NationStates Jolt Archive

I keep hearing on this forum the claim that a majority of Americans secretly disapprove of torture, and that a majority of people in each European country openly disapprove of torture. Well, the picture isn't as bright.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10345320/

WASHINGTON - Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

The United States has drawn criticism from human rights groups and many governments, especially in Europe, for its treatment of terror suspects. President Bush and other top officials have said the U.S. does not torture, but some suspects in American custody have alleged they were victims of severe mistreatment.

The polling, in the United States and eight of its closest allies, found that in Canada, Mexico and Germany people are divided on whether torture is ever justified. Most people opposed torture under any circumstances in Spain and Italy.

"Most people opposed torture under any circumstances in Spain" Well if the UK and US support torture then Spain is an odd circumstance. Ex-patriation here I come c.c

The stats are a bit odd, the way the question was phrased. The modal average opinion is still that torture can never be justified, and no country supports US interrogation of suspects in their country.

And for my own vindication, the margin for error could put Britain either side of the mean average of supporting torture.

And besides, it's only 1000 interviews - commonly only used to justify research proposals in the social sciences, not to be used as evidence of a particular social trend.

edit: the poll -> http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr051206-4topline.pdf&id=2891

Torture should be used for entertainment purposes only.

Well, in my personal opinion it depends what they define as torture. I mean, cutting, bone breaking and other physical stuff I don't really approve of, but sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation and other psychological warfare stuff... well hell, I say use it on normal criminals as well, not just terrorists. You're trying to persuade them not to f**k with the system, not provide them with a pleasant life affirming experience.

I don't care if every bloody Brit, Frenchman, and South Korean (why did they poll S.K.? Seems like such a random country to poll) wants torture. The fact is, it's illegal. It's against national and international law. The President doesn't have to like the Geneva Convention, but he does have to abide by the rules.

As for defning torture, most of these torture monkeys want to define it out of existance. Waterboarding? Not really torture, just "intense questioning." Stripping them naked and putting them in humiliating positions? Not inhumane, just boys being boys.

The point is that people here on NS have said that most people in the US don't approve of torture, and that it's unheard of to find anyone in Europe who would approve of torture under any circumstances.

The point is that people here on NS have said that most people in the US don't approve of torture, and that it's unheard of to find anyone in Europe who would approve of torture under any circumstances.

really? i thought everyone knew that a huge number of americans drank the kool-aid, and that euros have more than their fair share of nazis these days

really? i thought everyone knew that a huge number of americans drank the kool-aid, and that euros have more than their fair share of nazis these days
Not what you hear from some of the posts on NS.

Well, Britain, France, and South Korea are hardly representative for Europe...

Well, Britain, France, and South Korea are hardly representative for Europe...
I'm not saying they are. But it is surprising that people in the UK and especially France think it's ok to torture under certain circumstances.

To hear people here on NS say it, very few UK people and ZERO French would think it was OK.

What majorities think in the matter is utterly inconsequential. This is not something to be open for democratic decision.

What majorities think in the matter is utterly inconsequential. This is not something to be open for democratic decision.
That might be true, but I no longer want to hear that the American public is the only country drinking the kool-aid.

Looks like there are plenty of torture proponents elsewhere.

That might be true, but I no longer want to hear that the American public is the only country drinking the kool-aid.

I've not heard it before, and one study really is insufficient to bring upon such silence.

Looks like there are plenty of torture proponents elsewhere.

Unsurprisingly, since people are stupid.

I've not heard it before, and one study really is insufficient to bring upon such silence.


If the allegations of rendition to or through European countries is true, then I don't need a study to know the following:

1. Some European intelligence services were in on it - in fact, we already have an allegation that the Germans were in on it - while castigating the US publicly.

2. If the intelligence services were in on it, it it likely that the heads of state knew.

Don't need a study for that.

Perhaps you should say, "Well, in Sweden we don't drink the kool-aid, but I can't speak for France, Germany, the UK, or Romania".

Perhaps you should say, "Well, in Sweden we don't drink the kool-aid, but I can't speak for France, Germany, the UK, or Romania".

I never speak for Europe, since I hate it.

