How Americans Came to Support Torture, in Five Steps

[dreamdancer 0]

only an idiot like cheney can think that torture works

(there's a nice cell at the icc waiting for him)

Quote

Stats show a sizable majority of Americans refuse to rule out torture entirely. This is no accident; it's the result of a mass persuasion campaign.

In recent weeks, new revelations about the harsh interrogation and torture of detainees during the Bush administration years have made headlines and stirred controversy. The positions of prominent advocates and opponents on each side are clear. But what do we know about how the American people in general have come to view the use of torture by the U.S. government?

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has been polling Americans on this key question for almost five years. Since 2004, representative samples have been asked, "Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information can often be justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be justified?" The results over this time period have shown only minor fluctuations. The most recent numbers, from last month, reveal that 15% of Americans believe torture is often justified, 34% think it is sometimes justified, 22% consider it rarely justified, and 25% believe torture is never justified. So not only do 49% consider torture justified at least some of the time, fully 71% refuse to rule it out entirely.

Further insight into these numbers can be garnered from a different poll conducted a few months ago, in January 2009. Fox News/Opinion Dynamics asked a national sample of Americans, "Do you think the use of harsh interrogation techniques, including torture, has ever saved American lives since the September 11 (2001) terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?" The results: 45% "Yes" and 41% "No" (with 14% responding 'Don't Know"). In other words, almost half of Americans think torture "works."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/139993/how_americans_came_to_support_torture%2C_in_five_steps/

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[DARK 0]

if i knew someone had arranged a way to hurt my family and i had tried every other means to find out how i would have no problem torturing them for the information if it raised the chances of my family not being hurt or killed

your goverment is just doing it to protect more than one family

having said that having it as a standard interrogation technique is not acceptable either it has to be a last resort and strictly controlled but ruling it out completely is foolish imo

[kelpdiver 2]

I wish you'd start writing your own assertions - these alternet postings are a joke, and this one is no better.

The fox poll stands out - your guy misread it badly. Fox included torture with other "harsh techniques" in order to boost the support level to what looks pretty much like a democrat/republican divide. Meaningless result, and certainly not supportive of the claim that half of Americans think torture works.

And you never showed the 5 steps of mass persuation. I think it was really just one step - crash planes into NYC buildings. It would be far more interesting to see the polling results prior to 2001, rather than 2004-2009.

And no, Bush or Chaney will not be at the ICC. I know it's a wet dream for you, but reality is in the awake zone.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

if i knew someone had arranged a way to hurt my family and i had tried every other means to find out how i would have no problem torturing them for the information if it raised the chances of my family not being hurt or killed

But all the evidence we have is that torture is not a reliable way of getting at the truth. So your condition has no foundation.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

if i knew someone had arranged a way to hurt my family and i had tried every other means to find out how i would have no problem torturing them for the information if it raised the chances of my family not being hurt or killed

But all the evidence we have is that torture is not a reliable way of getting at the truth. So your condition has no foundation.

"all the evidense"?

Why do repeat this lie after what has come out in the last two weeks?

HOPING, to make it true?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

if i knew someone had arranged a way to hurt my family and i had tried every other means to find out how i would have no problem torturing them for the information if it raised the chances of my family not being hurt or killed

But all the evidence we have is that torture is not a reliable way of getting at the truth. So your condition has no foundation.

Wait a minute, you MAY be right, since no torture has been done we will never know for sure........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

We DO know that waterboarding works however.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,129]

Where is the evidence (I'm not talking about Cheney's statements, I'm talking objective evidence) that torture works better than other methods?

I'm not talking about the occasional piece of information, I'm talking about the aggregate. You know you have to look at the aggregate and see if the results as a whole justify the change.

Some individuals are helped in car wrecks by not wearing their seat belts. Does that mean that seat belts are a bad idea?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Where is the evidence (I'm not talking about Cheney's statements, I'm talking objective evidence) that torture works better than other methods?

I'm not talking about the occasional piece of information, I'm talking about the aggregate. You know you have to look at the aggregate and see if the results as a whole justify the change.

Some individuals are helped in car wrecks by not wearing their seat belts. Does that mean that seat belts are a bad idea?

Wendy P.

I changed my post. Waterboarding does work. I dont know about torture. I do not condone torture in any event

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Where is the evidence (I'm not talking about Cheney's statements, I'm talking objective evidence) that torture works better than other methods?

