< Back to Front Page Text size +

Poll: Waterboarding is torture, but no investigations

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor May 6, 2009 12:25 PM

Most Americans, a new poll suggests, agree with President Obama -- terrorist suspects were tortured with waterboarding and other brutal interrogation techniques, but there shouldn't be an investigation of what happened.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released this afternoon found that while 60 percent of respondents believed the tactics did amount to torture, they were evenly divided on their use -- 50 percent approved, while 46 percent disapprove.

Asked whether Congress should investigate the Bush administration officials who authorized the techniques, 57 percent answered no, and 65 percent oppose investigating those who carried out the interrogations. Also, 55 percent oppose an independent probe of those who authorized the interrogation tactics and 64 percent oppose an independent inquiry of those who conducted the interrogations.

The poll, conducted April 23-26, has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

  • CommentComment
  • EmailEmail
.

Lets all laugh together at this comedy show title "WATERBOARDING INVESTIGATION".Ha,ha,ha,ha,he,he,he,he,that's it folks we'll see in the next election.

Posted by skmj May 6, 09 12:39 PM
.

Obviously so many Americans believe waterboarding is torture because the media has rammed it down their throats. If more Americans did their own digging instead of blindly following the media, it would be 50/50 or even in favor of those who believe it is not torture. Torture is a very different thing than simulated drowning, where the subject survives without any real physical harm.

Posted by cmon May 6, 09 12:46 PM
.

Oh delightful! ...the great unwashed hoardes can finally see the obvious. ... can finally agree it's torture and then, just as fast, absolve themselves of any punishment. Lovely... lovely... I give you, a population that can't parse any of life's difficult questions, or take responsibility for mis-steps.

Posted by Jasper von Blowhole May 6, 09 01:20 PM
.

When people toss out their party affiliation and start to think about it, I think most realize that that circumstance and the persons in question matter greatly - that there are a whole lotta shades of gray.

To those who outright oppose it, I ask you the following questions:

1. Your young child has been kidnapped and buried alive by a man they have arrested. He readily admits he did it and that the child has 1 hour of air left. At that point he won't say anymore. Are you okay with leaving it at that point?

2. Sitting on a chair you have Hitler and on another you have Mother Theresa. One will die, you get to decide who. Do you accept that a random coin flip is the fair way to do it, their past work does not matter?

3. Three pirates were executed to save one American who may or may not have survived anyway. Very little negative reaction to this. Can you side with this and be against waterboarding terrorist captives?

4. A man in custody is waterboarded because those in charge think it would be fun. Another is waterboarded to try to get information crucial to defense of your country. These are the same?

Posted by mm May 6, 09 01:33 PM
.

Let's waterboard you 200+ times and see if you still think it is not torture. The people that order it done and the people who were just following order make me sick. This is not the America that I love and if we let them get away with it, it will be at a police station in your home town soon.

Posted by Drake May 6, 09 01:34 PM
.

So, waterboaring is torture only when it is done against Americans and American allies. And American public supports that - is that new? International laws which we are signatory of, only applies to us when it pleases us. That is a real ethical and just thing to practice. In fact I want to make love to most beautiful women even if they do not agree, and I do not want any investigation, as media would be ramming down everybody's throat. And skmj can start laughing.

Posted by GWB May 6, 09 01:36 PM
.

There is no debate legally about what is torture. The Conventions/Treaties/Laws that via the Constitution teh USA is required to adhere to is very, very clear.

And there were no "suitcase" bombs either. I think the Red Cross has said on several occasions that torture was and is happening. And the Armed services has convicted over 400 cases of abuse.

One interesting thing about the laws, is that they say specially that no offical (means Prez, too) can redefine torture even in the even of war, and no official can convey an policy/order for the re-definition of torture.

The King of Jordan indicated that many in the Middle-east are looking to see if America is about the rule of law. And there will be harsh events if America does not do anything.

Posted by john May 6, 09 01:37 PM
.

Torture does not always leave a permanent "physical" mark. Indeed, it need not even leave any "visible" marks. To suggest otherwise is to betray a stunning ignorance of the many different ways in which people can be made to suffer horribly.
Oh, and just so there's no confusion, making people suffer horribly IS torture.

Posted by John Nelson May 6, 09 01:41 PM
.

It is true we aren't talking about pulling off fingernails with pliers or smashing digits with thumb screws. I think torture encompasses more than just physical harm though. You can run electricity through someones nipples without causing physical damage. You can also tazer someone if they don't tell you what you want to hear. It's still torture, it's still fact that torture does not work. People will say anything to stop being tortured. The fact that the Bush administration authorized torture is a stain on this great country. They must be held accountable because if they aren't a disturbing precedent will be set for future administrations. What is the point of having laws if they aren't obeyed and offenders aren't punished?

Posted by Vlad May 6, 09 01:41 PM
.

Beheading is certainly a stronger "tortue". Who gives a damn! I think they should tear the fingernails off the ****ards. They declare themselves our enemies! Why should we declare them citizens -- or give them citizen's rights!

Posted by J. Hicks May 6, 09 01:42 PM
.

This is still more hype in an attempt to deflect public attention from what the Obama Administration is doing in other areas.

Posted by MikeMca May 6, 09 01:43 PM
.

mm: Very good questions! =)

Here are my thoughts on the points you brought up:

1. Let's say you torture this guy and he coughs up some information to get you to stop. There has been no scientific evidence that the information obtained via torture is particularly useful. So this guy can easily just tell you some location that will take you an hour to verify and your child is lost anyways.

2. Past actions should definitely be taken into consideration, or else criminal justice would make no sense since anything any criminal did would be in the past at the time of the trial.

3. In the case of the Somali pirates and the American captain, the three Somali pirates were not executed, they were armed combatants holding a prisoner. If they were already in our custody and somehow executing them resulted in the rescue of the American captain, then this analogy would have more meaning.

4. Torturing for fun is obviously wrong to most people. Torturing for information is only arguable if the gain outweighs the loss to most people. There have been countless examples of false confessions and false information given by people who have been tortured. Is the gain of unreliable information worth the loss of our moral high ground? My opinion is that it is not.

Posted by Calvin May 6, 09 02:02 PM
.

If it's necessary to protect Americans, then I say waterboard away. Would I want to be waterboarded? of course not. But that's not the issue....if it could stop an attack on Atlanta or Los Angeles, then I pick waterboard treatment.

Posted by L.C.Patterson May 6, 09 02:04 PM
.

Type your comment here...Face it. America has become the modern-day Nazi's of the world in the views of most people that live outside of the USA and for about 50% of the people that live here. We'll never be able to live this down thats to Bush Cheaney and the Republican party.

Posted by ken May 6, 09 02:06 PM
.

Calvin, I like that you provided thoughtful answers. I chose the words and questions carefully to bring out a few points:

1. Situations matter. I think if most folks honestly answered my first question, that most would say some form of coersion would be justified.
2. Background matters. An Al Qaeda operative is differnent than a Somalian Pirate.
3. I used the word "execute" in question 3 to show it is an impact work. Like torture. When does kill becom execute? When does coersion become torture? Fair enough to call it that, but look at the spectrum, from waterboarding to breaking bones to cutting off fingers to real starvation, etc. The spctrum is HUGE.

Point being, only an idealogue can truly say there is a black and white line when in fact I think most folks see very different shades of gray. I think some/many (myself included) would see a big difference between waterboarding a Somalian pirate to find out their lair vs. waterboarding an Al Qaeda operative to find out attack plans against the mainland USA.

The one thing I disagree with in your post is "no scientific evidence it works" and the potential for "unrealiable information." Certailny those figure into the equation as well but I don't see how that is an argument against it 100% of the time.

I view it more along the line of this. A man shot another man with a gun. That is murder correct? When even in the US that can be anything from self defense to justifiable homicide to manslaughter to various degrees of murder to capital murder. Shades of gray dependent upon circumstances, people involved, motive, intent.

Posted by mm May 6, 09 02:57 PM
.

Why was water boarding torture when the Japanese did it to us in WWII, but not now if we do it to someone else? Let's not be hypocrites: it is torture!

So you say you don't care? We've only got one hour to save a kitten/child/the world? What if we have the wrong suspect in custody? Under duress, they'll "confess" to whatever they think will stop the agony. We send in the troops--and meanwhile, the real thing is happening somewhere else and we're not there. What if we've got the right guy but he wants to be a martyr and sends us the wrong way on purpose? Confessions obtained through torture are unreliable. Not the kind of data worth compromising our integrity to obtain.

