Survey: 44 per cent of Americans favour torture for terrorists

Source: DPA

New York - While 53 per cent of Americans joined respondents around the world in saying torture should be unequivocally abolished, a high percentage favoured an exception when dealing with terrorists, a US survey said Tuesday. The survey found 44 per cent of Americans favoured torture in the case of terrorists and 13 per cent said torture should be allowed in general, said a study by WorldPublicOpinion.org, which is associated with the University of Maryland's Programme on International Policy Attitudes.

"Support for making exceptions for torture in the case of terrorists has grown among Americans since 2006, from 36 per cent to 44 per cent, while the majority opposing the use of torture in all cases has fallen slightly, from 58 per cent down to 53 per cent," the survey said.

The survey was made public at UN headquarters in New York on the eve of the UN International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.

The government of President George W Bush has been strongly criticized for using torture against alleged terrorists detained, in some cases in secrecy, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

But Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, said, "The idea that torture by governments is basically wrong is widely shared in all corners of the world. Even the scenario one hears of terrorists holding information that could save innocent lives is rejected as a justification for torture in most countries."

Read more: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/214622,survey-44-per-cent-of-americans-favour-torture-for-terrorists.html

what is hell is wrong with people, totally brainwashed by this sick sick administration.

They would love to be present at a Lynching too.

They would LOVE to see Islamic man scream as a plastic flashlight was rammed up his Rectum (See the Taguba Report)

H. Rap Brown)

This however makes violence look pantywaist.

It is War Crimes, Murder and Mayhem

There is a difference!

Is America worth salvaging when that many people think torture is ok at any time?

land of the free..rotten to the core.

not the same anymore not the same.

44 percent does not happen because of a conspiricy if that many feel it is ok to do so then there is little left worth fighting for. That is true evil in my view and I seriously do not want to be sucked into it.

If this FISA bill passes without any serious attempt at stopping it and is signed into law then yes I will agree with you. And quickly remove my political links and start acting like a fanboy for a couple of video games I want to play before I die (For god knows what is going to happen once it is confirmed they got us by the balls)

Another fanboy here!

It looks like the FISA thing will be filibustered...but most of them don't have a problem with the "updated FISA" part...and I have a big problem with that.

Bush is NOT catching terrorists with that. He's looking at busting people like us who don't like what he's doing.

Do what you can to be invisible. That's probably the best thing you can do.

who wanted to turn Iraq into a glass parking lot when the Iraqis didn't greet us with flowers and parades.

George Carlin was so right about the stupidity of the average murikan. x(

fucking terrorists? The innocent detainees who were never terrorists before, but just might be once they are released back into the wild?

And regardless, there are at least 56% of us who aren't abso-fucking-lutely stupid and insane. I do this for the 56%. Americans with at least two brain cells to rub together and a conscience bigger than a flea's gonads.

It's useful if you want to break a person so that that person will admit to crimes they did not commit. Lizard brains...

Since the real terrorists are on our payroll, it's not as if they need the info. Amazing how bloodthirsty most Americans are- almost every other person you meet could be one of the people who think that torturing someone is a good form of entertainment.

:scared:

only intend this torture on convicted terrorists - in violation of the constitution. But WTF, our leaders do it all the time.

I know I'm sorry.

They don't even care if it's been proved that the person is a terrorist or not. Sick, sick, sick.

...were innocent civilians. He used stats from US Army intelligence and International Red Cross.

I can't believe the pure ignorance or unabashed hatred demonstrated by some Americans! :grr:

He's a Democrat. :sarcasm:

century, this was known as putting suspected heretics "to the question."

The tactic involved some rather perverse logic (which escapes me at the moment). Interested readers should see the movie "Goya's Ghosts" (directed by Milos Forman) for a graphic depiction of the practice and a stunning proof of its inefficacy.

Used, BEFORE the Protestant Reformation against any enemy of the King, By Henry VIII against Lutherans, then Catholics, then against anyone who opposed "Catholics" as he defined the term "Catholic" (and this definition of "Catholic EXCLUDED anyone who claimed allegiance to the Pope in Rome). The Inquisition was known to use Torture, but only against people who had been convicted of Heresy (i.e. a Protestant, a "Converted" Jew or Moslem who re-joined his Jewish or Moslem co-religious among other Non-Catholics as the Spanish Inquisition defined that term.

