trigger guy for Operation Blowupflorida, then they have my express permission to remove each of his organs, a cubic centimeter at a time, with an olive fork.

good post!

 

[WHAMPOM]

It was such a small step from opposing "THE EVIL EMPIRE" to becoming it.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I do not know how effective it is as compared with other methods. So I do not know how often it will be useful. However as long as it is effective some of the time (even "seldom") my answer would not be "never".

The problem is... How do you know who to torture? What? Do we just draw numbers out of a hat? I mean... How do you know what guy is going to have the most information (if any) to give you... You really don't so maybe we should just torture all of them...

It would suck if you were just a kid pulled off the street ... And the US GI thought you knew something and you really didn't...

I guess the REAL problem is.... If you got drafted and sent to go fight a war in China ... Would you want them to torture you if they cought you? We are setting a really fine example for the rest of the world to follow.

LASTLY....... If you watch front line... The experts say that torture does not produce any real "information"... It's not worth it... So why does the rumsfield and boosh think its ok??? I guess I found it funny that the OP siad something about cathlics... But isn't boosh a born again?

 

[compuwiz1]

Testicular stimulation is the only way to get vital confessions from terrorists. It makes sense, since that seems to be the brain region of such people.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Germans were OK about it with the Jews so anywhere there is a festering sick fascist hate of the other that can justify the foe an non-human in any of the infinite ways humans devise for this purpose then those same psychotics will say yes.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Testicular stimulation is the only way to get vital confessions from terrorists. It makes sense, since that seems to be the brain region of such people.

Not just the terrorists...lots of people around here seem to think with the wrong part of their body.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Testicular stimulation is the only way to get vital confessions from terrorists. It makes sense, since that seems to be the brain region of such people.

Not just the terrorists...lots of people around here seem to think with the wrong part of their body.

I like to think that I do most of my thinking with my pancreas...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I support it if the suspect is known to have firsthand information regarding a plot to kill innocent people.

For instance, if they have surveillance proving that Mohammad Smith is going to be the trigger guy for Operation Blowupflorida, then they have my express permission to remove each of his organs, a cubic centimeter at a time, with an olive fork.

good post!

Indeed, which is the point. The poll question asks whether or not torture is acceptable against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information. While an interesting hypothetical question, it may or may not apply to what we're actually doing. After all, 24 plots aside, how often do we have excellent information telling us that some prisoner knows the crucial detail of an important operation and how often are we going on a fishing expedition?

Of course we don't know the answer to that, but I get the feeling that peoples' support for torture is based a little too much on 24 type situations and a little less on reality, which is far less clear cut.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Testicular stimulation is the only way to get vital confessions from terrorists. It makes sense, since that seems to be the brain region of such people.

Not just the terrorists...lots of people around here seem to think with the wrong part of their body.

I like to think that I do most of my thinking with my pancreas...

. . . and your venting with your spleen?

 

[morkinva]

Why torture people when you can torture their children?

audio exchange between Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel and John Yoo, Bush adm. legal dude

Cassel: If the President deems that he?s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person?s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.