The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- In Afghanistan Decision, Risks Abound
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Gitmo Reax
June 17, 2008 9:53 AM
Per our correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg, a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today may generate some reflections on last week’s Supreme Court ruling giving Guantanamo detainees the right of appeal in civilian courts. Our latest poll shows that ruling is not a popular one.
The result (which didn’t quite fit into our new political analysis, out today) finds that 61 percent of Americans oppose the high court’s ruling. That's consistent with other poll questions as far back as 2001 finding roughly six in 10 support for tribunals with no right of appeal in civilian courts.
There are substantial political, ideological, generational and educational divisions on the question. Civilian court appeals get more support from younger, highly educated (postgrad) and liberal adults; tribunals with no appeal are preferred especially by conservatives and Republicans. But only in one group - African-Americans - does a majority support civilian court appeals for Guantanamo detainees, as the Supreme Court's now ordered.
This is one of those questions (fairly unusual) in which we thought explication was needed. Asked as follows:
ABC/Post +/-3
14. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens
suspected of terrorism who are being held in Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, should be allowed to challenge their
detentions in the U.S. civilian court system. (Supporters
of this ruling say it provides detainees with basic
constitutional rights.) (Critics of the ruling say only
special military tribunals should be allowed, because
hearings in open court could compromise terrorism
investigations.) What's your view - do you think these
detainees should or should not be able to challenge
their detentions in the civilian court system?Should Should not No opinion 6/15/08 34 61 6
June 17, 2008 in National Security/Terrorism | Permalink | User Comments (8)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Well, we know Obama agrees with the decision. That speaks volumes!
Posted by: T | Jun 17, 2008 9:32:35 AM
I'm a bit confused. Terrorists destroy the world trade center. Their cohorts are hiding in Afganistan.
G.W. invades Iraq and brings it's citizens to Gitmo. So these people are guilty of . . . . .?
Posted by: DAVID NH | Jun 17, 2008 10:11:16 AM
DAVID NH: You certainly are confused. Can you site a single instance of an an Iraqi citizen being sent to Gitmo?
Posted by: T | Jun 17, 2008 10:17:18 AM
So now we know who exactly is being held there? If so, who? Where from? Accused of?
Posted by: DAVID NH | Jun 17, 2008 10:31:58 AM
McCain mentioned earlier that he will close down Guantanamo. But after the Supreme Court ruled on detainees, he calls it "one of the worst decision in the history of this country.
I do not get a clue at all where McCain stands!
Posted by: Peace | Jun 17, 2008 10:50:00 AM
Maybe I'm just stupid, but it would seem to be that the US Constitution is applicable only within US states. It would seem illogical to allow one aspect of Constitutional law to pertain to foreign nationals and not allow all laws to apply to foreign nationals. In other words, if we allow the right of habeas corpus, then is it not unconstitutional to discriminate against a foreign national by denying them Medicaid, food stamps, etc., even if they are not domiciled within the US?
Posted by: J Pryor | Jun 17, 2008 10:58:29 AM
Yes, if they are terrorists and there is evidence against them they should be tried, convicted and imprisoned. That should have been done 4 years ago. The question should be why haven't these people been tried and convicted yet. If there is no evidence against them, they should be released. It really isn't rocket science.
Also, I hope the first thing that obama does as president is stop all this we are in a war bs. Terrorists are criminals, treat them as such. Don't turn them into war heros for pete's sake and don't keep ginning up all this war of civilizations garbage.
this ruling allows that to happen
anyone who says otherwise is throwing our legal system under the bus and obviously doesnt understand it whatsoever
which isnt too hard to believe seeing as how bush has treated the constitution and the people willingly let him
Posted by: bhrandon | Jun 17, 2008 11:05:27 AM
T, his birth cert. is posted online
Posted by: Joe | Jun 17, 2008 11:08:28 AM
Post a comment
