Public wary of interrogation probe

TuTu Monroe

A Realist
Who wooda thunk it? Another shot in the foot for the Democrats. Diversion tactic? Yes.
By Donald Lambro (Contact) * Friday, April 24, 2009
Americans are not very interested in seeing the government investigate interrogation tactics used on suspected terrorists by Bush administration officials, according to pollsters.

"They don't seem to be that riled up as far as seeing some kind of retribution or truth commissions. They want the administration to focus on fixing the economy. They see this whole interrogation thing as a diversion," said pollster David E. Johnson of Strategic Vision in Atlanta.

Recent polls that he conducted in several states from New Jersey to Florida "showed they seem to be opposed to the White House's release of memos detailing aggressive interrogation techniques used on terrorists, that they feel that everything that happened was done in a time of war and they want to move beyond 9/11 and the Bush administration," Mr. Johnson said.

President Obama on Tuesday refused to rule out the possibility of taking legal action against Bush administration officials who authorized severe interrogation practices such as waterboarding, but said that was a question Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. would have to answer. His remarks ignited new debate in Congress over whether investigative hearings should be held or an independent commission be appointed to re-examine the interrogation methods and find out who authorized them.

But recent polls suggest there was relatively little support among Americans for revisiting rules that allowed CIA agents to deprive suspects of sleep and to employ the waterboarding technique that creates the sensation of drowning.

"Only 28 percent of U.S. voters think the Obama administration should do any further investigating of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects," a new Rasmussen poll reported Thursday.

Rasmussen found that 58 percent of Americans were opposed to an investigation. Democrats were evenly divided on the issue, but 77 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of unaffiliated voters were against further inquiry.

Other pollsters and polling analysts surveyed by The Washington Times said they sensed relatively little support for reopening the issue to further scrutiny in the midst of a severe recession, especially with polls showing Americans putting terrorism at the top of their list of national security concerns.

"I don't have the sense that people are that riled up about it. People see the economy front and center above everything," said Tom Baxter, editor of the Atlanta-based Insider Advantage polling group.

Bernie Porn, president of EPIC/MRA polling in Lansing, Mich., agreed.

"People are just so wrapped up with our economic problems here that I'm not sure they are excited by the interrogation issue, at least not right now," he said.

Others said Americans were wary that further investigation could turn into a partisan political fight to settle old scores.
"People want investigations when they think a law has been broken," said Karlyn H. Bowman, a veteran analyst of polling trends at the American Enterprise Institute. "But when the question even hints, as many do, that an investigation is political point-scoring, people generally say it isn't warranted."

American views about torture have changed in recent years. A Newsweek poll in November 2005 found that 58 percent supported torture "if it might lead to the prevention of a major terrorist attack."

But Gary Langer, director of polling at ABC News, noted in his blog on abcnews.com Thursday that his last poll on the issue in January showed that 58 percent "favored Obama's position prohibiting the use of torture under any circumstances - while 40 percent again said therre are cases in which it should be considered."

Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, said he will release the results of a new poll on Monday that asked Americans "whether people think what was done was justified or not, and should it be investigated?"

washingtontimes. com
 
Just ignore it all. It didn't really happen.

Hold nobody responsible.

Why not just think about fluffy clouds, cute little rabbits and sing along to "the land of the free and the home of the brave"?
 
Please, Democrats, don't backpedal on this one. Payback in 2010, 12 will be a bitch. :cof1:


Right, because everyone know that otherwise Republicans would be all just peaches and cream.

Moreover, I find is offensive that we are even having a discussion as to whether the President of the United States should instruct the Attorney General of the United States to not investigate potential criminal activity for political reasons. Seriously. The idea that the President not interfering in the chief law enforcement officer's exercise of his legal duties (i.e. not telling Holder to stand down) is playing politics is bullshit up-is-downism.

If the AG has reason to believe crimes were committed he has a responsibility to investigate. If not, he shouldn't. The President shouldn't have anything to do with it.
 
Right, because everyone know that otherwise Republicans would be all just peaches and cream.

Moreover, I find is offensive that we are even having a discussion as to whether the President of the United States should instruct the Attorney General of the United States to not investigate potential criminal activity for political reasons. Seriously. The idea that the President not interfering in the chief law enforcement officer's exercise of his legal duties (i.e. not telling Holder to stand down) is playing politics is bullshit up-is-downism.

If the AG has reason to believe crimes were committed he has a responsibility to investigate. If not, he shouldn't. The President shouldn't have anything to do with it.
Unlike Europe, historically in the US an incoming Administration doesn't attempt to criminalize its predecessor. I'm guessing that the voters will respond accordingly, but if not, the next GOP administration will have that opportunity, by this new precedent.
 
Unlike Europe, historically in the US an incoming Administration doesn't attempt to criminalize its predecessor. I'm guessing that the voters will respond accordingly, but if not, the next GOP administration will have that opportunity, by this new precedent.


Dude, you're getting your lines crossed. The Yurpeein bit only works for Obama wanting expanded access the healthcare and stuff. The approved line for this stuff is "Banana Republic."

And investigating whether people violated existing law isn't criminalizing anything. It's simple law enforcement. It's not as though Obama suddenly made torture illegal. It's been illegal for quite some time now.
 
Dude, you're getting your lines crossed. The Yurpeein bit only works for Obama wanting expanded access the healthcare and stuff. The approved line for this stuff is "Banana Republic."

And investigating whether people violated existing law isn't criminalizing anything. It's simple law enforcement. It's not as though Obama suddenly made torture illegal. It's been illegal for quite some time now.

Talk about getting lines crossed I'm sticking to one subject then you mention health care. Wow.

Torture of enemy soldiers has been illegal but the techniques used were vetted and approved for use against non-compliant combatants. As usual The Left fails to see this simple differentiation. *shrug*
 
Any word on whether letting executive branch lawbreakers that commit war crimes get off scot free sets bad precedent?
Well, trying them for those breaches while still allowing people to be taken from places in Europe and brought to Egypt for interrogation that doesn't fall under the rules placed onto the CIA is far more problematic of a precedent.

Retribution commissions that punish others for simply doing what you are also doing is a bit problematic to say the least. It becomes brownshirts going after people who are not "Politically Correct" as defined by political party.
 
Talk about getting lines crossed I'm sticking to one subject then you mention health care. Wow.

Torture of enemy soldiers has been illegal but the techniques used were vetted and approved for use against non-compliant combatants. As usual The Left fails to see this simple differentiation. *shrug*


Hmmm . . . my copy of the U.S. Code doesn't make this horseshit distinction.

(a) Offense.— Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—

(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c) Conspiracy.— A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.


Nope, nothing there about an exception for torturing "non-compliant combatants."
 
Hmmm . . . my copy of the U.S. Code doesn't make this horseshit distinction.




Nope, nothing there about an exception for torturing "non-compliant combatants."
That's because much of the Code doesn't necessarily apply during military operations, which are governed under rules of engagement set up by the command chain. You're attempting to apply civil requirements to a military situation. I realize that this is the Liberal Template but it doesn't make legal or practical sense.

And again, water boarding enemy combatants ain't torture.
 
Talk about getting lines crossed I'm sticking to one subject then you mention health care. Wow.

Torture of enemy soldiers has been illegal but the techniques used were vetted and approved for use against non-compliant combatants. As usual The Left fails to see this simple differentiation. *shrug*

who vetted them and called them legal? the white house lawyers? fine, disbar them and try them for conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.
 
who vetted them and called them legal? the white house lawyers? fine, disbar them and try them for conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity.

yes it is.

Actually, it's not:

tor·ture

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
 
Back
Top