Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

I wonder what this poll would say today?


Majority of Iraqis Endorse Election and Show Optimism
But Sunnis Strongly Reject Election And Regret Overthrow of Saddam

Full Report
Questionnaire/Methodology

The majority of Iraqis overall view the recent parliamentary elections as valid, are optimistic that their country is going in the right direction and feel that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has been worth the costs. Sunnis, on the other hand, overwhelmingly reject the validity of the elections, see the country going in the wrong direction and regret the overthrow of Saddam. This pervasive pessimism challenges hopes that the alienated Sunni Arab minority, which boycotted Iraq’s first post-Saddam elections a year ago, would feel empowered by participating in last month’s elections.

The poll was conducted for WorldPublicOpinion.org by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and was fielded by KA Research Limited/D3 Systems, Inc. Polling was conducted January 2-5 with a nationwide sample of 1,150, which included an oversample of 150 Arab Sunnis (hereafter simply called Sunnis).

Overall, two out of three Iraqis (66%) believe that the recent parliamentary elections were free and fair. Approximately the same number (68%) say “that the government to be established by the newly elected Parliament will … be the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people.”

Even larger majorities feel this way among the Shia and Kurds. Eighty-nine percent of Shia and 77% of Kurds say the elections were free and fair, while 90% of Shia and 81% of Kurds say the new government will be the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people.

However, despite significant participation by Iraq’s Sunnis in the December 15 parliamentary elections, an overwhelming majority rejects the validity of these elections. An extraordinary 94% of Sunnis say the elections were not free and fair. Ninety-two percent say that the new government resulting from the elections will not be the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people.

Sunni objections are not, however, predicated on the position that they have a unique right to dominate the government. Sunnis as well as other groups polled are nearly unanimous in supporting the position that “all groups should participate in the political process” (overall 97%, Sunnis 98%, Shia 97%, Kurds 93%).

Overall, 64% of Iraqis say that Iraq is heading in the right direction, while just 36% say it is heading in the wrong direction. This represents a sharp upward movement from when the International Republican Institute asked this question in November 2005 and just 49% said that Iraq was headed in the right direction and 36% said the wrong direction. The only other time that IRI has found such a high number expressing such optimism was in April 2005—also just after an election—when 67% said the country was headed in the right direction and 20% the wrong direction.

Among the Shia and Kurds optimism is even higher. Seventy-six percent of Kurds and 84% of Shia say they think the country is headed in the right direction.

Sunnis, though, are overwhelmingly pessimistic. A remarkable 93% say the country is headed in the wrong direction. (Trendline data by ethnic group was not released by IRI.)

Iraqis overall have a positive view of the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Asked, “Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?” 77% say it was worth it, while 22% say it was not.

Gallup asked the same question in April 2004. At that time, 61% said that it was worth it and 28% said that it was not.

However, here again, the ethnic divisions are very sharp. Ninety-eight percent of Shia and 91% of Kurds say the hardships were worth it, while 83% of Sunnis say they were not.

Since Sunnis largely reject the election outcome and the new government that will be formed, and harbor continued resentment about Saddam’s overthrow, the challenge is as strong as ever to make the Sunnis feel they are included in Iraq’s political process.

January 31, 2006


Go to Printer Friendly Version... Email to a friend...

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Hah,

Are you old enough to post here?

Originally posted by Tables R Us
I can cite a study by some economists (Rodrik and Rodriguez) that did statistical analysis to show that there isn't all that much evidence that free trade is positively correlated with economic growth:

Quote from article:
Buy the article

She's not electible, but some of the pro-union democrats are.

And I can find an expert that doesn't think the world is round. How do you account for the recent Irish miracle? Did they find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Like I said, practical experience trumps all theory. Singapore and Hong Kong both endorsed free trade during the second half of the last century. Do you think they did much better than their neighbors that didn't? China didn't Tawan did - how did that turn out? North Korea didn't, South Korea did - how did that turn out?

Burma right now rejects free trade - how is that working for them? Vietnam for years after the war with the US rejected free trade - how did that work for them? Recently they have been more embracing of free trade - how has that worked for them?