The reason the Inquisition Torture was to save the sole of the Heretic, i.e. as a person who had strayed from the True Catholic Faith he was condemned to HELL, unless he or she admitted her heresy and rejected it. The torture was to get them to Confess to save their soles. Once the person "Confessed" they were executed in a way that prevented them from changing their mind again. Notice the purpose of the Torture was NOT to get information but to get Confessions. The Accuracy of the Confessions were NOT important, the Confession itself was all that was needed. In such situation Torture is effective. The people doing the Torture know what they want to hear and torture till they heard it. The victim then signed the Written Confession and promptly executed. This was also the practice among protestants. In fact during the Salem Witch Trials, all those people who CONFESSED under Torture were NOT executed. The people who were killed either died under Torture or were Executed for NOT confessing under Torture.

Now, the above was the THEORY behind most torture in Catholic Countries, the practice was the same as in Protestant Countries. The same practice existed in Europe and America in the 19th and 20th centuries. The practice falls into three broad categories, the first one is to get Confessions even if the Police did NOT have the evidence (Still occurs even in the US today).

The Second reason is to scare someone else. This can be the people of a Village that oppose the actions of their landlord. When one or two act up the landlord's thugs pounce on them and torture them. NOT to get information but to scare the rest of the Village from opposing what the Landlord Wants. Another version of this technical is the bombing of whole Villages in Vietnam and Iraq, i.e. "if you do NOT turn in people who oppose US Troops in your Country we will kill you and your family unless you start". The Russians did the same in Afghanistan, and the Nazis all through Europe during WWII. so it is NOT just an American technical, but it is a technical the US uses.

The third reason is related to the Second, but your purpose is NOT to use the Torture Victim as an example to others, but to show the Victim what can happen to him unless he becomes neutral to both the side that torture him AND the opposition. Like the Second method above, the purpose is NOT to get information (something ALL forms of Torture does NOT provide) but to show a person what can happen to him or her if he or her continue to oppose the side doing the torture.

Notice in all three methods the purpose is NOT to get information, but to intimidate (i.e get a Confession OR to put the Victim and his neighbors is such fears they will do NOTHING to support the opposition to the people who torture them). The biggest problem with this type of Torture is the effect is short, you must constantly do the pressure (Except in cases of Torture to get a Confession, once you have a Confession, the torturer has what he wanted, which is NOT the case of the last two reason for Torture). The classic situation was the Black slaves in the South. The Black slaves were constantly seeing the result of Torture (or was the victim of it, or its close cousin, summary execution). The record for Slave revolts throughout history is terrible (The was only one that succeeded, Haiti and that only after the French had first freed the slaves as part of the French Revolution and then tried to re-enslave them, which ended in revolution and Independence for Haiti in 1805).

Another example of "Disloyal Slaves" can be seen during the American Revolution. The British offered Black Slaves their Freedom if they would fight for the British, something the Blacks did in huge numbers (Black slaves were also permitted to join the US Army, if the state permitted that to happen AND the state had to money to pay the slave-owner the value of the slave. At least one state did NOT permit Slaves to enlist, wanting to keep as many blacks as slave as the war would permit).

A similar situation occurred in the South during the US Civil War, the North enlisted thousands of slaves into the Union army, many joining as the Union Army marched through the South (With thousand more following the various Union Armies as those Armies marched through the South). Slaves were kept in bondage by the threat of torture and execution during times of peace. In times of war, that was NOT enough to keep them as Slaves, when an opportunity came they way to get out of being a slave (Even if that meant military service at reduce pay).

My point is Torture works as a tool of intimidation PROVIDED it is constant and quick (Summary torture and execution was common in slave communities, without it slavery was NOT variable, and with it the owners came to assume such torture was REQUIRED to keep people loyal to you). If the threat of Torture is removed, slavery could NOT be maintained. The same for any other population which people want to control. TO control a population that has no loyalty to you, sooner or later you must start to use torture on that population to keep them in line. The problem is if you ever lose control of that population, that population will support the enemies of people who used torture to control that population. For this reason countries that had popular support rarely use torture. Such countries do NOT need it. On the other hand most of the Countries that use Torture do NOT have popular support so must keep the population down by the use of torture. Thus torture is NOT a tool of investigating but of intimidation and nothing more.

portrayal of the late Inquisition (late 18th century - early 19th century). The film portrays Catholics engaged in torture not to save heretic's souls but instead to procure information (denunciations of other 'heretics' mainly).

If I'm reading your post correctly, it sounds like "Goya's Ghosts" is not portraying torture in the late Inquisition accurately.

Your post is not sourced but I am sure you know more on the subject than I do (as I would characterize myself as merely an interested layperson in the history of the Counter Reformation).

It did do some executions but the big time was the 1500s, by the early 1700s the Inquisition was primary a censorship organization. For more information see the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition#Professional_historians
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/1112-96/article2.html
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/inquisit.htm

no real christian can condone torture and say they believe in christ - only these dim wits - no brains

13 per cent said torture should be allowed in general

For what? Parking violations? More than one in eight Americans...

Here's the deal. If you support the use of torture on suspects (you know, people who haven't yet been found guilty of anything, and who in fact may be entirely innocent), you're saying you'd have no problem with the state torturing you, or members of your family, if you or they are unlucky enough to fall under suspicion.

GDIs.

let GAWD sort 'em out.

:sarcasm:

I despair of our country.

How were respondents chosen, who was asked, how were the questions worded? I don't believe this percentage for a moment. "Terrorists"-- convicted, suspected... what? "Torture in general"-- what does that mean? Done much push-polling lately?

The Mason Dixon Line?

I was wondering how the survey was done and how the people were selected myself.

Thanks for that.

I'm out!

Tex Shelters

from looking at these results with anyhing other than begrudged agreement.

Even on a supposedly progressive forum, the sheer amount and volume of inhumanity is sometimes astonishing. While I too question polls like this, I can't say that in my experience that the numbers would surprise me.

There's a reason why Americans have so many draconian laws and have built the world largest and most expensive prion system.

Bunch of sick, sadists.

You know they are going to say a majority of americans support the use of torture.

She should be screaming in rage at the abuse she has taken from the Rethuglicans and too many Corporatocrats.

Here in the US we've not been exposed to war on our territory in the lifetime of our citizens. Our Wars have been fought in distant lands while most of the rest of the world has experienced it in past century. The media has played on this by presenting war as an glorified heroic event. They present the enemy as the epitome of true evil and the heroes as virtuous beyond reproach. While there are a few notable exceptions, the popular media makes torture look like something done to truly insufferable evil creatures who break at the last moment to give out the location of the bomb so that the hero can disarm it with seconds to spare. It presents it in a grisly graphic manner that desensitizes us to the humanity of the victim.

The problem is that war and torture are the true evil. War should only be used in times when there is absolutely no other alternative and that there is nothing virtuous about it. War represents a failure in our global society not a victory. Torture should never be used since it destroys our humanity.

the Obama margin of victory in the general election is 56 to 44 for McShame.

"statistics" has become the scientific strike-arm of spin.

bush almost got elected last time, though, and I'd guess about 44% actually voted for him.


This election should be a cake-walk but unfortunately our future is in dire jeopardy from these vile 44%...

The media would have you believe that everybody agre4ed with the ticking time bomb lunatics.

That's how it reads, unless these supposed terrorists have freely confessed or are indisputably convicted, they are just suspects. Do 44% of "Americans" think it's OK to torture suspects?

Why, *, that's right!!!

44% support this? I am so ashamed.

nt

That percentage is the knuckledragging eedjits of the Republican *base*.

Most people are not, when it comes down to it, averse to torture being conducted by their government under "certain circumstances."

well, if you put it THAT way it wouldn't be 44%. but most of the 44% who apparently approve of torture probably don't realize what they're actually approving.

Redstone

Torture should be unacceptable to any American.

:evilgrin:

I will never fly an American flag again until these numbers are significantly lower. Even then, I'm going to have a hard time forgetting this era of madness, cruelty, and stupidity.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Why do I have to have the stupidest people as my fellow Americans. Why couldn't I have been born English or Canadian or even Australian?

reason for the high number is the recent (since 2001) redefinition of torture. Prior to 2001 torture, in my mind, was something completely different than how it is currently defined by many. I don't consider things like sleep deprivation torture in the historical sense of the word. I think the word torture should be reserved for practices causing pain. Practices which are merely uncomfortable should have a different name IMHO. The redefinition has made the word torture much more subjective.

That said, I am sure there are those sadists who believe infliction of pain is an acceptable form of interrogation but I suspect the number would be much lower than the 44%.

That's 13% who are cool with torture on general principal even if terrorism isn't involved.

And if general history is any indication, most of them probably reside on Free Republic.

Building parking garage, and it will detonate in two hours. The government sends it's men and women in, they close down the building, isolate the parking lot, find the van... and it's empty.


And ten minutes later, a burst of light flashes across the sky and Los Angeles is gone forever.