1. Some European intelligence services were in on it - in fact, we already have an allegation that the Germans were in on it - while castigating the US publicly.Since when do the idiots from the BND speak for Germany? They're currently being investigated for overstepping their boundaries on another issue relating to freedom of the press right now any way. "The Germans" weren't really in on it.

Since when do the idiots from the BND speak for Germany? They're currently being investigated for overstepping their boundaries on another issue relating to freedom of the press right now any way. "The Germans" weren't really in on it.

Something tells me that while Schroder was criticizing the US with his mouth, he was authorizing this stuff with his pen.

Something tells me that while Schroder was criticizing the US with his mouth, he was authorizing this stuff with his pen.The Germans were in on it only so far as they allowed the flights to land and pass through Germany. The person currently in the cross hairs for this is the former minister of the interior, Otto Schily, who allegedly held back information alongside the former head of the chancellor's office Walther Steinmeier, who is now the foreign minister. Considering how things have been handled by the top echelons of the German government lately, it's more likely that Schröder didn't know about it.

The Germans were in on it only so far as they allowed the flights to land and pass through Germany. The person currently in the cross hairs for this is the former minister of the interior, Otto Schily, who allegedly held back information alongside the former head of the chancellor's office Walther Steinmeier, who is now the foreign minister. Considering how things have been handled by the top echelons of the German government lately, it's more likely that Schröder didn't know about it.

So Germany is now suffering from the American disease of "one department doesn't tell the other what they're doing"?

So Germany is now suffering from the American disease of "one department doesn't tell the other what they're doing"?Always has ;)

That might be true, but I no longer want to hear that the American public is the only country drinking the kool-aid.

Looks like there are plenty of torture proponents elsewhere.
Yeah well, unless they're actually DOING it, I could give two shits. The focus on those nations claiming to be free, law-abiding and respectful of human rights who nonetheless USE TORTURE shall remain.

I never speak for Europe, since I hate it.
That's an odd thing for a European to say:p

We're all doomed.

I'm sure a portion of the human population has always thought torture is okay (as long as they're not the targets of it), but the sheer fact that they're starting to come out of the closet about it tells me that civilization is in serious trouble. Crazy, violent, uncivilized torture-espousing louts are like termites -- by the time you see one walking around in the open, your house is already half eaten away by millions who stay hidden.

We're all doomed.

I'm sure a portion of the human population has always thought torture is okay (as long as they're not the targets of it), but the sheer fact that they're starting to come out of the closet about it tells me that civilization is in serious trouble. Crazy, violent, uncivilized torture-espousing louts are like termites -- by the time you see one walking around in the open, your house is already half eaten away by millions who stay hidden.
Yes, well, when nations that are supposedly the most free in the world, start saying torture is okay, it's bound to have some influence. Why do you think Canada got such flak internationally after the way protesters were pepper-sprayed and beaten (and in the case of Jaggy Singh, kidnapped by the RCMP) during the APEC conference in BC? Because it sent out a message that this kind of force was acceptable even in a democratic nation that supports human rights. Hell, if Canada can do that, then surely nations with a poorer track record can get away with worse things? It's lowering the bar.

That's an odd thing for a European to say:p

Not for a Scandinavian (or British) one.

Yes, well, when nations that are supposedly the most free in the world, start saying torture is okay, it's bound to have some influence. Why do you think Canada got such flak internationally after the way protesters were pepper-sprayed and beaten (and in the case of Jaggy Singh, kidnapped by the RCMP) during the APEC conference in BC? Because it sent out a message that this kind of force was acceptable even in a democratic nation that supports human rights. Hell, if Canada can do that, then surely nations with a poorer track record can get away with worse things? It's lowering the bar.

As an aside, one of the reasons that I do not like the use and the proliferation of less-lethal weapons such as pepper spray and Tasers is that it makes it far more likely that they will be used.

They are working on even more effective weapons, such as the non-lethal pain beam, that will effectively make mass protest an impossibility. No one will be killed, but no one will be able to stick around and endure the agony.

And because it's so benign, the police will use it almost immediately.

Not for a Scandinavian (or British) one.
Yeah, whatever you European:)

It's kind of a joke in my family, this ignorance about the world...for example, I call my husband a Mexican, because it annoys him, and to get back at me, he calls me an American. "same shit" is the phrase that always answers the statement "I am NOT!"

