BBC poll: World against torture, Israel in favor

[bemildred]

Nearly a third of people worldwide support the use of torture against terror suspects in some circumstances, a BBC survey suggests.

Over 27,000 people in 25 countries, including Israel , were asked if torture was acceptable if it could provide information to save innocent lives. Fifty-nine percent were opposed to torture, 29 percent replied it an acceptable means to combat terrorism.

Respondents were asked which position was closer to their own views:

a) Clear rules against torture should be maintained because any use of torture is immoral and will weaken international human rights standards against torture.

b) Terrorists pose such an extreme threat that governments should now be allowed to use some degree of torture if it may gain information that saves innocent lives.


Ynet

Please note: I did not write the headline.

[bloom]

1. Interesting

"In Israel a majority of Jewish respondents in Israel, 53 percent, agreed that the governments should be allowed to use some degree of torture to obtain information from terror suspects, while 39 percent were completely opposed and wanted clear rules against it. However the Muslim population in Israel polled overwhelmingly against any use of torture.

58 percent against torture in US "


Edit - link to BBC story - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6063386.stm

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Kind of like the one I saw recently....where the largest group of US

citizens to say 'torture was never acceptable' were 'secularists', while various religious groups agreed that 'torture is acceptable'. In that survey, Catholics had the highest approval rating, followed by evangelicals.

[tocqueville]

3. Poll results here : Israel tops with... Iraq....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6063386.stm

[originalpckelly]

4. I just found this story when looking...

so sorry for it being a month later.

That is screwed up. Why are they for it? You'd think that Jewish people, whom were exterminated and tortured in recent history would be totally against this sort of thing. I'd be interested to know if there was an anti-Semitic bias in the poll, but if it checks out, that might explain the disproportionate slaughter carried out by Israel against the Palestinians.

I'd be curious to see how many people in the surveyed group had a family member killed/survive the Holocaust.

There is something to these numbers (again if they aren't biased.)

[bemildred]

5. Fear makes you stupid. That's why politicians are so fond of it.

There are some rich ironies in the present situation, although you should not use term "The Jewish People" in that way; many of them understand the problem, and some are even trying to do something about it, and many non-Jewish people may be taken to be every bit as dense about the issue, if not worse. It's not really an ethnic trait.

I doubt that anti-semitism would be an issue in this, since the survey does not mention Israel or Jews or that sort of thing, it's just about use of torture with the excuse of needing information that the torturee "might" be able to provide.

It would indeed be interesting to know the attitudes of Holocaust survivors on this issue, but I don't expect it would mean much in any general way.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. What happened to Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

It's okay to torture someone as long as someone else has slapped that ever-so overused label 'terrorist' on them? What is so hard to understand about the fact that innocent people are included in the ranks of 'terror suspects'??

And this comment of yrs from another thread is an open and shut case of why it's dangerous to think that torture of 'terror suspects' is okay. Seeing as how some people have so much trouble distinguishing between Palestinian civilians and terrorists, I'd hope you can see the danger in supporting torture...

[pelsar]

9. its not so simple.....

at least not when your busses are being blown up every couple of days....

its called the "ticking bomb"......the suspect may have information about a bomb on bus that will be blown up within hours....with 30+ people dead in the city you live in......(in fact your kids take the #5 line...which has been blown up 3x already....)

do you serve him coffee and tea and talk nice?....or do you put pressure on him and find out where the bomb is...whos lives are more valuable?..and how do you live with yourself knowing you just aided in making 20+ kids orphans and helped ruin 30 families by doing nothing-one of them being your own-how will your wife/mother relate to you after?)

the issue has nothing to do with anti semitism and everything to do with people riding busses to work and eating in resturants...the issue was very hotly discussed in israel when the busses and restaurants where being blown up, on what seemed to be a daily basis.

[originalpckelly]

11. Is there something so wrong you would not do it no matter the consequences?

We believe in that here in America. We believe putting someone behind bars without proof of guilt is bad enough to send men to die to stop it from happening.

