Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

55% believe terror suspects should be waterboarded!

Posted by on Jan. 3, 2010 at 11:07 AM
  • 12 Replies

Nation

Poll: Waterboard the Terror Suspect, Americans Say

Updated: 2 hours 40 minutes ago
(Dec. 31) -- The U.S. government no longer uses the interrogation technique known as waterboarding on suspected terrorists. But don't tell that to the American public.

According to a new poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports, 58 percent of those surveyed said that they want the federal government to waterboard terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man accused of trying to set off an explosive device on Northwest/Delta Flight 253 as it approached Detroit.

Congress voted to outlaw waterboarding in 2008, and Republicans like John McCain have often repudiated the practice. Yet a clear majority would use the procedure in an effort to get further information from the suspect, even though another clear majority of Americans has deemed the procedure to be torture.
Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab
Mike Rimmer, AFP/Getty Images
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was charged with attempting to blow up a U.S. airliner.

A 2007 CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 69 percent of Americans considered waterboarding to be a form of torture. And at that time, 58 percent of them said waterboarding should not be used on terror suspects.

In April of this year, however, Gallup found that 55 percent of U.S. residents believed the technique and others like it were justified on those suspected of potential terrorist activity.

The discrepancy in the numbers may simply be a matter of the way one polling organization asks its questions versus another. Or it could be a consequence of ever-evolving attitudes. All three surveys make it clear, however, that a significant portion of the country has no problem with torturing those people identified as possible terrorists, regardless if they have given any sort of legal proceeding.

Back on March 2, Attorney General Eric Holder officially ruled out using waterboarding in future interrogation sessions. "Waterboarding is torture. My Justice Department will not justify it, will not rationalize it and will not condone it," he said.

President George W. Bush's administration authorized the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation practices after the 9/11 attacks. Those practices previously were restricted by the Army Field Manual and outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. But the thinking was that in extraordinary times, such measures were required.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney defended the practice as a "no-brainer" that has saved American lives and yielded valuable information.

Now, as the polls on waterboarding show, an ends-justify-the-means mentality has taken root in the American consciousness. The debate rages on as to whether these enhanced interrogation techniques actually yield reliable intelligence data. Or if they've made the country safer. But there is little doubt that ethical considerations weigh less heavily in times of increased threat levels.

Really?  55% Really???  I think its a sad day...
As you can guess I am vehemently opposed to torture.  Two wrongs dont make a right at all IMO I will add that the information gained from torture isnt the most accurate either.
 
So do Americans just want to punish these people or do we really think torture works?

               

How far you go in life depends on your being: tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of both the weak and strong.  Because someday in life you would have been one or all of these.  GeorgeWashingtonCarver


by on Jan. 3, 2010 at 11:07 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
stormcris
by Christy on Jan. 3, 2010 at 11:36 AM

Both....but the real point in torture is not in gaining information through the torture itself but to break a person down to the point they slip and if they don't slip it didn't matter. The whole point which seems to allude most people is; it does not matter what is said during the torture, it is checked out and if it is true so much the better, but as you break a person down their will weakens and slips of real information occur. So, when people evaluate how well torture works they would think it does not work well. The point is it is only supposed to work a small percentage of the time, but those are worth the rest according to why the practice is done.

What people believe in relation to how things should be boggles my mind, and for the record, yes, I would allow myself to be water-boarded.

My two favorite quotes:

You expect the world to play by your rules, but why should they.

The real difference between them and us is that they are willing to die for what they believe in.

anxiousschk
by anxiouss on Jan. 3, 2010 at 12:56 PM

In a different group that we are in, survivor...an article was posted that mentions how Obama has ruled? agreed with a ruling? that essentially states he can name anyone an enemy combatant and that torture should be expected when you are considered an enemy combatant. 

So no, I'm not surprised.  

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=9914

It's a long article/post by a blogger..so I didn't want to cut and paste it here. 

tericared
by on Jan. 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM

It has been proven that torture does give false information,,,Beside I think it is wrong.... 

Mergath
by Silver Member on Jan. 3, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Yup.  If we continue to sacrifice what we believe in order to protect ourselves, we've lost what we were trying to protect in the first place.

Quoting tericared:

It has been proven that torture does give false information,,,Beside I think it is wrong.... 


Lilypie Second Birthday tickers


tericared
by on Jan. 3, 2010 at 1:22 PM


Quoting Mergath:

Yup.  If we continue to sacrifice what we believe in order to protect ourselves, we've lost what we were trying to protect in the first place.

Quoting tericared:

It has been proven that torture does give false information,,,Beside I think it is wrong.... 


this this this

survivorinohio
by René on Jan. 3, 2010 at 1:27 PM


Quoting anxiousschk:

In a different group that we are in, survivor...an article was posted that mentions how Obama has ruled? agreed with a ruling? that essentially states he can name anyone an enemy combatant and that torture should be expected when you are considered an enemy combatant. 

So no, I'm not surprised.  

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=9914

It's a long article/post by a blogger..so I didn't want to cut and paste it here. 

So, what I am getting is that all these people screaming about Bush and Cheneys abuses of power are now cool with it because Obama says so.   After all he won the Nobel, if he says torture is necessary it must be...

*Please recognize my sarcasm*.


               

How far you go in life depends on your being: tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of both the weak and strong.  Because someday in life you would have been one or all of these.  GeorgeWashingtonCarver


anxiousschk
by anxiouss on Jan. 3, 2010 at 1:31 PM

That would be correct...and something I was ranting about in that other group.  When it was first posted about (the court decision) in that other group...it was like crickets, crickets, I tell ya.  Maybe 4 people responded. 

Nevermind all the ranting and raving that went on about Bush and torture...let it be posted that Obama is for it and everyone shuts the hell up.

Really??

REALLY?

That is supremely frustrating to me. 

Honestly, I'm not so sure that I'm all that opposed to it in certain situations..however, the ruling that I posted about really concerns me b/c of the whole "expect it if you're ever declared an enemy combatant" thing....who is to say what you have to do to get that declaration?  It's supposed to be an "ordinary, expected consequence" of military detention....WHAT? That, I'm not so cool with. 

I'm honestly torn on the torture topic, I can readily admit that.

I'm NOT so torn on everyone going batshit crazy when it's BUSH they're talking about...yet when it's OBAMA..it's all fine and dandy.


lizzybugsmomma
by on Jan. 3, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Maybe we should put them up into a five hotel, let them have a few drinks and buy them a gourmet meal..  that should get them talking.eye rolling

How should we get information out of bad guys.. say please.

Missmuffets
by on Jan. 3, 2010 at 3:25 PM


Quoting lizzybugsmomma:

Maybe we should put them up into a five hotel, let them have a few drinks and buy them a gourmet meal..  that should get them talking.eye rolling

How should we get information out of bad guys.. say please.

Lets just be as bad as the bad guys. Where does the line draw from us and them. I thought we where the better country so we should find ways to get info without being like the bad guys right? Of course wine and dining is not what we are saying, there is way to make someone talk without doing physical harm to them.

jaxTheMom
by on Jan. 3, 2010 at 3:28 PM

There's an intelligent response.  

Quoting lizzybugsmomma:

Maybe we should put them up into a five hotel, let them have a few drinks and buy them a gourmet meal..  that should get them talking.eye rolling

How should we get information out of bad guys.. say please.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)