Quote

Disputing Cheney's claims that the interrogation of KSM had produced "a wealth of information," former FBI agent Jack Cloonan said, "The proponents of torture say, 'Look at the body of information that has been obtained by these methods.' But if KSM and Abu Zubaydah did give up stuff, we would have heard the details." Rose added that a former CIA officer asked, "Why can't they say what the good stuff from Abu Zubaydah or KSM is? It's not as if this is sensitive material from a secret, vulnerable source. You're not blowing your source but validating your program. They say they can't do this, even though five or six years have passed, because it's a 'continuing operation.' But has it really taken so long to check it all out?"

The most damning opinion, however, was offered by FBI director Robert Mueller:

I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls "enhanced techniques"?
I'm really reluctant to answer that," Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: "I don't believe that has been the case.
This was damaging enough, but three weeks ago, when the Senate report was published, it emerged that

an Army psychiatrist had told the committee

that "a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq," but that "we were not successful in establishing a link," and that, as a result, "there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results."

Following on from this revelation, astute observers recalled reports about the interrogations of two specific prisoners -- Abu Zubayah and Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi -- which had gained notoriety not because they had secured information that had saved "perhaps hundreds of thousands" of U.S. lives, but because they had resulted in false allegations about connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the invasion of Iraq, and that actually led to the loss of over 4,000 U.S. lives, and the deaths of countless thousands of Iraqis.

David Rose revealed that Abu Zubaydah made a number of false confessions about connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, including a claim that Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq) were working with Saddam Hussein to destabilize the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. Rose added that a Pentagon analyst told him, "The intelligence community was lapping this up, and so was the administration, obviously. Abu Zubaydah was saying Iraq and al-Qaeda had an operational relationship. It was everything the administration hoped it would be."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/139998/plot_thickens_after_cia_%27ghost_prisoner%27_tortured_into_giving_iraq-al_qaeda_connection_is_found_dead_in_libya/?page=entire

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

And no, Bush or Chaney will not be at the ICC. I know it's a wet dream for you, but reality is in the awake zone.

it'll take a while (twenty or thirty years perhaps) but if the us doesn't prosecute them then the icc will

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

We DO know that waterboarding works however.

How do we know that? Despite requests, those in SC making that claim have thus far failed to offer any supporting evidence.

On the other hand, there is no shortage of evidence that torture is ineffective w/r/t obtaining reliable, accurate information.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I changed my post. Waterboarding does work. I dont know about torture. I do not condone torture in any event

Waterboarding is torture. I've yet to see any evidence that that particular form of torture is effective (but I've seen lots of evidence suggesting that it is ineffective).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Will_Evo 0]

You all seem to think that waterboarding, or torture as a whole doesn't work, but would it exist if it didn't? Why do you know about torture if in society it is accepted as a useless tactic?

IMO if a person dedicates his life to the death of every American because quite simply we are different, and he acts upon it, killing one of my brothers and sisters in arms, I am all for using whatever tactic necessary to bring him, and everyone he works with down, swift and hard. One American life saved for the life of a extremist works for me.

I again think that Americans are going soft, got it to easy in the everyday. Go over to Iraq for a year, your opinion will change.


-Evo

Zoo Crew

[justinb138 0]

Quote

You all seem to think that waterboarding, or torture as a whole doesn't work, but would it exist if it didn't?

Would those penis pills that are advertised all over the radio exist if they didn't work?

Existence doesn't prove effectiveness, just proof that some people think it's effective.

[Will_Evo 0]

Point taken, but penis pills are a rather new idea. The idea of torture, or even interrogating has been around since the first group of humans declared war on the other.

-Evo

Zoo Crew

[winsor 186]

Quote

Point taken, but penis pills are a rather new idea. The idea of torture, or even interrogating has been around since the first group of humans declared war on the other.

-Evo

Torture is, and has always been, one of the least effective means of obtaining intelligence.

Virtually all of the "confessions" obtained by the Inquisition were purely fiction. When you use torture, "truth" becomes whatever one can say to get the torture to stop - usually whatever the torturer wants to hear.

The fact that we took a page from the Inquisition rulebook - it's not really torture if you don't draw blood, right? - decreases, rather than increases, the credibility of the policy.

Emilio Douhet came up with the theory of strategic bombing that supposed that it would invariably break the will of the masses. In fact, very few things have proven better at pissing people off and stiffening their resolve than is flying overhead and dropping bombs on them.

Similarly, the list of negative results from torture is extensive, and the list of benefits is nearly nil. Anyone tasked with interrogation who is witless enough to rely on torture is incompetent.

While I have zero sympathy for islamists, that does not translate to the idea that being mean to them is an effective policy.

Cunning has it all over raw cruelty, any way you cut it.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[Will_Evo 0]

Quote

Quote

Point taken, but penis pills are a rather new idea. The idea of torture, or even interrogating has been around since the first group of humans declared war on the other.