Posted by NB May 6, 09 04:16 PM
.

I don't think people are reading the news enough to understand why this is a big deal...again! Waterboarding is torture! Now that we got that out of the way, why is it a big deal now? Its simple...the Republican Party has been exposed to tons of errors with the Bush administration...Cheney is against Obama's party so hastily and so aggressively because they lied to us!! They were asked years ago if they used torture...denied it. Now they admit it, but only to say it was used on a few?! That doesn't make sense at all... Cheney claims he wants to protect the U.S. anyway necessary and their tactics have assumes tons of "invaluable information"...with the Al Queda operatives in captivity (definately more than a few) you would think these methods would have been more effective in capturing Osama. What was the result of all these operatives being captured? More war...more national debt...more suffering because of retaliation. It won't stop anytime soon, and bring them here on U.S. soil makes sense because they will get justice as they have been waiting for. Its no different from our everyday maximum security detainees already...

Do we really have to wait until the next election to do something about Guantanamo?

Posted by Kill@dor May 21, 09 03:34 PM
add your comment *(If you put a URL in your comment, it must be relevant )
Required
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

About Political Intelligence

Reports from Boston Globe reporters and editors about the Obama administration, the Massachusetts congressional delegation, and other national political happenings.

News from the Washington Bureau

Survey raises new doubts on military’s ‘don’t ask’ policy

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration received more research yesterday to help make its case for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces. (Globe Staff, 1:17 a.m.)

Lieberman’s threat of filibuster looms large

When a recent conversation among Senate centrists turned to insurance company antitrust concerns, Joe Lieberman boasted of his bona fides: As Connecticut attorney general in the 1980s, he sued the industry. (Globe Correspondent, 11/9/09)

Health care headache for House Democrats

WASHINGTON - Democratic House leaders scrambled to round up enough support yesterday for their sweeping health care overhaul, getting last-minute help from White House advisers on the eve of a historic vote scheduled for today. (Globe Staff, 11/7/09)

Health care opponents intensify late attack

WASHINGTON - The sweeping health care overhaul package before Congress is under an 11th-hour attack over a pair of emotional issues, abortion and immigration, that are complicating Democrats’ efforts to piece together the coalition they need to pass the bill. (Globe Staff, 11/6/09)

Patrick wraps up two-day visit to Washington

WASHINGTON - Governor Deval Patrick swept through Washington yesterday, wrapping up a two-day tour to advance the state’s interests in health care, economic development, and transportation - a trip that also let him showcase his access to the city’s most powerful Democrats, including President Obama. (Globe Staff, 11/5/09)

Public’s opinions of health care overhaul efforts have familiar ring

Americans’ opinion of the health care proposals now before Congress is eerily similar to public sentiment about the Clinton health reform initiatives in 1994, according to an analysis published online yesterday in The New England Journal of Medicine - and that may not bode well for Democrats. (Globe Staff, 11/5/09)

Moderate Democrats fear shift to GOP

Democratic moderates who will determine the fate of much of President Obama’s domestic agenda heard an early warning from this week’s off-year elections: Congress had better do something about the economy, or sitting lawmakers will lose their jobs in 2010. (Globe Staff, 11/5/09)

Frank reconsiders legislation after worry raised on loopholes

House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank, under fire from some fellow Democrats and consumer groups for carving out what they call loopholes in legislation designed to prevent another economic meltdown, said in a letter released last night that “there may be a problem here’’ and that he wants to reconsider. (Globe Staff, 11/5/09)

BU professor turned Pakistan envoy draws flak

Professor Husain Haqqani, who took a leave of absence from Boston University to become Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States last year, is one of the most influential figures in his nation’s government. But in recent weeks, Haqqani has been fighting for his political survival, accused of something that can tank a government career in Pakistan: being too “pro-American.’’ (Globe Staff, 11/4/09)

In battle over credit abuses, Warren wields a plan

CAMBRIDGE - Her critics portray her as an ivory tower elitist intent on disrupting the American Dream. But to her legions of fans in the Democratic Party, Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren is the nation’s leading economic David, fighting to protect middle-class families from corporate Goliaths. (Globe Staff, 11/3/09)
archives