Same shit Fass:)

As an aside, one of the reasons that I do not like the use and the proliferation of less-lethal weapons such as pepper spray and Tasers is that it makes it far more likely that they will be used.

They are working on even more effective weapons, such as the non-lethal pain beam, that will effectively make mass protest an impossibility. No one will be killed, but no one will be able to stick around and endure the agony.

And because it's so benign, the police will use it almost immediately.
I agree these weapons are overused. Police in Canada would no longer think about using rubber bullets or lethal force...but pepper spray, tasers, and the old faithful nightsticks are common fare...and increasing in use.

I agree these weapons are overused. Police in Canada would no longer think about using rubber bullets or lethal force...but pepper spray, tasers, and the old faithful nightsticks are common fare...and increasing in use.

While people would object to police shooting at rioters with real firearms and real bullets, there's no objection (other than from the protesters) about spraying people with pepper spray, shocking them with Tasers, and in the near future, making them feel like fried potatoes with a pain beam.

It would seem that the general public accepts the idea of the use of extreme pain as an incentive to force "proper" behavior. As long as no one is killed outright...

Technically, that's torture, isn't it? But what nations lead the forefront of the development and widespread use of these means?

Same shit Fass:)

Same shit, hindu.

While people would object to police shooting at rioters with real firearms and real bullets, there's no objection (other than from the protesters) about spraying people with pepper spray, shocking them with Tasers, and in the near future, making them feel like fried potatoes with a pain beam.

It would seem that the general public accepts the idea of the use of extreme pain as an incentive to force "proper" behavior. As long as no one is killed outright...

Technically, that's torture, isn't it? But what nations lead the forefront of the development and widespread use of these means?
The West. The US being one of the largest manufacturers and developers of these items.

I don't think the general public accepts their use...which is why there was such a huge inquiry into the APEC protests, and why there have been a number of cases of suspects being pepper-sprayed or tasered, who have filed successful police brutality suits. I'd like to see MORE resistance to these weapons, but I suspect people don't fully understand the effects they have on people. Hmmm. Maybe everyone should get tasered, or peppersprayed in order to see how painful it is?:p

Same shit, hindu.
What means do Swedish police use against protesters, Fass?

Same shit, hindu.
Ahhahahahahahaa...ok, that's actually clever...:D

Ahhahahahahahaa...ok, that's actually clever...:D

Did you expect less?

Yes, well, when nations that are supposedly the most free in the world, start saying torture is okay, it's bound to have some influence. Why do you think Canada got such flak internationally after the way protesters were pepper-sprayed and beaten (and in the case of Jaggy Singh, kidnapped by the RCMP) during the APEC conference in BC? Because it sent out a message that this kind of force was acceptable even in a democratic nation that supports human rights. Hell, if Canada can do that, then surely nations with a poorer track record can get away with worse things? It's lowering the bar.
Exactly. The frigging Canadians, for god's sake -- popularly perceived as among the mildest people on earth, and they're police-stating it up -- what hope is there for the rest of us?

Maybe, we could require that anyone who wishes to permit torture in the law, must volunteer to undergo it. That should nip this in the bud -- so to speak.

(and in the case of Jaggy Singh, kidnapped by the RCMP)

i forget, was that the time they were trying to blame him for 'conspiracy to toss teddy bears'?

What means do Swedish police use against protesters, Fass?

Oh, it differs. Riot gear mostly when it becomes a riot. IIRC, water cannons and such heavier things aren't available to them. I recall there being discussions about getting such equipment after the riots at the EU summit in Gothenburg a few years ago, but they never got them, if I understand correctly. They have other "non-lethal" crowd control and dispersion tools (bean bags and such projectiles), but I've not heard about actual real world use of them, since we haven't really had protests that deteriorated sufficiently to warrant their use since.

i forget, was that the time they were trying to blame him for 'conspiracy to toss teddy bears'?
Oh no, that was the SECOND (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0509-03.htm) time he was grabbed by undercover cops and stuffed into a van. The first time was APEC. He told us, and told the inquiry, that when they grabbed him before the APEC protests, they never identified themselves, put him on the floor of the van, and drove around with him for what he thought must have been a couple of hours. Imagine how terrified you'd be in that situation...it wasn't until they finally took him to the station that they told him they were police.

