What's new

More Americans support torture than Afghans, Iraqis and South Sudanese - Why?

Abdullah719

T20I Captain
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Runs
44,825
The United States has a higher tolerance for torture than any other country on the U.N. Security Council, and Americans are more comfortable with torture than citizens of war-ravaged countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine.

Those are two key findings reported by the International Committee of the Red Cross on Monday, in a new report highlighting global perspectives on war.

The data comes during a renewed debate over torture in the United States. In the presidential election in November, Americans picked Donald Trump, who has endorsed the use of waterboarding and, he said in February, “a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding” to extract information from terrorism suspects.

Trump appears to have backed away from his commitment to torture since consulting with his nominee for defense secretary, retired Gen. James N. Mattis. But in an interview with the New York Times last month, Trump said obliquely that if waterboarding was “important to the American people, I would go for it. I would be guided by that.”

Here’s what the American people think, according to the ICRC report:

Researchers found that 33 percent of Americans surveyed said torture was a “part of war.” And 46 percent of Americans said that enemy combatants could be tortured “to obtain important military information.”

By comparison, 16 percent of Afghans and 14 percent of Ukrainians said torture was “part of war.” While 18 percent in South Sudan and 15 percent in China said they would tolerate the torture of enemy combatants. The ICRC interviewed more than 17,000 people from 15 countries and the Palestinian Territories.

That data raises a number of questions about the support for torture and an apparent decrease in respect for international humanitarian law. One of those questions is why Americans are more supportive of torturing enemy combatants than those living in countries in the midst of deadly wars.

“The further away you are from armed conflict, the less sensitive you are to what it actually means,” said Patrick Youssef, the ICRC’s deputy director for Africa and its former head of mission in Iraq.

The American willingness to use torture was part of a worrying trend identified by the ICRC — a growing belief globally that enemy combatants can be tortured for information. When researchers asked that question in 1999, just 28 percent of respondents said enemy combatants could be tortured. This year, 36 percent said it was justified.

That finding has raised concern, ICRC researchers said, about the role of international law in the world’s numerous armed conflicts. The report said the rules of armed conflict, like the Geneva Conventions, “are being questioned perhaps more than at any time in recent history.”

But there’s also a shocking lack of awareness that those rules exist — 39 percent of the Americans who supported torture told the ICRC they “didn’t realize my country had agreed to ban torture” as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

The ICRC study is not the first to establish Americans’ increasing tolerance for torture in recent years.

A Pew Research Center study in February found that 58 percent of Americans think the torture of suspected terrorists can be justified. Of 38 nations surveyed, only five countries have a higher tolerance for torturing suspected terrorists, the Pew study found: Uganda (78 percent), Lebanon (72 percent), Israel (62 percent), Kenya (62 percent) and Nigeria (61 percent)

In 2014, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a majority of Americans thought that aggressive interrogation techniques used on terrorism suspects after Sept. 11, 2001, were justified.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-than-afghans-iraqis-and-south-sudanese-why/
 
Probably because Afghanistan has an image of always being at war with the whole world. If you listen to their people it is always someone else's fault. They have not been at peace since the 1970's that has made them a very disliked people by the whole world, particularly Americans.
 
Disgusting stats overall, what kind of person would even approve of torturing suspected terrorists. Humanity still has a long way to go.

Well there could be many reasons for that. Average American doesn't experience torture so some are fine with it as long its Afghans and Iraqis. Even though the stats about America are worrying, ICRC should focus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria. Because authorities in those countries torture people openly, post videos of it online and are actually quite proud of their behavior.
 
Cause the Americans are looking at torturing non Americans
While Afghan etc are thinking about themselves
 
Their government justifies it esp in G-Bay so (most) Americans being the sheep they are will just follow the lead.

They also think they are the good guys and the others fighing them are bad. Thankfully there are some very intelligent Americans who realise their government is the biggest terrorist in the history of the planet.
 
Their government justifies it esp in G-Bay so (most) Americans being the sheep they are will just follow the lead.

They also think they are the good guys and the others fighing them are bad. Thankfully there are some very intelligent Americans who realise their government is the biggest terrorist in the history of the planet.

To expand further from your point and what [MENTION=133760]Abdullah719[/MENTION] mentions in the OP, not only is torture abhorrent from a moral POV, it doesn't even work on a practical basis. Most experts agree torture produces unreliable evidence. The Senate Intelligence Committee in their 2014 report concluded there is no evidence that terror attacks were stopped, terrorists captured or lives saved through use of torture.

