By William Fisher
As the battle between the White House and a leading Republic Senator over U.S. policies for treating terrorist suspects appears to be headed toward a showdown, recent polling data suggests that the American people are ambivalent on the issue of torture.
Results of some recent surveys of American adults nationwide show that a sizable majority thinks torture of alleged terrorist prisoners is often or sometimes justified, while other polls find that people think the practice is rarely or never justified.
In one poll, however, respondents added a caveat to their vote – 58% would be willing to permit torture if it yielded information that thwarted a major terrorist attack on the U.S.
The issue of prisoner treatment hit front pages worldwide with release of the photographs of American military personnel mistreating detainees at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. Since then, there have been numerous allegations of similar or worse prisoner treatment in other U.S.-run prisons, including the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
As a result, Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican and Vietnam-era prisoner of war, has introduced legislation that would ban cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners by the U.S. military, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and private contractors.
McCain has been locked in a struggle over the measure with the Bush Administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, who has demanded an exemption for the CIA.
But the Senate vote approving the measure was passed 90-9 on a bipartisan basis, despite the administration’s threat to veto it. However, a veto would be difficult for the President, since the McCain measure is attached to a “must-pass” defense department spending bill that provides funding for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill is likely to come to a Senate vote before legislators depart for their Christmas break.
One of the polls, conducted by the Pew Research Center, found in a survey of 2,006 people in the general public, 46 percent believe that torturing terror suspects to gain important information is sometimes (31 percent) or often (15 percent) justified while 17 percent thought it is rarely justified and 32 percent were opposed.
But two others produced different results. A CNN / USA Today poll reported that 56% of respondents would be unwilling to permit torture of prisoners, with 38% willing. And Newsweek Magazine’s poll found that 66% of respondents said torture should be used never (33%) or rarely (33%).
The Pew survey also found a pronounced divide between attitudes of the general public and those of more influential Americans. Of the 520 opinion leaders -- academics, news media leaders, military and foreign-affairs experts, religious leaders and scientists – polled on the same issue, no more than one in four believes that torture of terrorist suspects can be sometimes or often justified.
Pew reported that strong opposition to torture is particularly pronounced among security experts, religious leaders and academics, majorities of whom say the use of torture to gain important information is never justified. Nearly half (48%) of scientists and engineers also take this position, as do military leaders (49%), the Pew survey found.
But while opinion leaders largely agree in opposing the use of torture, their views widely differ as to who should be held responsible for prisoner abuse in Iraq and alleged prisoner abuse in the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
By more than three-to-one (75%-21%) scientists and engineers say that these abuses were mostly the result of official policies. A majority of security (57%) and foreign affairs experts (58%) agree, along with about half of academics (53%) and news media leaders (53%). But most military (60%) and religious (67%) leaders believe cases of prisoner mistreatment were mostly the result of misconduct on the part of soldiers and contractors.
Pew added, “The American public is far more open than opinion leaders to the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information. Nearly half of the public (46%) says this can be ‘often’ (15%) or ‘sometimes’ (31%) be justified. This is consistent with results of Pew surveys since July 2004.”
The Pew poll found that "The general public is divided over this question - 48 percent believe soldiers and contractors are to blame, while 36 percent blame official policies," the report said.
But another poll, conducted by Harris Interactive among American adults nationwide, found that among the 66 percent of adults who believe that prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan were tortured, a 41 percent plurality feels that those in command are most responsible followed by the soldiers (30%), the Administration (13%) and the Pentagon (10%).
In the Newsweek poll, while a majority of respondents (66%) rejected torture, 58% said they would change their vote if torture could prevent a major terrorist attack on the U.S.
In the same poll, 73% of respondents said the torture issue had damaged America’s image abroad ‘a lot’ (39%) or ‘somewhat’ (34%).
Some of the polling was done contemporaneously with disclosure by the Washington Post newspaper that the U.S. had kidnapped prisoners and taken them to secret prisons in Eastern Europe and elsewhere operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
On her recent visit to Europe, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice would neither confirm nor deny the existence of such prisons, but insisted that torture was against both U.S. law and policy.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 55% of respondents felt the U.S. had ‘taken the right course’ in holding detainees in such prisons, as opposed to 30%, who felt the government had ‘gone too far’.
Adding fuel to the prisoner treatment issue are allegations that torture and inhuman treatment persist. Most recently, five members of an elite U.S. Army Ranger unit in Iraq were charged with kicking and punching detainees while awaiting movement to a detention facility.
At least 108 people have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of them violently, according to government data provided to The Associated Press. Roughly a quarter of those deaths have been investigated as possible abuse by U.S. personnel. There have been 21 homicides.
The torture issue has drawn strong criticism from human rights groups. Typical is John Sifton of Human Rights Watch. Sifton told IPS, "The Bush administration continues to believe that by invoking the word 'terror' it can detain anyone in any corner of the world without any oversight," he said. "Yet all these cases do is suggest that the United States has no commitment to legal principles. Turning your back on the law is not the way to stop terrorism."
The Harris poll was conducted in April 2005, the Pew poll in September and October, and others in mid-November
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
WINK, WINK, NOD, NOD
By William Fisher
Washington’s characterization of Egypt’s recent parliamentary election as another important step on the road to democracy is trumped only by President Hosni Mubarak’s cynical demand for a review of the election’s widespread violence and voter disenfranchisement.
Like the aging ruler had no knowledge of why at least ten people were killed and scores more injured during the monthlong election or why police cordoned off many polling stations to prevent people from voting.
Just to remind you, the violence flared after Egypt's banned Islamic movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, won 88 seats compared to the 15 it held in the outgoing 454-member parliament. This happened despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is banned from participating in elections, and its candidates are obliged to run as ‘independents’.
Egyptian authorities say the security measures were taken to enable Egyptians to vote in an orderly manner. Right! The police brutality had nothing to do with trying to prevent the Brotherhood from making even larger gains.
“The elections, with their negative and positive aspects, will be a matter of intensive study by all parties to derive lessons to develop future party and democratic actions,'' Mubarak's spokesman, Suleiman Awwad, quoted the president as telling the lawmakers.
“Negative aspects should be answered strongly so that they will not be repeated.''
Study by whom? Mubarak’s National Democratic Party? The state-controlled media? Not likely. The United States? The United Nations? When pigs fly!
As always, the de-construction of this election will fall to local and international NGOs who monitor bad governance and abuses of human rights. And, if past is prologue, their reports will attract little press attention anywhere.
Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for a quarter of a century, took his first ‘significant’ step toward democracy by introducing an amendment to the country’s constitution. That measure purported to allow multiple candidates to run against him for the presidency for the first time.
Then came the fine print. The amendment placed severe restrictions on, for example, political parties that would be recognized as ‘legal’ by the government.
That eliminated a lot of the opposition.
Then the government proceeded with what almost everyone agrees were trumped-up charges against Ayman Nour, head of a leading opposition party. Mr. Nour is now on trial for forging signatures on his party’s registration documents, even though his principal accuser has recanted this claim, which he now says was obtained under police duress.
President Bush and his fans may acknowledge that the amendment and the presidential and parliamentary elections were flawed, but that the mere fact that they took place at all represents progress on the road to democratic rule.
They will also imply that none of this good news would have happened without George W. Bush’s call for the democratization of the greater Middle East.
We don’t really know how much impact the Bush doctrine had on the electoral process in Egypt or anywhere else.
What we do know is that, given the enormous largesse the U.S. has doled out to Egypt over the past quarter-century – currently some $2 billion a year – America had more than enough leverage to do much more diplomatically to ensure that Egypt’s first baby steps toward representative government were something better than the political theater of the absurd.
But the Bush Administration values Egypt far more as an ally in its Global War on Terror than as a partner in its Global War for Democracy.
And that excuses even the absurd.
Washington’s characterization of Egypt’s recent parliamentary election as another important step on the road to democracy is trumped only by President Hosni Mubarak’s cynical demand for a review of the election’s widespread violence and voter disenfranchisement.
Like the aging ruler had no knowledge of why at least ten people were killed and scores more injured during the monthlong election or why police cordoned off many polling stations to prevent people from voting.
Just to remind you, the violence flared after Egypt's banned Islamic movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, won 88 seats compared to the 15 it held in the outgoing 454-member parliament. This happened despite the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is banned from participating in elections, and its candidates are obliged to run as ‘independents’.
Egyptian authorities say the security measures were taken to enable Egyptians to vote in an orderly manner. Right! The police brutality had nothing to do with trying to prevent the Brotherhood from making even larger gains.
“The elections, with their negative and positive aspects, will be a matter of intensive study by all parties to derive lessons to develop future party and democratic actions,'' Mubarak's spokesman, Suleiman Awwad, quoted the president as telling the lawmakers.
“Negative aspects should be answered strongly so that they will not be repeated.''
Study by whom? Mubarak’s National Democratic Party? The state-controlled media? Not likely. The United States? The United Nations? When pigs fly!
As always, the de-construction of this election will fall to local and international NGOs who monitor bad governance and abuses of human rights. And, if past is prologue, their reports will attract little press attention anywhere.
Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for a quarter of a century, took his first ‘significant’ step toward democracy by introducing an amendment to the country’s constitution. That measure purported to allow multiple candidates to run against him for the presidency for the first time.
Then came the fine print. The amendment placed severe restrictions on, for example, political parties that would be recognized as ‘legal’ by the government.
That eliminated a lot of the opposition.
Then the government proceeded with what almost everyone agrees were trumped-up charges against Ayman Nour, head of a leading opposition party. Mr. Nour is now on trial for forging signatures on his party’s registration documents, even though his principal accuser has recanted this claim, which he now says was obtained under police duress.
President Bush and his fans may acknowledge that the amendment and the presidential and parliamentary elections were flawed, but that the mere fact that they took place at all represents progress on the road to democratic rule.
They will also imply that none of this good news would have happened without George W. Bush’s call for the democratization of the greater Middle East.
We don’t really know how much impact the Bush doctrine had on the electoral process in Egypt or anywhere else.
What we do know is that, given the enormous largesse the U.S. has doled out to Egypt over the past quarter-century – currently some $2 billion a year – America had more than enough leverage to do much more diplomatically to ensure that Egypt’s first baby steps toward representative government were something better than the political theater of the absurd.
But the Bush Administration values Egypt far more as an ally in its Global War on Terror than as a partner in its Global War for Democracy.
And that excuses even the absurd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