-Evo

Torture is, and has always been, one of the least effective means of obtaining intelligence.

Virtually all of the "confessions" obtained by the Inquisition were purely fiction. When you use torture, "truth" becomes whatever one can say to get the torture to stop - usually whatever the torturer wants to hear.

The fact that we took a page from the Inquisition rulebook - it's not really torture if you don't draw blood, right? - decreases, rather than increases, the credibility of the policy.

Emilio Douhet came up with the theory of strategic bombing that supposed that it would invariably break the will of the masses. In fact, very few things have proven better at pissing people off and stiffening their resolve than is flying overhead and dropping bombs on them.

Similarly, the list of negative results from torture is extensive, and the list of benefits is nearly nil. Anyone tasked with interrogation who is witless enough to rely on torture is incompetent.

While I have zero sympathy for islamists, that does not translate to the idea that being mean to them is an effective policy.

Cunning has it all over raw cruelty, any way you cut it.


Blue skies,

Winsor

Again, I just don't think you, or the average American, has a very good perspective on these people. People who have never seen extremists and never seen their culture, or seen the bodies of your American brother and sisters strew about, can easily say from behind a desk in a comfy chair that "torture" is wrong. There is just no perspective, all people seem to know is what the television tells them. I guess I am one of the few and far between with some true insight into the subject.

Where has torture been proven to be the "Least effective means of obtaining intelligence"? Where do you get your information, because last time I checked, there is little to no information from any country on their torturing of prisoners. How can you conduct a study on something whose information is privileged?

Also, I cant grasp the concept of Americans wanting other Americans put in jail for insurgent treatment. Its simply pathetic, THESE PEOPLE KILL YOUR SISTERS, MOMS, BROTHERS, DADS out of pure spite, how can you honestly sit there and accuse an American of war crimes? Why not point the finger at the extremists and their entire religion base, because thats where the true crime lies, brain washing people from birth to believe that Americans are scum and should die because of it.

Perspective is a nasty bastard when the truth is given in black and white. :)

-Evo

Zoo Crew

[wmw999 2,129]

To counter, what is your experience? I grew up in Brazil, which definitely did torture. I have in my possession a book written by someone who has managed to interview a decent number of former torturers, their bosses, and torturees.

According to the vast majority of them, the quality of the information gotten from torture was largely crap. However, it gave some low-level interrogators a feeling of power to be able to torture after awhile (a lot didn't like it at first). And since they were rewarded by their bosses on quantity of information, they weren't the least bit concerned about quality.

These people have mothers, brothers, daughters, fathers -- all the same family members that we do. They love them, and they want the best for them. Their idea of "the best" is not the same as ours, but they have all the same human rights that we do in the US. Not constitutional rights, but if some of the rights in the constitution are said to be self-evident and pertaining to humans, then maybe the right thing to do is to assume that other human beings also deserve them.

Defense against attack, and even proactive actions against strongly-suspected threats are unfortunate necessities. But as soon as we talk about our enemies as being less human, we open ourselves to behavior that reduces us to their perceived level. And that's really, really wrong.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[winsor 186]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Point taken, but penis pills are a rather new idea. The idea of torture, or even interrogating has been around since the first group of humans declared war on the other.

-Evo

Torture is, and has always been, one of the least effective means of obtaining intelligence.

Virtually all of the "confessions" obtained by the Inquisition were purely fiction. When you use torture, "truth" becomes whatever one can say to get the torture to stop - usually whatever the torturer wants to hear.

The fact that we took a page from the Inquisition rulebook - it's not really torture if you don't draw blood, right? - decreases, rather than increases, the credibility of the policy.

Emilio Douhet came up with the theory of strategic bombing that supposed that it would invariably break the will of the masses. In fact, very few things have proven better at pissing people off and stiffening their resolve than is flying overhead and dropping bombs on them.

Similarly, the list of negative results from torture is extensive, and the list of benefits is nearly nil. Anyone tasked with interrogation who is witless enough to rely on torture is incompetent.

While I have zero sympathy for islamists, that does not translate to the idea that being mean to them is an effective policy.

Cunning has it all over raw cruelty, any way you cut it.


Blue skies,

Winsor

Again, I just don't think you, or the average American, has a very good perspective on these people. People who have never seen extremists and never seen their culture, or seen the bodies of your American brother and sisters strew about, can easily say from behind a desk in a comfy chair that "torture" is wrong. There is just no perspective, all people seem to know is what the television tells them. I guess I am one of the few and far between with some true insight into the subject.

Where has torture been proven to be the "Least effective means of obtaining intelligence"? Where do you get your information, because last time I checked, there is little to no information from any country on their torturing of prisoners. How can you conduct a study on something whose information is privileged?

Also, I cant grasp the concept of Americans wanting other Americans put in jail for insurgent treatment. Its simply pathetic, THESE PEOPLE KILL YOUR SISTERS, MOMS, BROTHERS, DADS out of pure spite, how can you honestly sit there and accuse an American of war crimes? Why not point the finger at the extremists and their entire religion base, because thats where the true crime lies, brain washing people from birth to believe that Americans are scum and should die because of it.

Perspective is a nasty bastard when the truth is given in black and white. :)

-Evo

You seem to confuse my results-oriented approach to intelligence gathering with somehow being naive, touchy-feely, and generally un-American.

Again, to say that I am unsympathetic with our adversaries is an understatement, but I will not elaborate upon that here.

Also, I am addressing neither the merits of our presence in Southwest Asia nor whether our hamhanded policies merit treatment as war crimes.

It seems to be a big surprise to discover that our adversaries have all the charming qualities of feral predators. Anyone who had taken the time to peruse the history of the area over the past few millennia could have told you that.

The intelligence organizations that have had the best track record of obtaining high-quality information do not use torture. This is not because they are inherently nice people - they would typically kill you as soon as look at you if it suited their needs - it is because the goal is to obtain information, rather than to extract vengeance. At least they keep vengeance part of the deal as a separate issue.

In any event, such activities as waterboarding are indicative of incompetence on the part of the organization responsible for interrogation.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[DanG 1]

Quote

Again, I just don't think you, or the average American, has a very good perspective on these people. People who have never seen extremists and never seen their culture, or seen the bodies of your American brother and sisters strew about, can easily say from behind a desk in a comfy chair that "torture" is wrong. There is just no perspective, all people seem to know is what the television tells them. I guess I am one of the few and far between with some true insight into the subject.

I did two tours in Afghanistan. I saw parts of my own body "strewn about".

My opinion hasn't changed. Torture is reprehensible, illegal, and ineffective to boot.

Your opinion that people only oppose torture because they are ignorant is dead wrong.

- Dan G

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You all seem to think that waterboarding, or torture as a whole doesn't work, but would it exist if it didn't?

Clearly, yes it would (and does).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 2,406]

> People who have never seen extremists and never seen their culture, or
>seen the bodies of your American brother and sisters strew about, can easily
>say from behind a desk in a comfy chair that "torture" is wrong.

Yep. Indeed, I'd say that people who are harboring a lot of hatred towards a group of people because of traumatic experiences they have gone through are the worst possible people to make policy decisions; they cannot be rational about them.

Why does it matter how many bodies they left strewn about? The debate isn't over how evil they are - the debate is over whether torture works. It doesn't.

Now, if your angle is you want to "make them pay" by drowning them or hanging them by their arms, fine. But that's revenge, and is a different argument.

>THESE PEOPLE KILL YOUR SISTERS, MOMS, BROTHERS, DADS out of pure
>spite, how can you honestly sit there and accuse an American of war crimes?

Again, those two have nothing to do with each other. Yes, there are "those people" who have done really bad things, and we should go after them and bring them to justice (or kill them if they are not amenable to coming quietly.) That does not justify us beating an innocent man to death. If american servicemen _do_ beat an innocent man to death under the guise of "information gathering" then they are criminals and should be treated as such.

> Why not point the finger at the extremists and their entire religion base,
>because thats where the true crime lies, brain washing people from birth to
>believe that Americans are scum and should die because of it.

Yep. I bet they teach them things like "AMERICANS KILL YOUR SISTERS, MOMS, BROTHERS, DADS out of pure spite!"

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

And no, Bush or Chaney will not be at the ICC. I know it's a wet dream for you, but reality is in the awake zone.

it'll take a while (twenty or thirty years perhaps) but if the us doesn't prosecute them then the icc will

LOL - Chaney will be dead in 20 years, while Bush will still be relaxing in Crawford, smoking a joint (See Harold and Kumar). Only loser nations let their leaders get tried.

The closest we've seen were some attempts on Nixon/Kissinger, but these are guys that were remarkably (and unjustifiably) well regarded in the US in recent time.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Point taken, but penis pills are a rather new idea. The idea of torture, or even interrogating has been around since the first group of humans declared war on the other.

and so have penis pills and sex toys. It's funny you talk about ancient torture, because that was clearly ineffective - the Inquisition was hardly about finding out the truth, for example.

Marg has cited proof from the US military brass confirming their belief that torture is not an effective method. They are in a position to 'know.'