When Spain and Portugal entered the EEC (now the EU) they were forced to open their markets - how did that work for them? You can't cite me one example of where a country by closing their markets helped them? I can cite you examples all day of countries opening their markets and that benefitting them. In the real world there is no debate concerning the connection between free trade and growth. The debate just exists in some ignorant people's minds.

Originally posted by Tables R Us
She's not electible, but some of the pro-union democrats are.

Not electable for the nomination or in the general election? Show me a pro-union democrat candidate for president that can get through the democrat primary and I will show you a candidate that will insure a McCain victory.

I hope you and people like you strongly influence the Democrat nominating process. Maybe you will answer my prayers and nominate Howard Dean.

[Spanky]

Ty - go figure - the people agree with you...

:dance: :dance2:


Americans Support Full Due-Process Rights for Terrorism Suspects
Majorities Oppose Rendition of Suspects to Countries that Practice Torture

Most Believe Abu-Ghraib-type Abuses Still Occurring

Full Report
American Questionnaire/Methodology

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Bush Administration plans to try hundreds of foreign detainees before special military commissions, Congress has begun to grapple with the tough issue of how to set legal standards for the treatment and trial of those detained in the worldwide war on terror.

Crucial to this debate is whether the American people support due-process and human rights for terrorism suspects. A new poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org shows that the U.S. public, whether Republican or Democrat, strongly supports such protections. Robust majorities said that detainees should have the right to not be held indefinitely without charges or a trial, to have a lawyer, to have their treatment monitored by the Red Cross, and to neither be tortured nor threatened with torture.

A detainee is escorted to the medium-security facility at the U.S. Naval Station Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. (David P. Coleman/US Navy)

Americans also oppose the Bush Administration’s controversial policy of extraordinary renditions or sending detainees to countries known to interrogate prisoners under torture. Fifty-seven percent said military and intelligence agencies should not be allowed to carry out such secret transfers.

The findings demonstrate that Americans reject the argument that al Qaeda-style terrorists are illegal combatants who should not enjoy the protections of U.S. and international law. They also oppose denying due process rights on the basis of citizenship. By a two-to-one margin, most Americans said that the rules governing the treatment of terrorism suspects should be the same for citizens and non-citizens.

In addition, Americans are concerned that the way the U.S. government has treated detainees is undermining efforts to win international cooperation in the war on terror. And they believe that such treatment has angered Muslims around the world, increasing support for anti-American terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda.

The WPO Survey was conducted in the United States by Knowledge Networks, which interviewed 1,059 Americans June 27 to July 2. A similar poll was conducted in Great Britain, Germany, Poland and India.

Should Terrorism Suspects Have Due Process Rights?

Americans, whether Republican or Democrat, show high levels of support for giving detainees due-process protections whether they are captured outside or arrested inside U.S. borders. They also believe that the legal protections accorded terrorism suspects should be the same for U.S. citizens and non-citizens.

Respondents were asked about terrorism suspects captured outside of the United States who are not ordinary soldiers and were told that such prisoners had a number of rights according to international treaties, but that “some people say when someone is suspected of planning or committing terrorism, and is not a regular soldier, the person should not have certain rights.” Nonetheless in every case, support for legal protections was robust: 73 percent said such suspects should have the right to request and receive a hearing; 66 percent said their home government and families should be informed of their capture and location; 73 percent said their treatment should be monitored by the Red Cross or another international organization; 75 percent said they should not be tortured and 57 percent said they should not be threatened with torture.

Partisan differences were minor, except on the issue of whether interrogators should be allowed to threaten torture. Prohibiting such threats was supported by 67 percent of Democrats but only 50 percent of Republicans.

Another sample was asked a similar series of questions about the treatment of terrorism suspects “arrested in the United States.” Seventy-seven percent said such suspects should be given access to a lawyer; 60 percent said they should not be held indefinitely without charges or a trial;76 percent they should not be tortured and 61 percent said they should not be threatened with torture. Once again partisan differences were minor.

However, the size of the majority supporting such rights was a bit lower for terrorism suspects than for suspects in general. Separate samples were asked about the rights of detainees in general and about the rights of those suspected of terrorism. Significantly fewer respondents favored legal protections for terrorism suspects, with differences ranging from 4 to 14 points.

Should Non-citizens be Treated Differently?

Most Americans believe that foreign detainees should be given the same legal protections as American citizens. “Do you think that the rules for treating someone who is being detained because they are suspected of terrorist activities should or should not be the same for citizens and non-citizens?” respondents were asked. Sixty-three percent replied that the rules should be the same, while 33 percent say they should not.

A slightly smaller majority of Republicans (53%) said the rules should be same; 46 percent of Republicans favored different rules for American and foreign detainees.

Should Suspects Be Sent to Countries that Use Torture?

The Bush Administration’s practice of extraordinary renditions—secretly transporting detainees to another country, without charges or legal process—has generated international controversy. Some of the receiving countries have well-documented histories of using torture, but U.S. officials say they seek and receive assurances from foreign officials that the detainees will not be interrogated under torture.

Most Americans believe that the United States should not send terrorism detainees to countries known to torture prisoners. A very large majority believes that when suspects are sent to such countries, they probably are tortured, despite promises to the contrary.

A clear majority (57%) said “the United States should not permit U.S. military and intelligence agencies to secretly send terrorism suspects to other countries that are known to use torture,” while 37 percent disagreed. At the same time, a very large majority—78 percent—believed it somewhat (46%) or very (32%) likely that some of these suspects were tortured even if officials say they would not be.

This issue is one of the few where Americans divide along partisan lines. Fifty-four percent of Republicans said U.S. agencies should be allowed to secretly transfer detainees to such countries, while 41 percent said the practice should not be permitted. Among Democrats, 72 percent said these renditions should not be permitted. Most Democrats and Republicans, however, agreed that rendition led to torture. Seventy-five percent of Republicans and 84 percent of Democrats said that the torture of such detainees was somewhat or very likely.

Should the United States Follow U.N. Prescriptions at Guantánamo?

A slight majority of Americans—52 percent—said they thought the United States was treating the detainees held at Guantánamo in accordance with international law. However, when told that the U.N. Commission on Human Rights had determined U.S. practices at Guantánamo violated international conventions, a majority favored abiding by U.N. prescriptions. Sixty-one percent said the United States should change its practices at Guantánamo, while 31 percent said it should not.

Most Americans believe that the way the United States has treated the detainees at Guantánamo makes it harder to win international cooperation in the war on terror. Asked whether the negative international reaction to Guantánamo “weakens America’s ability to get other countries to cooperate,” 62 percent said it did. An even larger majority of 67 percent said that U.S. treatment of the detainees “makes people in the Muslim world angrier at the United States and more ready to support anti-American groups like al Qaeda”

Republicans were more skeptical than Democrats about the idea that U.S. detainee policies affected international support for the war on terror. Only 47 percent of Republicans, compared to 75 percent of Democrats, thought Guantánamo had undermined support. But there was bipartisan agreement that the negative reaction to Guantánamo had increased support for groups like al Qaeda: 58 percent of Republicans agreed as did 80 percent of Democrats.

Have Abuses Stopped at Military Prisons Overseas?

A majority of Americans believe that the kinds of abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq are still occurring, at least to some extent, in U.S. military prisons overseas. They also believe that only a few of those responsible have been punished, though most also think that low-ranking soldiers acted on their own without authorization.

Asked whether they thought the kinds of abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib might still be occurring at overseas military prisons today, only 12 percent said they thought such treatment had stopped. A large majority of 64 percent said that such abuses “have diminished but are still going on to some extent,” while 16 percent said they “are as widespread as before.” There was no significant difference on this issue between Republicans and Democrats.

When asked how many of “the key people responsible for the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison have been tried and punished,” fully three in five (60%) said “just a few.” Only 20 percent believed most or all of those responsible had been punished, while 12 percent said none had been punished. More Democrats (82%) believed that few or none had been punished, but 66 percent of Republicans shared this view.


July 17, 2006

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
Crucial to this debate is whether the American people support due-process and human rights for terrorism suspects. A new poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org shows that the U.S. public, whether Republican or Democrat, strongly supports such protections. Robust majorities said that detainees should have the right to not be held indefinitely without charges or a trial, to have a lawyer, to have their treatment monitored by the Red Cross, and to neither be tortured nor threatened with torture.

The poll shows a pro-terrorist bias. The poll ought to have asked whether the traditional protections for pirates (barely anything) are good enough for terrorists. If Americans knew that there was a traditional category of people entitled to "kill on sight" protection, they'd probably approve of subjecting terrorists to degrading and humiliating treatment.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
The poll shows a pro-terrorist bias. The poll ought to have asked whether the traditional protections for pirates (barely anything) are good enough for terrorists. If Americans knew that there was a traditional category of people entitled to "kill on sight" protection, they'd probably approve of subjecting terrorists to degrading and humiliating treatment.

On this subject we seem to agree. Unfortunately, even with the bias, its seems that the American public is more in line with Ty and Taxwonk on this one than they are with us.

:brick:

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
On this subject we seem to agree. Unfortunately, even with the bias, its seems that the American public is more in line with Ty and Taxwonk on this one than they are with us.

I think the American public would agree with us. However, the Republicans have done a shitty job explaining the issue. If you watch Meet the Press, This Week, Fox Sunday, and the like, you don't see the Republicans hammering home the point that pirates have NEVER been entitled to ANY protections under law. They don't tell the story that Thomas Jefferson used this theory to massacre the Barbary pirates. I don't know what the problem is, but the Republicans just don't seem to get the message out.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
I think the American public would agree with us. However, the Republicans have done a shitty job explaining the issue. If you watch Meet the Press, This Week, Fox Sunday, and the like, you don't see the Republicans hammering home the point that pirates have NEVER been entitled to ANY protections under law. They don't tell the story that Thomas Jefferson used this theory to massacre the Barbary pirates. I don't know what the problem is, but the Republicans just don't seem to get the message out.

I will agree with you that the administration has done a poor job of communicating its position on this one.

What are the rules on Pirates? Can the US government just seize a pirate in international waters and lock him up without trial? :cussing: I was trying to argue the other day that the US government is only restricted by the constitution in its own jurisdiction (in other words, if we seize a foreigner overseas he gets no constitutional protections), but didn't really have much to back that up. Do you have something to support this?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Does anyone else share Ty's opinon on this?

It's a meaningless generalization. The same thing can be said about the mean. So, if you want to throw out both the median and the mean as meaningless statistics, go ahead. But you're left with not much, so you'll be making your case based on unsupported and meaningless statements of belief.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
........ making your case based on unsupported and meaningless statements of belief.

if i win the next k-race this is the next thread title

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
The poll shows a pro-terrorist bias. The poll ought to have asked whether the traditional protections for pirates (barely anything) are good enough for terrorists. If Americans knew that there was a traditional category of people entitled to "kill on sight" protection, they'd probably approve of subjecting terrorists to degrading and humiliating treatment.

this was the point i made at first- and this is not me. that is, not Hank.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
I think the American public would agree with us. However, the Republicans have done a shitty job explaining the issue. If you watch Meet the Press, This Week, Fox Sunday, and the like, you don't see the Republicans hammering home the point that pirates have NEVER been entitled to ANY protections under law. They don't tell the story that Thomas Jefferson used this theory to massacre the Barbary pirates. I don't know what the problem is, but the Republicans just don't seem to get the message out.

Pirates? Please. Pre-Pirates of the Carribean, maybe. But now you'll just be faced with soccer moms contemplating the torture and death of Johnny Depp. Good luck with that.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Does anyone else share Ty's opinon on this?

Yes.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ty - go figure - the people agree with you...


Americans Support Full Due-Process Rights for Terrorism Suspects
Majorities Oppose Rendition of Suspects to Countries that Practice Torture

Imagine that, the citizens of the United States, a country built upon the recognition of human rights as a cornerstone of its political philosophy believe that the only requisite for deserving respect of their human rights is being human.

Hmmm. Who'd a thunk it?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's a meaningless generalization. The same thing can be said about the mean. So, if you want to throw out both the median and the mean as meaningless statistics, go ahead. But you're left with not much, so you'll be making your case based on unsupported and meaningless statements of belief.

Hey, if it's good enough for the President . . .

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Imagine that, the citizens of the United States, a country built upon the recognition of human rights as a cornerstone of its political philosophy believe that the only requisite for deserving respect of their human rights is being human.

Hmmm. Who'd a thunk it?

how did the "outlaw gay marriage" votes go?