more info (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/featurestories/protest/jaghi.html)

Oh, it differs. Riot gear mostly when it becomes a riot. IIRC, water cannons and such heavier things aren't available to them. I recall there being discussions about getting such equipment after the riots at the EU summit in Gothenburg a few years ago, but they never got them, if I understand correctly. They have other "non-lethal" crowd control and dispersion tools (bean bags and such projectiles), but I've not heard about actual real world use of them, since we haven't really had protests that deteriorated sufficiently to warrant their use since.

So, do Swedes generally accept the idea of using non-lethal induction of pain as a legal, moral, and ethically acceptable means of ensuring compliance with police instructions?

So, do Swedes generally accept the idea of using non-lethal induction of pain as a legal, moral, and ethically acceptable means of ensuring compliance with police instructions?
Degrees.

So, do Swedes generally accept the idea of using non-lethal induction of pain as a legal, moral, and ethically acceptable means of ensuring compliance with police instructions?

I don't know. The police was heavily criticised after the Gothenburg riots with several high-profile investigation and prosecutions of police officers that followed. What Swedes think in general I am in no position to give an account of.

Digression (from topic of torture).

There, now it's right. ;)

Shut your cakehole. Digression is natural progression in conversation.

Well, I need someone to explain why it's ok to use a Taser on some guy in the street (or pepper spray him) in order to get him to stop being a protester - and on the other hand it's not ok to use a Taser or pepper spray on him once we get him downtown and want to get him to answer some questions.

Shut your cockhole.

There, now it's right.

Digression is natural progression in conversation.

Perchance, but this may have been an attempt at a red herring between torture and crowd control.

Edit: Oh, look! I was right. It was as transparent as I perceived it.

Perchance, but this may have been an attempt at a red herring between torture and crowd control.

Use of agony on civilians by governmental authority to ensure compliance is?

While people would object to police shooting at rioters with real firearms and real bullets, there's no objection (other than from the protesters) about spraying people with pepper spray, shocking them with Tasers, and in the near future, making them feel like fried potatoes with a pain beam.

It would seem that the general public accepts the idea of the use of extreme pain as an incentive to force "proper" behavior. As long as no one is killed outright...

Technically, that's torture, isn't it? But what nations lead the forefront of the development and widespread use of these means?
What you're saying is accurate and also scary as hell. It is a trend towards desensitizing the public to the use of pain and injury to control behavior -- not even to punish but to control, without arrest or trial or any other part of due process of law.

It's one thing to use whatever force is necessary to stop the actions of a rioting mob that is currently setting fires and attacking people. It is quite another to advocate these measures for "crowd control," which is how they are being used.

It's also interesting that there are tools in development that are not only "less-lethal" but also non-painful -- such as foam and other chemical technologies -- but governments aren't paying for those. They want stuff that hurts.

Use of agony on civilians by governmental authority to ensure compliance is?

Silence is not non-compliance. Physical violence may be countered by necessary physical violence to abut it.

I've already called you on the red-herring. I shan't facilitate you in it further.

Silence is not non-compliance. Physical violence may be countered by necessary physical violence to abut it.

I've already called you on the red-herring. I shan't facilitate you in it further.
Here in the US (and in most countries) the protesters need not be violent in order to provoke a response by police - in some cases, merely marching in an unapproved area, or without easily obtainable permits is enough.

Failing to disperse when ordered.

A neat definition of "torture". Maybe it doesn't apply only to detainees.

"Torture is the infliction of severe physical or psychological torment as an expression of cruelty, a means of intimidation, deterrent, revenge or punishment, or as a tool for the extraction of information or confessions."

Sounds like water cannon and pepper spray and tasers used on protesters fits the bill.

Silence is not non-compliance. Physical violence may be countered by necessary physical violence to abut it.