You are not responsible for planting the bomb, but you will be morally responsible for torturing someone.

It's called committing a sin to save your own skin. It's wrong and cowardly. Or at least that is what civilized people believe.

[pelsar]

12. doesnt make sense......

We believe in that here in America. We believe putting someone behind bars without proof of guilt is bad enough to send men to die to stop it from happening.

how will putting someone behind bars, make him tell you "where the bomb is"?...he already knows hes going to be kept.

So let me clarify: instead of hurting the person in front of you, who is a member of a group that wants you dead, you would let yours as well as your neighbors children die..as well as 30+ others?

your not saving your own skin...your saving others.....so which is the civilized behavior?..letting others die and be maimed for life so you can play "moral god'?

would you donate your legs and arms to the victims? will you take care of the orphans after?.....the bomb you could have stopped but decided that others should die for your "righteous moral values?

[bemildred]

14. Is it then acceptable for Israelis to be tortured by Palestinians

(or anyone else for that matter) in the hope of gaining information to better protect themselves from Israeli attacks?

1.) If yes, you gets points for consistency

2.) If no, explain why not

[pelsar]

15. how many points?

i would go with the "consistency" aspect......when were talking about "inherent values" etc i would say whats good for one is good for the other.

if we drop down to the ground level and it was my son who was captured and tortured (hes 15), i wouldnt hesitate for a second to join the rescue raid and kill those involved (before trial).

I really hate to play with "torture vs pressure."....I see torture as chain saws, electric shocks, etc which do not produce real information and is mere sadistic behavior, vs pressure which is more subtle and effectivly produce information (lack of sleep, painful physical posistions, threats etc).

[bemildred]

17. Just trying to clarify the issue.

Your argument presupposes that you know the torturee was "involved". Suppose you are wrong? It is not that I dismiss the argument entirely, but one usually likes to see some sort of "fair" judicial process before someone is punished - and torture is punishment - and people whose friends and relations are under threat are not likely to be thinking clearly about such issues. Fear and anxiety and pressure to "do something" are not a good basis for making fair determinations.

Torture has been accepted practice throughout most of history. The opposition to it is opposition to it in principle; that is the idea is that nobody should be tortured ever anywhere by anyone as a matter of principle: it is always wrong. Thus, you argue for it on grounds of expediency, as most proponents have always done and do now; and those that oppose it argue on grounds of principle. It is in some respects like the debate on the death penalty.

Police organizations and others with similar missions of course dislike to have their means restricted, it makes their job harder, but they do not think much about the larger consequences of accepting such a principle of action, they do not expect to be tortured themselves.

I will allow that there is a difference between torture done merely for revenge or to induce terror, and that done to gain information, at least conceptually, although in practice the difference tends to blur. Once one accepts the idea of inflicting pain as a just means to attain a practical end, there is always the temptation to try just a bit harder to get what you need, and the notion of killing to extract information is not that far away.

My point is that once you accept the idea of expediency as a governing rule - that the end justifies the means - then it applies to everyone, including you and your friends, and you are in a Hobbesian world where morals and ethics protect neither you nor your enemies.

[pelsar]

18. i agree its "messy"...

no clear cut lines......but "expediency" is always around vs purity of values (of which one can argue doesnt exist in our real world). The question is: where is that line. And since the example I used is the "ticking bomb scenario"...one that is not "uncommon", there is no time for "judicial process". The idea is to confuse and pressure the guy with the info to make him "spill what he knows"....from there they can piece together where to look (when this happens it causes massive traffic jams as traffic is stopped for miles as the searches are massive-and yes they find the bombers, so far)

as far as torturing the wrong person....of course that is possible, in fact i would say inevitable given the failings of us humans, despite the need for proof in courts today, the wrong person is still thrown in prison for a crime he didnt commit and that is without the pressure, so no doubt in the world of busses being blown up more mistakes will be made.

