According to the latest Pew survey, a full 53% of Americans currently believe that torture of suspected terrorists is either "often" or "sometimes" justified. We're down to only 1 out of 4 of us who believe that torture is never justified. Those who say torture is often (often!) justified is up from 15% in April to 19% last month.
Couple points on the language here - first, we're talking about torture. Not "interrogation methods that some critics of the Bush administration call torture," but torture. Pick your technique, no matter how heinous - rape, cutting, electric shocks, beatings - and that's what we're referring to, without limits. Second, note that the poll refers not to terrorists, but suspected terrorists. You can become a suspected terrorist with no due process at all, and as followers of this blog know, there are numerous examples from the last decade where government suspicions were unfounded, and where torture proceeded nonetheless. I guess it was worth it.
Here's what may be the worst part, though. According to the survey, in February 2008, 38% of Democrats thought it was often or sometimes necessary to torture suspected terrorists. In February of 2009, that number dropped to 29%. In November of 2009, a mere 9 months later, it's up to a whopping 47%.
Consider how the Democrat number drops 10 points during 2008, during the last Presidential campaign, when Barack Obama was on the campaign trail doubling down on every difference between him and George W. Bush. He won the election in part by claiming the high road, reminding the American people of our moral obligation as a leader among nations to behave better than we had been. But look at what's happened since the election, where support for torture has leapt 20 points in less than a year. During that time, the President has repeatedly suppressed evidence of US torture in the courts and in the release of incriminating photographs, insisted on "looking forward" rather than addressing past acts of criminality, and asserted the US's right to indefinite military detention and extraordinary rendition. Looks like Obama's moral outrage, and that of the voters who put him in office, served the moment of his election nicely but not much else.
When Bush was in office, at least there was a vociferous opposition party eager to check his worst impulses. Now, the party out of power, exemplified by the former vice president, spends most of its time complaining that the president isn't brutal enough when it comes to the nation's enemies. Maybe something to keep in mind while we're busy moralizing about all those crazy Muslims and their lack of respect for basic human dignity.
No comments:
Post a Comment