Torture is un-American, ineffective, and illegal. That hasn't stopped President Bush, but the next president would be wise to adopt policies that not only adhere to the rule of law and U.S. treaty obligations, but also the strong views of the vast majority of Americans. "America stands against and will not tolerate torture," said President Bush in 2004. He was right about that, even if he didn't practice what he preached.
That fact is vividly demonstrated in a recent national poll of likely presidential election voters -- conducted for the ACLU by the Washington, D.C. firm of Belden Russonello & Stewart -- that documents a broad, bipartisan consensus on the issue of torture: Americans are against it, pure and simple.
The poll shows that 81 percent of Americans -- including 80 percent of Democrats, 74 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of independents -- believe the U.S. should obey the law and oppose the use of torture. These strongly-held views underscore the pernicious deceit of the Bush administration's secret torture policies -- as revealed in this week's New York Times article.
The Times reported that just a few months after the Bush administration publicly declared in December 2004 that, "Torture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms," it secretly and explicitly authorized the combined use of brutal physical and psychological techniques -- torture techniques -- on detainees in U.S. custody. As I recounted yesterday, l Alberto R. Gonzales' Justice Department endorsed the most barbaric interrogation practices ever used by the CIA and wrote another secret memo in an attempt to shield interrogators who tortured people in U.S. custody from criminal liability.
It's not a surprise that these memos were adopted and carried out in secret. Apparently even the Bush administration knew it was doing something terribly wrong, something it felt it needed to hide. And it remained hidden for over two years (the 2005 opinions are still in effect today), until this week's revelations.
Perhaps they tried so hard to keep it secret because Americans oppose torture. The poll also found that a substantial majority of Americans also oppose a whole host of attacks the Bush administration has leveled on our civil liberties. Voters also want our next president to restore habeas corpus, stop warrantless eavesdropping and close the prison at Guantánamo Bay. Fifty-nine percent of all voters -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- want the next president to do more to protect civil liberties.
And it is not just presidential candidates who should take note. Nearly half of likely voters -- including 74 percent of Democrats -- believe that the Democrat-controlled Congress has not done enough to check the power of President Bush. Congress is a co-equal branch of government and Americans expect Congress to protect the Constitution -- including protecting it from presidential attacks.
Democratic voters are angry because they expected the new Congress to act as a real check on the executive branch, which has been running roughshod over our Constitution. Instead, this Congress has been negligent and timid when it comes to protecting our civil liberties, caving in to the Bush administration out of fear of looking "soft on terrorism."
This Congress has thus far failed freedom. They have given president a blank check when it comes to warrantless spying, torture and other violations of our civil liberties. Americans are more than just disappointed: they are livid. Sixty-eight percent of all voters say the president should not be acting on his own in deciding how to fight terrorism without the checks and balances of the courts or Congress.
Congress has an opportunity right now to start standing up for the Constitution as they prepare to vote on a bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and possibly permanently grant vast new spying powers to Bush and all future presidents, with no meaningful oversight by Congress or any court. Nationally, 58 percent of Americans -- including a majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- want the government to get a warrant before eavesdropping on our telephone calls.
As the election heats up, I encourage you to ask the candidates -- both for President and for Congress -- where they stand when it comes to the Constitution and the rule of law. Ask them:
o Will you oppose torture - Yes or No?
o Will you define "enemy combatant" - Yes or No?
o Will you require the government to get a warrant to listen to Americans' phone calls and read Americans' emails - Yes or No?
o Will you restore habeas corpus - Yes or No?
o Will you close Guantánamo - Yes or No?
Let's not give them room for platitudes and broad policy statements. Demand a "yes" or "no." Some things really are that simple.
There is a mandate for change, and the presidential candidates as well as members of Congress should take note: voters want the attacks on the Constitution to end now.
Loading comments… 
But they are sure not doing anything about it.
Never have so many saved lives caused such anger.
Then how come we torture Iraqi insurgents
It seems there is a public/pri
Are all of those being tortured involved in conspiraci
So our rationale for using torture is just bogus, designed to scare the public into supporting torture based upon a scenario that never is even close to happening when we actually torture people.
But that's OK. As long as there is a scenario, we simply use torture on anyone we feel like using it on. And as the Right to Torture Act (Military Commission
The answer -- let's have a meaningles
Why can't someone like you ask the questions of those running for president. I'd really like answers to some concrete questions such as the ones you posed.
On the debates, are the questions vetted by the candidates or their staff to make sure they aren't questions the candidates would prefer not to answer?
Do you feel the ACLU is subversive to American ideals? Yes or no.
Do you trust the ACLU? Yes or no.
The above two questions illustrate how agenda driven groups, right-wing
Mister Romero you gave your opinion based questions for the poll, anything unimpeacha
(Oh BTW, my answers to the example questions are no and no. )
At this point these guys could be angels but everyone would still assume they were doing bad things because of thier secracy. Ok that and everything we do know that points to evil doing.
We have been torturing prisoners just like every other country ever since we had prisoners. In every war, under every president whether Democrat or Republican
When I was in basic training at Ft. Dix, we were assured that if we were captured in combat, we would be tortured. Officially
War is hell. Terrible things happen. Terrible things are done sometimes purposely, sometimes by mistake. But let me assure you that no nation can survive moral, in this immoral world.
Absolute BS Mr. bean22. If we claim that we hold the moral high ground then we must behave that way. We must fight with one hand tied behind our back - so to speak. Otherwise we can claim no distinctio
Second, ever since the 2nd world war we have been fighting with one hand behind our backs, and you can see what it gets you. Korea, Nam and Iraq II.
Third, there is no moral high ground in war. Everyone tortures their prisoners and always has. Wars are not fought by clergymen, but by tough, miserable, sons-of-bi
Right now, there is an enormous distinctio
So don't think fighting with one arm behind our backs is going to get us any.
Then there's the twisted minority that would like to hear the screams...
The definition in the dictionary was not good enough.
"I do torture the English language," would mean to mispronoun
The definition of "organ failure or death" was taken from language in a statute dealing with when a person must be given medical care by the federal government
Yes, we should pin these candidates down - figurative