Like the IDF helicopter pilot who sees the kassams and doesnt launch his missles because some kids are on the other side of the fence might get hurt, hes taking a chance that those kassams wont land on a school killing 10 israeli children. There is not absolute here, and least not from the perspective on the ground (instead of a bus, how about a dirty bomb that will kill, 100,000....is a principle worth 100,000 lives?)

[bemildred]

30. I don't think it's about purity.

Ethical or moral codes aren't worth much if you only apply them when it's convenient. The measure of their value or worth is precisely how far one is willing to go out of ones way to uphold them.

I will admit that your argument, in the specific case you describe, with the restrictions you impose, seems compelling, and I know it has to drive you all nuts.

Would you stipulate that, except for the specific "ticking bomb" case, torture should never be used? That when time is available, or the threat not well defined, you should treat the fellow humanely, allow him to keep his secrets?

In the end it all boils down to judgement, doesn't it? Is the threat real, as dangerous as is claimed, is time really so short? Who can say? Who decides? Would you, in that position, like to have some Palestinian cop decide whether he needs to torture you?

In the latter case, of the pilot who does not fire his rockets, you know my view. You have to balance the uncertain future danger against the certain death of those in front of you, and the answer must be to hold your fire, or you become like them.

[pelsar]

32. pure judgement .....

n the end it all boils down to judgement, doesn't it? Is the threat real, as dangerous as is claimed, is time really so short? Who can say? Who decides?

i dont envy those in those positions.....because they're making judement calls on info that is not complete....but someone has to.

the helicopter example? (its also uncertain death for the palestenian kids on the other side of the wall)...not take it a step further: the IAF makes it clear it will no longer shoot if civilians are in the area. The jihadnikim, understand this, and then proceed to shoot only during school hours while next to schools, next to play fields (this would make sense)....in fact they would probably just wave as the helicopter stays on the horizon while they set up their missles to shoot.....no doubt their aim will improve....now what?

wars are full of judgment calls based on uncertain results, trying to read the future with only partial information....nothing is absolute, so the rules can't be either.

[bemildred]

33. It is not so much that I don't envy them as that I don't trust them.

Or their judgement. If some gangsters were doing their business next to an Israeli school, would you blow up that school too? Or would you look for some other method? Would you not feel that you had to do all you could to avoid harm to the children? If, as you say, they are trying to get you to do that, to harm the children in trying to get at them, then why would you accomodate them? Isn't that dumb? It is this failure to treat the Palestinian children with as much care as you would your own that gets you in trouble when something nasty happens. They are going to shoot the rockets whether you stay in Gaza or not, whether you kill the kids or not, so why not at least not make yourself look bad? Shooting women and children doesn't really buy you a thing, jihadnikim or no, and it costs you a lot. It is not the jihadnikim that get blamed when you pull the trigger, it is you, complain as much as you like.

[pelsar]

35. there are technical limitations...

were still working on our phasers...the ones that stun and then we'll beam them up.......

seriously, there are simply technical limitations...explosions...explode and make a mess all around, the jihadnikim take full advantage of this. i just read where the jihadnikm pay the kids to remove the launchers after a launch.....if they get them, great, if they're blown up, well.....(according to the article some kids are now refusing....)

as far as trusting the guys in power.....whereas i wouldnt want to be there, wouldnt want to be making those decisions, i obviously have made a choice....to leave the decisions up to them.....hence i keep my criticism to a minimum.

on the brighter side, haaretz had an article that islamic jihad is now thinking about not shooting the kassams.....pressure from the PA. I would like to think that the people in beit hanun (fatah supporters) got to abbas who is now putting the pressure on the them, if they do stop, i hope/assume the israeli govt has the brains to also stop.....

[bemildred]

36. I know that explosives explode.

That's why you don't explode things near schools, or other things you don't want exploded. The fact that the jidhadnikim are assholes about it doesn't necessarily let you off the hook, unless you want to be thought an asshole too (not you, but in general).

I certainly hope Abbas has better success with getting them to stop than in the past, and that he gets credit for trying this time, and that pretty much everyone decides maybe this isn't the right way to resolve their differences, but I can't say I'm optimistic.

I won't drag anything else into this, I have to go. It's been nice talking with you.

[bemildred]

34. And I must protest.

If laws and morals and ethics are not pure, then most certainly judgement is not pure.

[eyl]

41. My $0.02

As a rule I'm against torture. While a case can be made that torture can work if properly used, it has a very high cost morally. However, as pelsar pointed out, there are cirumstances where I think torture could conceivably be justified, the classic example being the "ticking bomb" scenario (I can't think of any rational justification for "non-informational" torture).

Of course, there are several problems with this that you pointed out. First of all, there's the issue of whether or not you've even got the right man. Second, even when successful, there's a temptation to use torture more and more - once the first hurdle is crossed, it's much easier to slide down the slope.

I'm note sure whether the fact that you're giving in to expdiency inevitably leads to a Hobbesian world; after all, every time you make some compromise - e.g., allowing police to obtain a warrant to search someone's home against their will - you're employing expediency to a certain extent.

A clarification needs to be made regarding means. "Torture" is a term which encompasses a great many techniques. Keeping someone in solitary for 24 hours and pulling out his fingernails with a set of pliers are both torture, but they are very different in severity.

That said, I'd say the best way to regulate it is as follows (this is essentially the guidelines laid down by the Israeli Supreme Court, BTW, though it's not always observed). Torture is banned, always, and a criminal action. However, if an investigator feels that he is faced with the choice between employing torture or losing innocent lives, he can use torture; but the burden will be on him - in court, after being charged - to prove that the use of torture - and the specific means used - were necessary (among other things, this means that if he's got the wrong person, the investgator is probably SOL). This can be enlikened to the self-defense exception to the laws against homicide (in those jurisdictions where it isn't dismissed without trial).

[originalpckelly]

16. The mistake supporters of the ticking time bomb scenario make...

is why and when they become guilty for the deaths on the bus (the example you used in this case.)

You are morally responsible for the bomb being planted in the first place, not for refusing to torture someone to gain the info needed.

You shouldn't even be in the situation with the ticking bomb, and for allowing that to happen you've already failed.

Other than that, there is no reason, but inhumanity to use torture.

---------------------------------------------

As to the whole "We believe in that here in America. We believe putting someone behind bars without proof of guilt is bad enough to send men to die to stop it from happening."

The first part was meant as an answer to my own question (something people do, even though it is totally improper in writing and speaking.)

There are things in this world which are so wrong we should not do them.

The second sentence is about sending people off to die to ensure the right to a fair trial.

A trial is not necessarily something we associate with defending liberty, but it is the most prominent example, and when people go off to die in war for America, they should be defending liberty and the most prominent example of it, a trial.

We send people to die for the rights of people accused of terrible things, but we do that because it would be a crime to imprison someone innocent. We don't hold trials to protect the guilty, we hold trials to protect the innocent.

I really should have explained that and how it relates to torture, and I hope you can forgive for not explaining it better.

We stand up for our principles to protect the innocent accused of crimes, not the ones who are guilty of crimes. Unfortunately, there is no way to separate the two other than some type of trial.

While you might envision a fictitious world in which an intelligence service, or a police service will know beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual in custody knows where the bomb is, you aren't talking about reality.

In reality police and intel officers cannot know that. They are not perfect, and at some point they will screw up. They will get someone innocent, and they will torture them for the answers to where the bomb is, even though that innocent person does not know where the bomb is.

The overarching idea is that people should be willing to pay the price of upholding their beliefs. Admittedly, here in America it is quite easy to say this, for you and your fellow countrymen it is not. You are involved in a great struggle, and people are paying the price. It is oh so tempting to do the thing which appears to offer safety, but you need to remember the temporary nature of the safety. You will have a government which tortures people. A government which tortures and has a standing army is far more dangerous than a terrorist group with bombs. It is not at all clear to you now, because you witness what the terrorist can do.