I've already called you on the red-herring. I shan't facilitate you in it further.
Actually, I don't think it is a red-herring or a digression. I think there's an argument to be made that, by increasing use of painful measures in crowd control and other supposedly preventative law-enforcement measures, you may create a greater willingness in the public to accept, or at least not protest, use of painful measures in interrogations or punishments, i.e. torture. You create a gray area in which inflicting pain is not defined as "torture," or "torture" is not the same as "cruel and unusual punishment," or "punishment" isn't the same as "treatment" or "handling." The message becomes, "See? It's not so bad. We're not killing people, are we? And, besides, they want to do dangerous things, and we have to stop them, right? But it's not torture, so we're still the good guys." That's what the Bush administration has been trying to do.

Now, of course, this backfires if everyone in society feels they are likely to get tasered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so it's important to make sure the public perceives this as only being used against approved scapegoats -- "rioters," "terrorists," "enemy combatants" (all much harder to define than, say, "Jew" and, thus, much harder to invalidate).

The short term benefit of this to a government is the freedom to do what it wants without restriction. The long term benefit would be a compliant population that is less likely to fight for its rights against the government.

--snip--

*yawn*

Act of subjugation != act committed after subjugation has been achieved. No enabling of the red herring will occur by me after this post.

*yawn*

Act of subjugation != act committed after subjugation has been achieved. No enabling of the red herring will occur by me after this post.
Okay, but as there is disagreement, please don't be pissed off at us if the subject stays active, as long as it is related to the main topic, which is public acceptance of torture.

Okay, but as there is disagreement, please don't be pissed off at us if the subject stays active, as long as it is related to the main topic, which is public acceptance of torture.

The public does accept the infliction of pain on protesters more and more these days, especially if it is temporary and does not end in death.

In most Western countries, they can use these "less-lethal" methods when a crowd is merely failing to follow police orders to disperse. Individual members of the crowd need not be committing any act at all, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I find that the free and easy use of tools that inflict pain is a marked intrusion on the rights of free speech and assembly - rights that are removed by the government's use of such agents without hearing or trial.

Further development in this area is proceeding - eventually, the government will be able to induce agony at a considerable distance without leaving a mark - or temporarily blind people at a great distance and en masse.

How many people do you think would want to join in a protest after that?

Probably not very many. And those that did protest would not garner sympathy, but would be viewed by most people as fools. And where would we be then?

The public does accept the infliction of pain on protesters more and more these days, especially if it is temporary and does not end in death.

In most Western countries, they can use these "less-lethal" methods when a crowd is merely failing to follow police orders to disperse. Individual members of the crowd need not be committing any act at all, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I find that the free and easy use of tools that inflict pain is a marked intrusion on the rights of free speech and assembly - rights that are removed by the government's use of such agents without hearing or trial.

Further development in this area is proceeding - eventually, the government will be able to induce agony at a considerable distance without leaving a mark - or temporarily blind people at a great distance and en masse.

How many people do you think would want to join in a protest after that?

Probably not very many. And those that did protest would not garner sympathy, but would be viewed by most people as fools. And where would we be then?
I agree with you 100%. The prospect sickens me. It demands that people get politically active now to try and stop this trend, not just within our own countries, but globally. Those who would do this to society are still the minority, but they will win if the majority does not speak out.

I agree with you 100%. The prospect sickens me. It demands that people get politically active now to try and stop this trend, not just within our own countries, but globally. Those who would do this to society are still the minority, but they will win if the majority does not speak out.

Considering the lack of response that people give to protesters getting pepper sprayed in most (but not all) Western nations, and considering the recent polls I posted in the top of the thread, there are many people who think torture under limited conditions is OK.

I'm getting the impression that as long as it doesn't kill someone, or leave a mark, most people don't think it's a big deal. The stories and outrage are only trotted out for political purposes - no one is going to admit that the same nation that says that inflicting pain for interrogation is bad is also the same nation that has no trouble spraying a crowd with pepper gas.

Pain is pain, especially when inflicted by authority. Either you think it's bad all around, and you think that its use should be sharply restricted or banned, or you think it's ok to hurt people.

Amnesty International qualifies sleep deprivation as torture. By that definition millions of toddlers torture their parents. Oh, the humanity!

I keep hearing on this forum the claim that a majority of Americans secretly disapprove of torture, and that a majority of people in each European country openly disapprove of torture. Well, the picture isn't as bright.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10345320/
Don't know if anyone has mentioned this in the thread, but when I read this article yesterday, a couple of things struck me about it.

First, the article didn't mention the actual numbers, it simply summarized them as a clear majority. And second, they didn't quote the question used to get those results, and let's be frank here--most people here could frame a question that would get a solid majority of people to support torture in rare circumstances. So why didn't the article note those two important pieces of information?

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this in the thread, but when I read this article yesterday, a couple of things struck me about it.

First, the article didn't mention the actual numbers, it simply summarized them as a clear majority. And second, they didn't quote the question used to get those results, and let's be frank here--most people here could frame a question that would get a solid majority of people to support torture in rare circumstances. So why didn't the article note those two important pieces of information?

We've gone down the path in the conversation that people accept the government inducing pain on people who haven't even been detained yet, and may be committing no crime other than being present at a protest.

Isn't that torture? It seems to fit the definition. And I don't see a hue and cry to stop the police in the US from spraying protesters with pepper spray.

I keep hearing on this forum the claim that a majority of Americans secretly disapprove of torture, and that a majority of people in each European country openly disapprove of torture. Well, the picture isn't as bright.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10345320/ Well done, you just swung another hammer against my faith in democracy. A faith which is now virtually non-existent.

I keep thinking that people are idiots who shouldn't have a say in how the country is run.

Well done, you just swung another hammer against my faith in democracy. A faith which is now virtually non-existent.

I keep thinking that people are idiots who shouldn't have a say in how the country is run.

How do you determine who the idiots are?

Don't know if anyone has mentioned this in the thread, but when I read this article yesterday, a couple of things struck me about it.

First, the article didn't mention the actual numbers, it simply summarized them as a clear majority. And second, they didn't quote the question used to get those results, and let's be frank here--most people here could frame a question that would get a solid majority of people to support torture in rare circumstances. So why didn't the article note those two important pieces of information?
I would also prefer detailed breakdowns of such poll results, but even if we do not take this poll as definitive (and no opinion poll should be taken as definitive for anything), it is still information in support of a perceived increase in public toleration of governmental use of torture. Now, we can argue whether this perception is accurate, but I think we can still have this discussion, even if we don't focus on this particular poll.

I would also prefer detailed breakdowns of such poll results, but even if we do not take this poll as definitive (and no opinion poll should be taken as definitive for anything), it is still information in support of a perceived increase in public toleration of governmental use of torture. Now, we can argue whether this perception is accurate, but I think we can still have this discussion, even if we don't focus on this particular poll.
I just find it interesting that the governments that say and have agreed that torture is bad

1. May have a substantial number of people who don't really object to torture
2. Lead the way in pain-inducing methods of crowd control

Either you think pain is a bad thing to do to people without just cause (imminent use of lethal force by an offender, or as the result of trial and conviction), or you think that pain is a good thing.

It's rather hypocritical to say that it's ok to Taser someone in the groin at a protest, but not ok to Taser someone in the groin inside the police station. In both cases, extreme agony is being used by an authority to induce compliance. This sort of thing also leads people to believe that it's perfectly OK to Taser "them".

I just find it interesting that the governments that say and have agreed that torture is bad

1. May have a substantial number of people who don't really object to torture
2. Lead the way in pain-inducing methods of crowd control

Either you think pain is a bad thing to do to people without just cause (imminent use of lethal force by an offender, or as the result of trial and conviction), or you think that pain is a good thing.

It's rather hypocritical to say that it's ok to Taser someone in the groin at a protest, but not ok to Taser someone in the groin inside the police station. In both cases, extreme agony is being used by an authority to induce compliance. This sort of thing also leads people to believe that it's perfectly OK to Taser "them".
Agreed.

EDIT: With the proviso (before anyone else tries to attack me with this) that there is a difference between a protest/demonstration and a riot. Riots are violent and uncontrolled; they kill people. Police facing an actual riot in progress should be prepared and allowed to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and others and, in that case, they may as well shoot live rounds as taser, imo. But I vehemently oppose the use of painful measures simply to disperse or control crowds or as a "preventative" measure. This is how such measures are being used, increasingly, and it is a violation of civil rights.

