Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Rights and Liberties

How Americans Came to Support Torture, in Five Steps

By Roy Eidelson, TruthOut.org. Posted May 12, 2009.


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.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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."

Polling data on how Americans view specific interrogation techniques that were part of the Bush era arsenal are harder to find. But a national Gallup poll in January 2005, about eight months after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, sheds some light here. The following question was posed: "Here is a list of possible interrogation techniques that can be used on prisoners. Do you think it is right or wrong for the U.S. government to use them on prisoners suspected of having information about possible terrorist attacks against the United States?" In order of approval percentages, the survey found that 50% approved of depriving prisoners of sleep for several days; 36% approved of threatening to transfer prisoners to a country known for using torture; 29% approved of threatening prisoners with dogs; 18 % approved of forcing prisoners to remain naked and chained in uncomfortable positions in cold rooms for several hours; 14% approved of strapping prisoners on boards and forcing their heads underwater until they think they are drowning; and 13% approved of having female interrogators make physical contact with Muslim men during religious observances that prohibit such contact.

Based on this sampling of polling results, it is easy at first to be surprised and troubled by the degree to which Americans have expressed support for the inhumane treatment and torture of detainees. But public sentiment on such matters does not emerge in a vacuum. Rather, it often reflects the influence of carefully orchestrated marketing campaigns by powerful vested interests eager to shape opinion in support of a specific agenda or facts on the ground. Certainly it is now well known that the Bush administration embraced the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in national security settings. It is therefore instructive to carefully consider the five-pronged message that they and their backers promoted to create a citizenry supportive of torture.

The first component involved fostering a "war on terror" environment of pervasive fear in which the prospect of massive, catastrophic harm was repeatedly given center stage. Spurred on by improbable ticking time-bomb scenarios where every second matters, perceptions of an urgent need to protect the country from looming disaster created a "whatever it takes" mentality in which efforts to extract crucial information through harsh interrogations and torture became a "no brainer."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: 9/11, torture, war on terror, bush administration, abu ghraib, waterboarding, pew research center for t

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Time to Change Our Ways
Posted by: DrBrian on May 12, 2009 10:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It speaks volumes, and tragic ones at that, about our values as a people that most Americans support torture and impunity for torturers and murderers. It's also interesting that the most devout conservative Christians and Jews are the most brutal, and that the countries with the best human rights records are the least religious.

But this is nothing new. Our ancestors started out by committing genocide against the Native Americans and have been especially brutal in the second half of the 20th century.

For our own physical and economic survival, as well as for ethical reasons, we need to rethink the indoctrination by schools, churches and synagogues, and the media that we have the right to play judge, jury and executioner to the world without accountability or consistency with the standards we set for others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Time to Change Our Ways Posted by: made2order
» RE: Time to Change Our Ways Posted by: luzmejor
Common sense rules.
Posted by: 2thepoint on May 13, 2009 2:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This to a large extent explain how the public and most democrats who are now crying about torture, supported it back in 2002 and beyond.

When you are attacked and the threat is still real, you will do almost anything to prevent another attack. It's common sense.

When one compares these methods to those used by muslims for example, beheadings pulling the trigger of an unloaded gun as a prisoner, these methods really aren't torture - just harsh!

That said all those "tortured" are still in perfect health - so much for the definition of torture.

Lets hope Pelosi gets fried in her own oil! She deserves it for so many reasons!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Common sense rules. Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: "Common sense"? Posted by: CJC
» RE: Common sense rules. Posted by: jw32181
Oh, how very thin is the veneer of civilization.
Posted by: monkeywrench on May 13, 2009 3:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These numbers are shocking, especially coming after Hitler, the Holocaust, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Saddam, etc., etc. Haven't we learned anything? The Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves. They thought, or hoped, that we would be better than this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I marched against my country's participation in the Iraq war
Posted by: RR#1 on May 13, 2009 4:39 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because I knew 9/11 was used as a pretext for the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with it. However, I had the privledge of having access to media and opinions outside of cable and network television. When speaking to my neighbours who did not have acess to this information I found them saying "those terrorists attacked us, we have to go to Iraq to fight the terrorists, WMD's" all the bullshit. The media drum beat for war was practically deafening and at times vulgar. Much in the way Obama was praised for taking out the pirates who were holding the American captive. Now that we know a little more about it, I wonder how Obama can really sleep at night given the youth of these pirates and the manner in which there country is being savaged by pollution and overfishing by larger advantaged countries. I think he might have learned first hand that he should deconstruct his intelligence reports before acting on them in the future to see just exactly what he is dealing with. Certainly, it is nothing to whoop about and yet there was the media given high fives for the precision of the seals and the decisiveness of Obama in ordering the hit! So, given that the capitalist press is going to report news in a way that supports the capitalist state and it's collective interests against the oppressed it is little wonder that people have the opinion's that they do. What is admirable is the depth of decency and intelligence of so many people that it does give one hope that things can and will change-if we keep on top of pretty well every issue and do not take anything for granted when it comes to the leadership in Washington whether it be Barack Obama or anyone else. These are leaders of the capitalist state and they will do what is in the interest of keeping the capitalist state going even when the capitalist's themselves don't like it. I wish this were not the case but the recent decision to throttle the mortgage bankruptcy laws to give the little guy a break and Durbin's remark that the Bank's own the place say's it all. Constant pressure right up to the last second on every issue is what is needed. The banking lobby has access and money for this and they are right there on top of it 24/7. as is every other corporate interest. Perhaps some changes have to be made about access to paid lobbyists to political representatives need to be developed so that it is prevented and an more equal playing field for the competition for idea's and interests emerges.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

torture
Posted by: arocco on May 13, 2009 7:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it amazing that a nation that claims to be a christen nation has no problem with torture. The argument is that the end justifies the means. I'm sure Jesus would approve. We have become a sick people. Bush, Cheney and his entire administration broke the law and should be charged accordingly. If we do not do the right thing the law has no meaning and we are on the road to diaster.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: torture Posted by: scribblerlarry
Brainwashed
Posted by: Democritus on May 14, 2009 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan has shown that humane methods of interrogation are far more effective in gaining intelligence than the use of torture. But torture was not used to gain information by the Bush administration. It was used to extract confessions for political purposes, such as concocting an al qaeda link to justify the invasion of Iraq.

The American public has been brainwashed into thinking that torture is justified by watching television shows on the Fox network, such as "24," where Jack Bauer has to resort to it in "ticking bomb" scenarios. But in real life, there are no such scenarios. There are only helpless captives who have been brutalized into saying anything the captors want in order to stop the pain.

Callous politicians such as Dick Cheney need to learn a simple lesson from ethics 101: cause no unnecessary suffering. The American public needs to learn how to separate fact from fantasy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

are we that stupid ?
Posted by: grkjr on May 14, 2009 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes indeed.. #6
in order for #1-#5 to work it requires #6 That the listening public be stupid and cowardly..which the majority are as your stats prove. thus, now it works.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1960's psych experiment showed average citizens will torture
Posted by: KLE on May 15, 2009 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The veneer of civilization and decency in the human race is thin. Recall the famous Stanley Milgram pscyh experiment at Yales in the early 1960s (see link below for more details) where the man or woman off the street being paid a small amount to participate in an experiment was asked to shock another person,the learner (who was really an actor), if they did not answer questions correctly. The voltage was continually increased, and the majority of people continued to administer high amounts of electricity even when they could hear screams and pounding on the wall. Millgram called this effect the obedience to authority.

So who really knows what we would have done had we been in Pelosi's place? Hindsight is always 20/20.


http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Milgram_experiment

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

24
Posted by: mwildfire on May 15, 2009 7:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It amazes me that this piece doesn't even mention the show "24" in which, week after week, torturers hold a man who knows the details of a plot to destroy a city, and the plot will happen in a matter of hours, and if they torture him he'll tell them the truth and the horrible plot can be stopped at the last minute. So the torture is justified because it saves a lot of lives, and after all the victim participated in a plot to cause enormous suffering of innocents, so he's forfeited his own right to decent treatment.
Such a scenario has no doubt happened at some point in history, but it's actually very rare. It's also, though, the one logical justification for torture. And so this show was produced to get Americans to envision this one scenario whenever they are asked to judge American torturers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and dont forget pure economics...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on May 15, 2009 7:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when torture is not done as an end to itself.. its purpose is either to produce false confessions for political purposes.. and/or to intimidate the public at large..especially union activists...the latter is always necessarily of interest to big business and the investor class.. and in the case of bu$hco..sow were the said "political purposes" ..the iraq war...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

99 %
Posted by: reinaldok on May 16, 2009 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if 99.99% of the population state that torture, whether by waterboarding or any other means is a correct and acceptable method, that certainly does not mean that it is ever appropriate. This is just one of the many cases where majority is not equivalent to correctness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement