 |
 |
 |
Poll finds support for use of torture in war on terror
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/11652
Comments
1
.
Martin
said:
Not surprising in the sense that people become understandably territorial about what happens on their soil. I think the word "secret" probably evoked a knee-jerk reaction. Still, the polls show that substantial amount of people (except those in Spain and Italy, to no surprise) understand we need to at times completely untie the hands of interrogators. The threat alone of possible torture upon capture may act as deterrent to some extent, and that shouldn’t be lost on anyone.
Posted by: Martin on December 12, 2005 08:24 PM
2
.
Bill Levinson
said:
Even if McCain's legislation went through, I could envision situations in which torture could easily be construed as "reasonable and necessary force" under the same laws that make deadly physical force "reasonable and necessary" under certain situations. Our law generally accepts that you can use deadly physical force to stop someone from killing, raping, or maiming an innocent human being. If you can kill someone to save an innocent person, it follows that you can torture someone for the sole purpose of saving an innocent person.
Example: suppose that, when they kidnapped the four foreign aid workers whom they are now threatening to execute, the terrorists had to leave one or more of their number behind due to wounds sustained during the kidnapping. The other terrorists have announced that they are going to cut the hostages' heads off eight hours from now but our side does not know where they are holding the hostages. Now, if I have one or more of those terrorists as prisoners, I am going to start applying electric shocks and steel-cored rubber hoses to find out where those hostages are so I can send a hostage rescue team to save them. If that does not work, I am going to start breaking bones and then the captured terrorists may even start to lose body parts, with the exception of their tongues because I need those to provide the information necessary to save the hostages.
If I later have to justify those actions to a court of law, my defense would be that deadly physical force (killing) is accepted as "reasonable and necessary force" to prevent innocent people from having their heads cut off but, under the circumstances, killing the prisoner would obviously not achieve that. Torture and mutilation are a step below killing so the infliction of serious, excrutiating, and even permanent injury to effect the rescue of the innocent hostages would be "reasonable and necessary." The same concept would apply if a terrorist was grabbed after he planted a bomb "somewhere" in downtown New York City, for example.
Note, however, that if it is known that the terrorists have already killed the hostages, or if the bomb has already exploded, these actions would NOT be reasonable or necessary. At that point, torture would become "taking the law into your own hands" and is not acceptable. At that point, the captured terrorists would have to be given a fair trial before they were hanged. Furthermore, nothing they said under coercion should be usable against them during the trial; the purpose of torture is SOLELY to effect the rescue of the innocent people, defusing a ticking bomb, or something similar.
Remember that the U.S. Constitution outlaws torture (1) as a punishment or (2) to force someone to testify against himself. Torturing a terrorist for information with which to save innocent people he has placed at risk is neither.
Posted by: Bill Levinson on December 12, 2005 09:42 PM
3
.
daniel horowitz
said:
The U.S. Constitution's ban on torture was meant for Americans, not Arab Nazi's who commit the worst atrocities and torture on earth.
Posted by: daniel horowitz on December 12, 2005 10:03 PM
4
.
Bill Levinson
said:
The Constitution applies to anyone under U.S. jurisdiction. As I pointed out, though, the Constitution bans torture as (1) a punishment, since it's "cruel and unusual," and (2) to force people to provide evidence against themselves or confess to crimes. Applying the steel-cored rubber hose treatment to a terrorist who knows where hostages are being held or where a bomb has been planted for the purpose of saving innocent lives, however, falls into neither of these categories.
In fact, I would call torture "reasonable and necessary" to get a captured terrorist where an improvised explosive device had been planted to kill American soldiers. You couldn't do this to a prisoner of war, as uniformed enemy soldiers are allowed to plant mines and booby traps. Furthermore, if we capture them, they are required to disclose only their names, ranks, and identity numbers. A terrorist is not a prisoner of war and he has NO rights under the Hague and Geneva Conventions. He can in fact be treated as a spy and shot.
Posted by: Bill Levinson on December 13, 2005 12:32 AM
Poll finds support for use of torture in war on terror
By Will Lester, ASSOCIATED PRESS
Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least on rare occasions, according to a poll conducted in the United States and eight U.S.-allied countries.
Only in Italy and Spain do most people oppose torture under any circumstances, the AP-Ipsos survey found, while in Canada, Mexico and Germany there is a nearly even split.
However, majorities in every country except the United States said they did not want Americans conducting secret interrogations of terror suspects on their soil, reflecting concern about reports of secret prisons run by the CIA in Eastern Europe.
Meanwhile, an Internet video once again threw the spotlight on al Qaeda's architects of terror. The group's deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahri said today its leader, Osama bin Laden, is still alive and leading the holy war against the West, Reuters news agency reported.
"Al Qaeda for holy war is still, thanks to God, a base for jihad [holy war]. Its prince, Sheik Osama bin Laden, may God protect him, is still leading its jihad," al-Zawahri said in a video posted on a Web site frequently used by militants.
"I bring a message of joy to all Muslims and mujahedeen that al Qaeda, thanks to God, is spreading and expanding and strengthening," he said.
In the poll, about two-thirds of those living in Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Spain said they would oppose allowing the United States to secretly interrogate terror suspects in their countries.
Almost that many in Britain, France, Germany and Italy said they feel the same way. Almost two-thirds in the United States support such interrogations on U.S. territory by their own government.
Officials with the European Union and in at least a half-dozen European countries are investigating reports of secret U.S. interrogations in Eastern Europe. The EU has threatened to revoke voting rights of any nation in the federation that was host to a clandestine detention center.
On the issue of torture, 61 percent of Americans refused to rule it out. About one in 10 -- 11 percent -- said it could be justified often, while 27 percent said sometimes and 23 percent said rarely. Almost four in 10 -- 36 percent -- said it could never be justified; another 3 percent were unsure.
Majorities in Britain, France and South Korea felt similarly, with South Koreans most willing to countenance it as a routine practice. In that country, 53 percent said it is sometimes or often justified, while only 10 percent said it should never be used.
Only in Italy and Spain do majorities oppose torture under any circumstances. The strongest opposition came in Italy, where six in 10 said it is never justified, while 54 percent of Spaniards took that position.
The Bush administration says it does not condone or practice torture, but it has taken the position that some terrorism suspects are "enemy combatants" not protected by the Geneva Conventions, which spell out the rights of prisoners of war.
Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, is pushing to ban the use of torture as well as "cruel and inhumane treatment," and said this week on NBC-TV that he will accept no compromise.
The polls of about 1,000 adults in each of the nine countries were conducted between Nov. 15 and Nov. 28. Each poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Posted by Ted Belman at December 12, 2005 07:52 PM