Agreed.

EDIT: With the proviso (before anyone else tries to attack me with this) that there is a difference between a protest/demonstration and a riot. Riots are violent and uncontrolled; they kill people. Police facing an actual riot in progress should be prepared and allowed to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and others and, in that case, they may as well shoot live rounds as taser, imo. But I vehemently oppose the use of painful measures simply to disperse or control crowds or as a "preventative" measure. This is how such measures are being used, increasingly, and it is a violation of civil rights.

In the USA, in general, when protesters/demonstrators are asked to disperse, their normal response is to resist and/or riot, because they feel that the police have no right to issue orders to protesters on the grounds that the police are interfering with their right to freedom of speech.

Back to the original question, this is a tough question. I normally say that I favor torture in extreme circumstances, and I know that in the USA, the people who do the "torture" must undergo it themselves as part of their training, but still...I don't ever want to end up on the receiving end.

On the other hand, I do favor the death penalty, and am prepared to pull the switch on someone, or to receive it myself. I hope that I am never wrongfully executed, but if I am, I know where I am going and I look forward to getting there (hi Jesus!), whenever I go. ;)

I keep hearing on this forum the claim that a majority of Americans secretly disapprove of torture, and that a majority of people in each European country openly disapprove of torture. Well, the picture isn't as bright.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10345320/

Nicely done.

You:
1. Created a strawman
2. Attacked it with an appeal to popularity.
3. Were slighlty misleading about what the source for your appeal to popularity says.

Regardless, I don't care how many people say torture is OK -- it remains a moral and international crime.

BTW, part of what Saddam Hussein is on trial for right now is the crime of torture. Should he get off on those charges because torture is OK?

In the USA, in general, when protesters/demonstrators are asked to disperse, their normal response is to resist and/or riot, because they feel that the police have no right to issue orders to protesters on the grounds that the police are interfering with their right to freedom of speech.

Back to the original question, this is a tough question. I normally say that I favor torture in extreme circumstances, and I know that in the USA, the people who do the "torture" must undergo it themselves as part of their training, but still...I don't ever want to end up on the receiving end.

On the other hand, I do favor the death penalty, and am prepared to pull the switch on someone, or to receive it myself. I hope that I am never wrongfully executed, but if I am, I know where I am going and I look forward to getting there (hi Jesus!), whenever I go. ;)
I'd be interested to see your numbers on violence in US protests. I've always gotten the impression that there are hundreds of protests/demonstrations in the US that proceed and end peacefully, including those that do not have permits. In fact, until 9/11, US cops tended to be relatively slow to disperse even spontaneous protests.

As for your stance on torture, thanks for being honest, but you kind of proved my point -- those who support it do so only on the proviso that they will be safe from it. There is no such guaranty on offer, however.

And I don't think just torturers should undergo torture, but rather I think anyone who advocates its use should undergo it, too. No armchair Torquemadas, thank you.

In the USA, in general, when protesters/demonstrators are asked to disperse, their normal response is to resist and/or riot, because they feel that the police have no right to issue orders to protesters on the grounds that the police are interfering with their right to freedom of speech.
*snip*

Um. Most protests in the US are handled peacefully and without incident.

.....
Either you think pain is a bad thing to do to people without just cause (imminent use of lethal force by an offender, or as the result of trial and conviction), or you think that pain is a good thing.

It's rather hypocritical to say that it's ok to Taser someone in the groin at a protest, but not ok to Taser someone in the groin inside the police station. In both cases, extreme agony is being used by an authority to induce compliance. This sort of thing also leads people to believe that it's perfectly OK to Taser "them".

First statement: No. This is an example of the 'with us or against us' rhetoric. Summat like saing: either you're a neocon or a treehumpinghippie. (however that thread went).

Second statement: No it is not hypocritical. By that logic it would be hypocritical to be a boxer, but disapprove of beating the missus. You know there is a difference. Do you really need it explained to you? (no, not the wifebeating boxer part, the other one)

Um. Most protests in the US are handled peacefully and without incident.
I get to see a fair number of protests here in the DC area. I especially love watching the IMF/World Bank protests.