The world can never forget that tyrannical governments have killed millions of people, and that terrorists have killed thousands. Hitler killed millions of Jewish people during the Holocaust. Stalin killed millions of Russians in the Great Purge. Mao killed millions (though how many is still unclear) during the Cultural Revolution. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds were killed by Saddam.

The greater threat is an organized army willing to kill its nation's own people, not the terrorist group.

Living in liberty is always a risk, but it is always a risk more worthy of taking than the known terror of a tyrant.

-----------------------------------

That doesn't mean you should turn your back on terrorism, but it does mean that you shouldn't give up what your fighting for in the process of fighting the terrorists.

[msmcghee]

19. Could you explain more clearly what you said. .

. . in your first four sentences. I keep re-reading it but can't make sense of it. Suggestion: State your point first - then support it. Thanks

[pelsar]

20. permit me to differ....

You are morally responsible for the bomb being planted in the first place, not for refusing to torture someone to gain the info needed.
You shouldn't even be in the situation with the ticking bomb, and for allowing that to happen you've already failed.

NO i am not responsable for the moral values of the hamasnik that believes killing people on busses is a godly act. Whether or not i have failed because I am in that situation is not relevant (thats a cop out). The situation exists and I now have situation that involves making a moral judgement that either way can be judged immoral:

NOT saving lives.....by not torturing,....or torturing and saving lives: which would you do?...and whatever your answer it will be easy to explain how immoral it is: your either going to sentence to death many innocents for your "morality' (what kind of morality is that?..that causes innocent children to die?)

or your going to reduce your self to the morality of your enemy by torturing him......either way your choice is immoral.
__________________________________________________________

and boy is this a poor analogy:
The greater threat is an organized army willing to kill its nation's own people, not the terrorist group.
if your talking about dictatorships your right....democracies, based on western values do not have that problem

and i am talking about reality, because that is world i live in:
While you might envision a fictitious world in which an intelligence service, or a police service will know beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual in custody knows where the bomb is, you aren't talking about reality.
many many bombs have been "found" before they've been used and that intelligence comes with the services knowing beyond reasonable doubt who to "talk to". If your asking if mistakes are made...tons, and i've been witnesses to some of them.

much of what you write about is within a civil society....where most of the citizens play by the rules, a war zone, has a different set, a low level war is very confusing as its a mixture.

______________
btw how about instead of a bus...a dirty bomb (a not unlikly scenario today) that if it goes off will kill 50,000 and maim another 10,000 (or whatever the numbers are)....how do your morals hold up to that?

[breakaleg]

21. I think the difference between real democracies and the rest is that there

is a line we should never cross. I say should because under the guidance of Bush, it appears they may have crossed that line. That's why they are doing it in Guantanamo and not in the US.

[msmcghee]

22. The line we should never cross . .

. . is that we should never attack another nation except in our own self-defense or in assisting an ally in their defense against such an attack.

That's the one basic moral code necessary for peace. If all nations followed that code there would be no war.

As citizens, our responsibility is to elect leaders who understand this basic moral precept and are prepared to follow it - regardless of politics or economics.

As humans, especially as liberals, we should never provide moral or verbal support for regimes in the world that attack others instead of using negotiations to settle their differences.

This is a line you cross every day.

[breakaleg]

24. But Bush got elected, and he led the US into war with Iraq for no reason.

There goes that theory.

[msmcghee]

25. What in the hell are you talking about?

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld - and several others should be hauled before an international criminal court, convicted and hung IMHO.

You see, my morality is consistently applied. I don't make excuses for killers just because they are killing a group of people I happen to hate.

[breakaleg]

26. this...

you said: "As citizens, our responsibility is to elect leaders who understand this basic moral precept and are prepared to follow it - regardless of politics or economics. "

So US citizens are responsible for Bush's actions?

