A majority also opposes nearly all methods for coercing detainees to give information, even when it might be critical to stopping a terrorist attack against the US. Respondents were presented a scenario in which a detainee is being held who is likely to have "information about a possible terrorist attack on the US that may prove critical to stopping the attack." They were then presented a series of methods for coercing the respondent to reveal the information.
Majorities opposed forcing the detainee to take stressful positions (56%), using threatening dogs (64%), exposing the detainee to extreme heat and cold (66%), making the detainee go naked (71%), holding the detainee's head under water (78%), punching or kicking the detainee (80%), and applying electric shocks (81%).
One method -- sleep deprivation -- received modest majority support (52%). Views were divided on putting a hood over a detainee's head for a long period of time, and bombarding the detainee with loud music.
Further, even many respondents who say a prohibition against physical torture is too restrictive do not want to eliminate the international norm against it. Asked whether "the international conventions on the treatment of detainees should be changed to allow governments to use physical torture," only 21 percent of total sample said it should.
"Though other polls have shown most Americans do not want to indict Bush administration figures for the interrogation methods used, a large majority does want to retain the international norm that bans torture," comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.
The poll of 805 Americans was conducted May 27 through June 4 (margin of error +/- 3.5%).
The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided Internet access. For more information about this methodology, visit http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.
WorldPublicOpinion.org is a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.
Source: Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland
