Another Poll Finds Majority Says U.S. Used “Torture”
As I noted here yesterday, this week’s New York Times poll found that huge majorities see waterboarding as “torture,” making the unwillingness of news orgs to use the T-word all the more bizarre.
Today brings another poll finding that a majority think the United States engaged in torture. Check out this number buried in the internals of the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (click to enlarge):
Fifty three percent say the U.S. used “methods of torture.” Less than a third — 30% — think the U.S. didn’t use torture.
The poll also finds that an overwhelming majority, or 61%, oppose a “criminal investigation” into the Bush-era torture program. Now, that question is a bit stacked, because it doesn’t ask people whether they favor a non-criminal probe, which is the more likely option. Still, Americans do seem somewhat divided on whether to investigate torture.
It’s clear, however, that majorities agree that the Bush administration did, in fact, employ “torture.” The only place where people don’t seem to think this is in the nation’s newsrooms.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Greg
.
There is one thing that I think hinders getting people to get behind criminal or any other kind of investigation. Hardly anybody on Tee Vee that talks about the torture issue ever brings up the Conventions Against Torture. Instead either they invoke the Geneva Conventions and or whether it worked or not. And I am talking about the people who are actually pushing for investigations. What they should be hammering home as Professor Turley did on Hardball last week is that its ILLEGAL. No matter whether it worked or not or whether Bush and his folks were freaked out after 9-11 or not its still ILLEGAL. And specifically in the Conventions Against Torture it says that war nor the prospect of war is a viable defense of torturing people, nor is the “I was just following orders” excuse. Thats piss poor messaging if you ask me and it has made me wonder if some of these people actually want investigations or if they just want to make it appear that we do. I would bet of those who said they were against prosecutions and overwhelming majority had either never heard of the Conventions Against Torture or didn’t have a good understanding of what they said. And the BIGGEST selling point is that the Conventions Against Torture were signed into law by Ronald Reagan. If people really want an investigation then pushing the framing through the Conventions Against Torture is just about the only way to go. Otherwise people will continue to fall back on the “it was worth it if it kept us safe” meme.
Is it legal for the US President to order drone attacks in Pakistan that kill innocent children?
I agree that the question of torture’s legality consistently gets lost in the noise. that’s the goal of shifting the debate onto whether it “works”…
Speaking of shifting the debate. I see that Greg is still trying to shift the torture debate onto grounds of whether it has been proved to have stopped an imminent terrorist attack in the US, while proponents of the enhanced interrogation program have been arguing that it provided valuable intelligence.
Greg
.
See I thought it was getting lost in the noise too. But then I started noticing that the people speaking for prosecutions on cable Tee Vee hardly ever bring up the legal issue. That kind of signaled to me that they weren’t really trying hard to make their case. Its truly the easier argument and as Professor Turley showed when you brinig up the fact that its illegal the people promoting torture are rendered speechless. They will go to whether or not you should drop bombs on people or kill people on the battle field but I think Jon Stewart handled it best yesterday. Once you take someone off the game board the rule should and do change. So you have to wonder why more people aren’t stating that case in the debate.
Are we at war with Pakistan? Pakistan is not the battlefield.
The architects of the program consulted lawyers to determine if the proposed harsh interrogation procedures were ‘torture.’ The lawyers made a good-faith analysis of the law that (they felt) properly defined the thin line between harsh treatment and torture. The lawyers told the President/Cheney/Rice that such techniques were not torture and so the program was approved. Those who committed the harsh acts were advised that what they were doing was legal.
If we posit that harsh interrogation was, in fact, torture, then what is the case? That the lawyers’ opinions were wrong?
Bybee says, “The central question for lawyers was a narrow one; locate, under the statutory definition, the thin line between harsh treatment of a high-ranking Al Qaeda terrorist that is not torture and harsh treatment that is. I believed at the time, and continue to believe today, that the conclusions were legally correct.”
How do you prosecute Bybee for this? How do you prosecute the architects/approvers of said program if they relied on his opinion? How do you prosecute the interrogators if they relied on this opinion? (This, BTW, is how the public can at once feel that torture was employed and also feel that the architects/approvers of the program should not be investigated/prosecuted.)
Why is Greg now seeming to call for a non-criminal investigation if he feels that criminal acts were committed?
Because important members of congress knew about it in 2002.
If we posit that harsh interrogation was, in fact, torture, then what is the case? That the lawyers’ opinions were wrong?
And not just wrong, but spectacularly so. They failed to take into consideration copious precedent and whitewashed everything with the intent to provide cover for a decision already reached.
The lawyers opinions are so spectacularly wrong I’ve seen attorneys online argue that the level of misconduct is so serious it warrants disbarment of the authors of the opinions (Bybee, Yoo, etc.)
The CAT has something to say about Bybee’s thin line between harsh tratment that is not torture and harsh treatment that is torture.
Article 16.
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 12.
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.
So the treaty does not appear to countenance a not-quite-torture defense.
But it does offer an alternative for signatories unwilling to discharge the obligations they have assumed: they may denounce (that is, withdraw from) the treaty after giving one year’s notice of that intention. It would be sad to see a great nation take that course, but no sadder than to see it twisting and dodging to avoid a duty it freely undertook.