The Bush Administration knew this and authorised it anyway against detainees, especially in the prelude to the 2003 Iraq War because they WANTED bad intelligence. Torture was used to extract FALSE confessions from detainees that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda, 9/11 and had WMDs to build the case to topple him.

Jose Rodriguez was the then director of counterterrorism in the CIA and he ordered 92 tapes that documented some of these appalling so-called "enhanced interrogations" to be destroyed. That's destruction of evidence ! Clearly if you work for the US Govt you're above the law...

Rodriguez also laughably justified torture in a 60 Minutes interview by saying the detainees needed to know "there's a new sheriff in town" and "the government needed to get their big boy pants on" post-9/11. I didn't know torturing people makes you a big boy.

And Jose Rodriguez is the man Donald Trump wants as the head of the CIA. God help us all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To expand further from your point and what @Abdullah719 mentions in the OP, not only is torture abhorrent from a moral POV, it doesn't even work on a practical basis. Most experts agree torture produces unreliable evidence. The Senate Intelligence Committee in their 2014 report concluded there is no evidence that terror attacks were stopped, terrorists captured or lives saved through use of torture.

The Bush Administration knew this and authorised it anyway against detainees, especially in the prelude to the 2003 Iraq War because they WANTED bad intelligence. Torture was used to extract FALSE confessions from detainees that Saddam was linked to Al-Qaeda, 9/11 and had WMDs to build the case to topple him.

Jose Rodriguez was the then director of counterterrorism in the CIA and he ordered 92 tapes that documented some of these appalling so-called "enhanced interrogations" to be destroyed. That's destruction of evidence ! Clearly if you work for the US Govt you're above the law...

Rodriguez also laughably justified torture in a 60 Minutes interview by saying the detainees needed to know "there's a new sheriff in town" and "the government needed to get their big boy pants on" post-9/11. I didn't know torturing people makes you a big boy.

And Jose Rodriguez is the man Donald Trump wants as the head of the CIA. God help us all.

If I recall KSM the alleged mastermind of 911 was water boarded over 150 times before he 'confessed'. Some of the detainees were tried in a military court , so I assume evidence obtained by torture is perfectly admissible in such courts.

Back to the topic, why do you believe a higher percentage of Americans agree with torture?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I recall KSM the alleged mastermind of 911 was water boarded over 150 times before he 'confessed'. Some of the detainees were tried in a military court , so I assume evidence obtained by torture is perfectly admissible in such courts.
KSM, incredibly, was waterboarded 183 times ! After 9/11, al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah was captured. Since the CIA had zero personnel with experience in interrogation, the FBI was brought in. Ali Soufan, a highly experienced interrogator and Muslim who speaks fluent Arabic, took charge of the questioning. He deployed normal interrogation procedures and almost immediately, Zubaydah gave up Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's location.

Then this bozo Rodriguez, who had the backing of Bush and Cheney, comes along wanting to prove how much of a tough guy he is by torturing unarmed detainees. Obviously Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammad sang like canaries telling their torturers whatever rubbish they wanted to hear and led the CIA on a wild goose chase.

Even the CIA's OWN Inspector General admitted wrote that waterboarding was not "efficacious" in producing information.

Back to the topic, why do you believe a higher percentage of Americans agree with torture?

The US media through this War on Terror has succeeded in dehumanising the Muslim World. If a Muslim detainee gets the crap kicked out of them in Gitmo, and even if that detainee transpires to be innocent, meh who cares - they probably "had it coming".

Infact Trump literally said that during the campaign and wants to reinstate torture "worse" than waterboarding amidst cheers from his supporters even though that'd violate the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

It exposes the hypocrisy of the right-wing cheerleaders for torture who never cease in talking about their beloved Constitution, the freedoms of their country but are too happy to break the Constitution as long as its the freedoms of the pesky Muslims or some other minority that's being violated. I guess they stop reading after the Second Amendment.
 
Depends what kind of torture for me, if you're battering the person and making them near death or even seriously injured then no, but if it's something light and only to get some information then fine.
 
Depends what kind of torture for me, if you're battering the person and making them near death or even seriously injured then no, but if it's something light and only to get some information then fine.

Something light wont get you anything. Thats a fact. Almost killing the person would get you unreliable information. Torture never works.

What has been quite accepted now is that the best way to get information is to gain the trust of the suspect. This takes A LOT of time and patience but gets you the best results. unfortunately nobody wants to wait that long.
 
Something light wont get you anything. Thats a fact. Almost killing the person would get you unreliable information. Torture never works.

What has been quite accepted now is that the best way to get information is to gain the trust of the suspect. This takes A LOT of time and patience but gets you the best results. unfortunately nobody wants to wait that long.

Well, I agree with what you say!
 
Back
Top