[pelsar]

27. i would say yes....

he was elected, the houses of congress which also represent the people work with bush.....whether you like it or not, he and the other parts of the govt represent all americans....just as what the israeli govt does represent me.

we dont like them, we then have to attempt to change it...they're may be "lag time" between the changes, but never the less, the "people" have spoken and you have to live with that choice until you can implement a change.

[msmcghee]

29. You write complete sentences.

That tells me that you are of an older generation, like me - who probably had some college level education. Or, you could be younger and even smarter than average - intelligence-wise - because few high school graduates these days can write complete sentences.

It is a modern myth that intelligence is some barrier to having absurdly incorrect beliefs about the world. I think that is your problem. I think you have never tried to construct a consistent moral view of the world. But, not many ever get that far in life so I can hardly hold that against you as being exceptionally lazy.

I'm saying that I think you are reasonably smart and probably a well-meaning person - who has picked up some toxic beliefs someplace along the line, beliefs that you failed to test for logical and moral consistency.

I wrote a post to you yesterday in another thread that I regret where I ridiculed your ability to debate. I will try to not be so dismissive and sarcastic about your posts in the future - if you will try to look for some logical and moral consistency in your statements. I know you can do it. It's hard work. But, if you don't at least make that attempt it will be hard for me to respect your opinions.

I don't expect you to agree with me. I do expect you to be able to put together a logically and morally consistent argument for your position. If you did that we could have some better discussions - and we each might learn something from the other.

As to your post, I don't quite know what you're getting at. Yes, I think we do bear some responsibility for Bush's actions. But, we live in a democracy. Bush was elected and our side lost. We then did everything possible to remove his power at the earliest possible time. It seems we have been partially successful. The question about my (our) responsibility for Bush lies in how much we did to prevent him from taking office and what we did to get rid of him. I think most of us on the left did what we could within reason - and that relieves some of that responsibility for his actions. However, the US will still suffer for decades in the eyes of the world for our moral depravity in the last six years. A far as the world is concerened, we as Americans, are responsible - as we should be.

But, I don't see what voters' responsibility for those who we voted against but were elected anyway - has to do with the topic under discussion.

[pelsar]

23. the US....

has never NOT crossed that line.......way before bush was in office. His use of Guantanamo was to avoid legal problems. Torture in the "cold war", Vietnam was a given, korea, WWII..every war the US has been in, torture/pressure has been used

same for the UK,(Ireland) France (algeria), etc

[bemildred]

31. The US has a long and illustrious history of police abuse.

You really ought to bring up Latin America, not just VietNam and the real wars we have been involved in. It is the little colonial wars that get truly nasty.

It is only recently that we have even come to be embarassed about it. But that is true almost everywhere, not just in the US.

[originalpckelly]

13. posted in wrong place(nt)

[Tom Joad]

8. World thinks Bush is Repulsive, Bush is honored in Israel.

http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.com%2Fhasen%2Fpages%2FShArt.jhtml%3FitemNo%3D788889%26contrassID%3D1%26subContrassID%3D1

So Israel is consistant in sometimes supporting extremism.

[barb162]

10. Strange headline:25 countries somehow equates to "world"

[Violet_Crumble]

28. Did you miss the word *poll* in the headline? n/t

[barb162]

37. No, did you miss the word "world" in the headline?

[Englander]

38. Here's an alternative headline;

BBC Poll: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Gt Britain, India, Indonesia, Iraq,
Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Phillipines, Poland, Russia, S Korea, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine against torture.

Israel in favour.

[barb162]

39. Here's a better alternative from the first sentence of the article

"Nearly a third of people worldwide support the use of torture against terror suspects in some circumstances, a BBC survey suggests."

[Englander]

40. 33% = less than 53%.

A third = 33%.

In Israel a majority of Jewish respondents in Israel, 53 percent, agreed that the governments should be allowed to use some degree of torture to obtain information from terror suspects, while 39 percent were completely opposed and wanted clear rules against it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

42. Instead, a headline that doesn't sugarcoat the facts was used.

Sad, ain't it? :nopity: