Nate had a useful discussion of "the apparently contradictory polling result from Gallup which suggests that, while most Americans think 'harsh interrogation techniques' against suspected terrorists are justified, a 51 percent majority also want a federal investigation into the use of these techniques."
This is related to the graph that John Sides posted the other day showing that something like half of Americans thought that "the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects."
My first reaction when seeing John's graph was surprise: Even among Democrats, only 65% said the United States should not use torture, with only 45% of independents ruling out the tactic. My impression was that torture was highly unpopular, with techniques such as waterboarding being semi-acceptable to the public only because they were defined as "not really" torture.
So how do I make sense of these polls? I guess I'll have to step back and say that there are few absolutes in people's opinions. In the abstract, torture is to be ruled out, but once you bring in "terrorism" (even "terrorism suspects," which is really pretty vague), people start to change their minds.
I'm reminded of something I read recently--maybe from Mo Fiorina--that a big chunk of Americans support abortion under all circumstances, but when these people are asked whether it should be legal to do an abortion solely for reasons of sex selection, most of these abortion rights absolutists say No, abortion should not be allowed for sex selection. Similarly, people support freedom of speech but then support all sorts of restrictions in particular examples.
4.29.2009
More on the Contradictory Torture Polling
@ 6:59 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments
ideologically lazy motherfuckers just like specty boy
You know, this isn't entirely surprising at all, frankly. Americans are notorious for responding this way to a whole slew of questions.
Something like 98% of Americans, when polled, say they believe in first amendment rights. But when you ask these same Americans if they would support someone coming into their town and speaking out against the United States in a public forum, this number drops DRAMATICALLY.
I would argue that this is an issue of education wherein those more knowledgeable of the implications of their ideologies are more likely to support them steadfastly... precisely the reason that those in congress are likely more ideological than the electorate as a whole. For example: a man not educated in the details and practices of torture in both the concrete and abstract says that he is against the practice, but when pressed about using harsh interrogation techniques against someone intending on causing harm to the United States, the answer changes. This same man's twin holds the same beliefs, but he has been through a thorough education that has taught him the ins and outs to the issue. Regardless of the question asked, I would venture that the latter man will say he is against torture.
So the real question is, what is it that causes the educated to be more ideological than those who are not, given the assumption that this is indeed the variable causing the difference?
Yeah it can greatly depend on how the question is being asked. It can borderline on push polling if it goes something like "(Insert Muslim name here) has attacked the U.S. do you think we should torture him?)"
The poll with the most neutral question will likely be more accurate and fair.
Push polling can also occur in "reverse." If you ask a question like "Do you support harsh interrogation techniques which lead to our own POW's getting tortured?"
Some notable supreme court justice said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, in which he meant that the Constitution should never be interpenetrated in such a way that it brings down the whole system. The same should be true for other normally taboo practices such as torture, preemptive attack, assassination, etc. The thought that a society should stand like a deer in the headlights and be run over for the sake of principles is absolutely retarded. Thinking in terms of absolutes is always bad. Nothing in life is black and white so both left and right need to accept some manner of flexibility.
As it stands now the set of circumstances where torture would be justified are amazingly small and as carried out be the Bush administration, wholly unnecessary. If we suddenly found our country transported to the fictional 24 universe through some quirk of quantum mechanics, yes, by all means send in Jack Bauer with his ballpoint pen, but until then the smart move is to let rational heads prevail.
Our country has before shown the ability to do great evil in the furtherance of even greater good. If you remember from the documentary Fog of War Curtis LeMay remarked that had we somehow lost the war he would be prosecuted as a War Criminal for burning to death 3 million Japanese civilians in the incendiary attacks. However those attacks shortened the war and saved lives on both sides.
Okay, so:
abortion) Should it be used for sex selection? absolutely not. can I legitimately fight for abortion rights and deny that use case? no.
same deal with free speech. There are horrible, horrible things said daily. I contend that each and every one of them has a right to be said - though sometimes you have to take the consequences of doing so, as with the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" test. That doesn't mean I think they SHOULD be said, but that's another story entirely.
Should we torture? no.
Here's one I won't budge on - but here's the thing - I'm not going to budge because it's clear (to me) that the information you get from torture is useless and taints the torturer as much as the tortured.
Torture has an additional hurdle. "let the guilty go free rather than imprison the innocent"
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm
the burden of proof - completely abandoned in these cases - would require us to, with absolute certainty know that these people are not only guilty of the crimes they are accused of, but also that they know the information we're torturing out of them.
That's an impossible standard, and therefore an impossible - or completely unethical - method.
If we cannot stand above reproach, then we have failed. I don't care if we are "less safe". Let us be less safe. We are bolder, stronger, and braver than that.
These polls are just an effort to assuage the guilt of American political elites by allowing them to pretend that the American people support the evil done in our name. Why don't we see what happens if we asked the questions in a more honest and concrete fashion? Let's explain what happened to Khaled el-Masri and then ask people if they support torturing people that the American government knows are innocent. How many people would support that? Better yet, let's make a film that shows all the techniques that were actually used, force people to watch it all, and see how many people still support torture. Let's tell folks that most of the people who were and are being held at Gitmo were sold to us by criminal elements in Afghanistan, that we have no real evidence that they are guilty of any crime or connection to terrorism, but we've tortured them anyway. Let's explain to people that our leaders knew that what they were doing was against U.S. law, international treaties, and the Constitution, but they did it anyway. Then we can remind them that their government wanted to be able to do all of this to U.S. citizens without allowing any recourse to the court system to prove innocence or guilt. Let's ask people: Do you want the government to be able to use masked paramilitary soldiers to kidnap you off the streets, strip you naked, force a suppository up your anus, put you in an adult diaper and an orange jumpsuit, haul you off to a prison at an unknown location, then strip you again and subject you to a 24 hour a day barrage of noise and light while you're cuffed with your arms above your head and forced to stand on your toes while they douse you with cold water. Then, after a couple of weeks of that, they interrogate you, threaten your family with the same treatment unless you confess to something. Then, they get to use that confession in court to convict of a crime. Let's see how many people think that that is fair. That's the real question that needs to be asked.
Everything I've described is documented by the Bush administration's own words, including their desire to be able to do it all to American citizens, which they argued for in open court.
All of the surveys that have been cited so far by both Nate and Andrew are badly flawed. If this inquiry is meant to be serious, then let's get serious and ask a series of questions. I'll propose some for starters.
Is torture illegal? (Yes, No)
Should torture be used in some circumstances by American law officers? By the military? By CIA agents or interrogators? (Yes, No; Yes, No; Yes, No).
Do you think those who order torture of prisoners should be charged with a crime? (Yes, No)
Are you familiar with the practice of using waterboarding to get prisoners to confess? (Yes, No)
(If yes) Do you consider waterboarding to be torture? (Yes, No). Do you think those who use waterboarding should be charged with a crime? (Yes, No)
To follow up my previous post, you can do a split-half in which you substitute the word "terrorists" or "suspected terrorists" for the word "prisoners" -- to see how much the answers are influenced by the choice of such labels.
Thank you, William Ockham. Your description of the situation highlights the stark reality of allowing torture to be used as an instrument of national policy.
What gives me pause is that an average person, guilty of nothing, would be most likely to crack under such treatment and confess to anything that would make it stop. The committed terrorist, however, would have the most incentive to resist and/or give inaccurate information under torture.
The practice of torture truly debases the torturer and renders any "information" obtained suspect.
I'm not really sure those Gallup poll numbers indicate as much of a contradiction as has been laid out.
36% said the harsh interrogation techniques were not justified. So let's assume that all of those people want to see an investigation.
That means there is an additional 19% of the people that think both the harsh interrogation is justified based on what they know or read and want an investigation. I'm not surprised by that 19%. One possibility is that some people aren't as confident in what they know and read anymore when it comes to this issue. Another possibility is that people genuinely believe an investigation will demonstrate that the the US did not cross the boundaries it is accused of crossing, and the results of the investigation can put a final judgment on that and give us closure.
Was the survey question at the linked site the actual question:
The question wording is: “Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which
the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?”
What does a "yes" answer mean? Does it mean the respondent supports President Obama's position, or does it mean s/he thinks there are cases in which torture should be considered? The question is poorly phrased and, thus, the results are potentially meaningless.
someone needs to start using the term "racism" here! because in this post 9-11 world, feeling ok about torture when "terrorists" are involved basically means, we don't think Arab/Muslim men are fully human.
I highly doubt that people would have supported torturing Tim McVeigh. Or in light of the recent DHS report about right wing extremists using Obama's election to increase their ranks - I highly doubt that anyone would support torturing THEM to find out what, if any nefarious bombings or assassination attempts they've got going on.
The contradictory torture data is partly about racism - something which will probably not show up in the polls both because the questions don't get asked and because people won't admit, or may not even be conscious of it.
Re: Juris's suggested questions, Nate's point, and others here: it definitely seems like pollsters need to get away from ambiguous questions that focus on the margins of the policy, rather than the core, ie: from the ABC Wash. Post poll--"do you think there are cases in which the US should consider torture". This particular question is doubly problematic: not only does it reach for the margins by asking the interviewee attempt to conceive of some possible scenario where torture might be ok, but it goes the added step of only wondering if it's ok to "consider" using torture--which of course is significantly easier to answer than simply "should actually torture."
It has long been known that people hold one attitude on a generalized poll that erodes to practically nothing when the generalizations are parsed to individual points.
For example, a question such as "Do you think racism is bad?" will elicit an almost universal "Yes", however if you then ask "Asians are well known for being smart and industrious. Is this true?" or "Arabs tend to be more adamant about their religion than Europeans. Do you agree?" etc you will find almost all of those who thought racism bad nevertheless harbor racial/ethnic stereotypes and think nothing of it.
wv shampere: Washing Old Dad's hair in France.
Joe J beat me to it. Are there situations where the US "should consider" torture against terrorists against terrorists is pretty weak.
I'm against the death penalty in general, but if somebody asked me would I consider using it against Jeffrey Dahmer, I'd probably say yes. Doesn't mean my consideration would ultimately lead me to support its application, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be thinking about it.
Chris Sanner -
I didn't understand this -
Okay, so:
abortion) Should it be used for sex selection? absolutely not. can I legitimately fight for abortion rights and deny that use case? no.Incidentally, I agree with you about torture and strongly respect the individual's right to personally hold a moral objection to abortion and not get one, even though I think it should be generally legal.
However, it's obvious that we could have a law saying that abortion is generally legal, but that it is an offense to abort a pregnancy is gender selection is the sole motivation.
Stat-Wall...
Miss South Carolina didn't really say there was a map shortage, in fact she didn't say anything at all.
:o)
harold:
I think I get what Chris Sanner is saying. If you support abortion in all cases, you're probably of the opinion that an embryo or fetus is not a life, and that a woman has the right to complete control over her body. In that case, logically, a woman has as much a right to abort for sex selection as for any other cause. I think Chris Sanner would say that making abortions generally legal, but not abortions for sex selection, would be ideologically inconsistent.
Two reasons why this isn't actually as logically sound as it seems. The first is technical. You generally don't know your baby's gender until weeks 16-20, well into the 2nd trimester (the absolute earliest I've heard of is week 13). While there are a number of interpretations about "when does life begin," 1st trimester abortions are generally more accepted than later term abortions. So a person who accepts 1st trimester abortions only would, by default, oppose abortions for sex selection
The second reason why I think it's entirely consistent to support abortion rights and oppose the use of abortion for selection of gender (or eye color, hair color, etc.) is the eugenic overturns. I think it's entirely consistent to say "I support abortion rights, but not eugenics" and oppose abortions for cosmetic reasons.
And many who oppose the death penalty would be in favor of killing Osama Bin Laden.
Twisting Obama’s Nipples
It is delusions of the Left that Americans really care about these so-called advanced interrogation techniques and whether they are torture. Only the lunatic leftist fringe which cannot yet cast Bush from their minds and begin to turn to the future 9 and how BHO is ruining it), fuel this obsession.
These dumb Dems forget that the vast majority of Americans do not think like they do that 9-11 was actually our own fault. In fact, we want to see our enemies punished and destroyed. Many would willingly rip the nipples off these bastards just for sport if we got our hands on them.
This incessant focus on torture (a caterpillar in a box? come on!) only goes to prove how out of step the left is with the rest of the nation and will make many remember why they reject the Democratic Party ideologically as the party of weakness and appeasement.
Idiots like Pelosi will wind up more damaged than Bush over this. He is after all out of office and the inquiry will only serve to remind us that he kept our nation safe during the rest of his presidency. Obama, on the other hand, pursues unilateral disarmament.