Generally, the protesters are very well-behaved. A bit rambunctious, but not doing anything violent or illegal.

The DC Police, on the other hand, seem to enjoy walking up to the temporary barriers where protesters were inadvertently pinned by the crush of the crowd - telling the protesters to get back from the barrier - and when they could not comply, the police would hose them down with pepper spray from a distance of a few inches, completely soaking them with it.

Not arresting them, mind you. And not making the news, other than in the form of a brief blurb, "protesters alleged police misconduct".

First statement: No. This is an example of the 'with us or against us' rhetoric. Summat like saing: either you're a neocon or a treehumpinghippie. (however that thread went).

Second statement: No it is not hypocritical. By that logic it would be hypocritical to be a boxer, but disapprove of beating the missus. You know there is a difference. Do you really need it explained to you? (no, not the wifebeating boxer part, the other one)
Are you saying that using painful measures to control a crowd is okay but using painful measures to coerce an arrested individual is not okay? I can't agree with this.

First, yes, it is never okay to use painful measures to coerce an arrested person. I think we agree on that.

But using painful measures to control a crowd amounts essentially to inflicting pain as a preventative. The person(s) who are the target haven't even been arrested for anything. If it's not okay to inflict pain after the fact, why is it okay to inflict pain before the fact?

Now, once again, I'm drawing a distinction between police response to riots/violence and crowd control. A riot in which groups of people are engaging in violent behavior such as attacking people and setting fires should be met with due force, including things that cause pain, to make them stop. If a guy is coming at a cop with a rock or whathaveyou, the cop should take that guy down immediately, and if he can do it without killing him, kudos to the cop. But a non-violent protest that simply refuses to disperse or is slow to disperse is not a riot and does not merit painful measures in response.

Or are you saying that the cops in Alabama in the 1950s were right to use water canons, dogs, and violent beatings against the Freedom Marchers? Were the National Guardsmen right to fire on the protesters at Kent State University?

It's true that police measures to arrest and contain individuals are not the same thing as torture, but the point I'm trying to make is that some people in government are trying to blur the line that separates them -- I believe this is a bid to legitimize torture by making it seem not so bad.

.........

Proportionality

Proportionality

I agree.

Maybe it would interest you to read a summary of what some of the major German dailies think now...that usually reflects Public Opinion somewhat.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,389084,00.html

Germany's other financial daily, Handelsblatt, takes a different tack, preferring instead to focus on what it sees as German hypocrisy. The Germans, the paper writes, have made a "regular habit" of presenting themselves as better people than Americans. The "division of labor in the military fight against terror continues to be that the Germans allow the Americans to do the dirty work and take the good bits themselves." In Afghanistan, for example, the Americans go after the Taliban while the Germans build bridges. Meanwhile, the German secret service has very likely known all along what the CIA has been up to. The paper's conclusion? Even as the US turns its back on Western values, the Germans should not imagine that Germany can stay out of the war on terror nor is the country self-evidently untarnished.
Center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung, on the other hand, says the time isn't ripe yet for a new trans-Atlantic partnership because Bush is still in power. The German government may have changed, but both sides need to change for a new relationship to take hold. "Injustice remains injustice and a wrong policy remains a wrong policy," writes the paper. "On this basis you can't re-launch the trans-Atlantic relationship." The debate over secret CIA flights and prisons shows how far Europe and the US have drifted apart since Sept. 11 when it comes to what methods are acceptable in waging war on terror. "Condoleezza Rice gave the best example of this by adopting what almost seemed like a blackmailing tone in saying that whoever discloses the work of their intelligence services would have to live with a higher threat of terror," the paper writes. "American secret service information would only be available to allies that could keep silent about how that information was obtained. The message can also be translated thus: The end justifies the means, terrorism can be fought with borderline methods on the outer edges of legality." The paper concludes: "Rice came to Germany to begin a new era. She has resoundingly failed to do so."

So there is a lot of division in a way...but you will not find a single piece of the German media say that it is okay to use torture on terror suspects.

However, Germany had the classic pro-torture case a while back, and many seemed to support the policeman. I didn't.
http://deutsche-welle.de/dw/article/0,2144,1400334,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4021659.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4111483.stm