"This man will be tested", Joe Biden warned of Obama during the campaign. I suspect he will. And he will lack the tools to pass that test.
America will not then be forgiving and it maybe Obama who winds up with the "purple nurple" and not our enemies.
PeteKent01 (on twitter)
I think the show 24 has boosted the numbers of people who would support torture. It makes torture seem normal and effective to those who don't know any better.
"The poll with the most neutral question will likely be more accurate and fair."
Really? I would take the opposite approach and load it up with as much as possible on both sides. Anyone unable to understand all of the points would not be worth discussing it with. Something like:
Would you support allowing the government to legally use some but not all torture techniques (like slapping, waterboarding and sleep deprivation but not the rack, disfigurement etc.) to gather information to potentially prevent future attacks from suspected but untried people, in light of:
1) conflicting expert opinion as to whether these techniques provide better intelligence than other methods,
2) the likelihood that the government will then overuse the techniques beyond their mandate if they are authorized,
3) the likelihood that if authorized such torture will be used to justify all kinds of torture of captured American troops, though that torture may occur regardless, and
4) the temptation to the government to illegally engage in or outsource torture without oversight if it is not permitted to use it under any circumstances.
On the other hand, if you just want people's opinion of if torture would ever be morally permissible, I don't see how push polling to jostle their imagination is so invalid here. Many Americans really aren't attached to every due process convention in common law for suspected terrorists. Others are one pronouncement by a trusted authority (like Obama) away from supporting any number of draconian policies.
If you want to know if they would think it should be legal, which is more useful regarding policy making, you would follow up on when they think it is moral with how useful it is, how often those scenarios happen and the other consequences of it being legal.
Brian...
Alas, the average TV/MTV/video-game/recreational-drug addled American's eyes would glaze over in the middle of your first sentence. That notwithstanding, he would still feel obligated to come up with some kind of answer, in order not to look foolish, so you'd get a "yes" or "no" but not one that bore any relation to what he really thinks.
Pragmatus
Hence the inherent difficulty in gaining anything useful from polling complex issues.
Although, I give the American public more credit than you do. I think that many people are wrestling with all those issues, even if they haven't expressed them as eloquently as Brian has.
Zack…
Oh I agree, in fact most of the people who post here are thoughtful about their voting. But I wanted to focus on the average American, who—
—Does not vote.
—Among those who do vote, tends to put more thought into his lawn than in whom to vote for, sometimes choosing for very silly reasons, e.g. one candidate is cuter, or comes from the voter’s own state, or belongs to the same party as the voter no matter how ignorant or unqualified the candidate is.
In poll-taking the average American is pretty tough to avoid, in fact most pollsters go out of their way to sample just those folks. In the US we have the luxury of doing pretty much as we please, and for the man in the street that involves not taxing his intellect very sorely. All you have to do is look at the type of TV programming that is most successful. Reality TV? Oprah? Dancing competitions, where a good deal of the fun lies in ridiculing contestants?
I do however think you made a good point.
So these people think that you shouldn't be able to get an abortion for the wrong reason, but it's okay to get one for no reason at all? ;)
At tonight's press conference, President Obama made the following comment:
"I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day, talking about the fact that the British, during World War II, when London was being bombed to smitherenes, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said "We don't torture." When all the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And the reason was that Churchill understood that when you start taking shortcuts, it corrodes what's best for the people, and corrodes the character of a country."
You can see the video at the MSNBC website. Click the link for "View the full news conference". President Obama's remarks about Churchill begin at about the 15:50 mark.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Zack - excellent points, thanks.
The first (about "when life begins") is probably the most salient as it represents a very clear delineation of "at point x there is a new entity involved whose rights need to be considered", which is really the crux of the whole argument between pro-choice and pro-life groups. Where does point x fall during the 9-month period? (although I suspect that it won't be difficult in the future to determine gender from a genetic test quite early on)
and the second (abortion rights vs. eugenics) is, while self-consistent, is unprovable. How do you prove someone's motivation? I may disagree with their reasoning, but if you say "well, you can only do this if your reasons fall within this range", people will lie.
That number surprises me. The idea that people can sit by and know that these crimes were being committed without wanting to see action taken boggles my mind. I donated to this campaign to try and influence both public opinion and the actions of our elected leaders. Send your own copies or contribute to the campaign.
Post a Comment