50-Point Swing Against Targeted Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens

[jimmy olsen]

Seems Paul has shifted the narrative on this.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/25/a_50_point_swing_against_targeted_drone_killings_of_u_s_citizens.html

A 50-Point Swing Against Targeted Drone Killings of U.S. Citizens

By David Weigel
Posted Monday, March 25, 2013, at 10:08 AM

A year ago, as the presidential race was taking shape, The Washington Post's pollster asked voters whether they favored the use of drones to kill terrorists or terror suspects if they were "American citizens living in other countries." The net rating at the time was positive: 65 percent for, 26 percent against.

Today, after a month of Rand Paul-driven discussion of drone warfare, Gallup asks basically the same question: Should the U.S. "use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?" The new numbers: 41 percent for, 52 percent against.

The lede of the poll is even kinder to Paul, finding as high as 79 percent opposition to targeted killing in the United States. But that's a new question. On the old question, we've seen a real queasy swing of public opinion.

[DGuller]

Hmm, 79% are against targeted killings in the US?     That's a very scary number.  Hopefully the other 21% just didn't understand the question.

[fhdz]

Hmm, 79% are against targeted killings in the US?     That's a very scary number.  Hopefully the other 21% just didn't understand the question.

The other 21% are keeping an Enemies List.

[dps]

This might just be an illustration of how the way you phrase a question affects the answer. 

If you ask, "Do you favor the use of drones to kill terrorists or suspected terrorists in foreign countries, even if they are American citizens?", people are going to focus on the "kill terrorists" part, and that will lead a lot of people to answer "yes".

If you ask, "Should the U.S. use drones to launch airstrikes in other countries against U.S. citizens living abroad who are suspected terrorists?",  people are going to focus more on the "suspected" part, which might lead even people who would answer "yes" to the earlier question to say, "no".  (There would also be more focus on the "U.S. citizens" part, which would likely have the same affect.)

[Razgovory]

This might be an example of why you shouldn't post shit from Slate.

[jimmy olsen]

Often a legitimate criticism, but not in this case. Any criticisms you have should be aimed at the respective polsters.

[Martinus]

Why on Earth would poll results be relevant to national security? 

[fhdz]

Why on Earth would poll results be relevant to national security? 

...because people here vote?

[Valmy]

...because people here vote?

Well....some of us anyway.

[Valmy]

Seems Paul has shifted the narrative on this.

This is the exact sort of thing I was hoping Rand would do.  Glad to see it.

[Razgovory]

Often a legitimate criticism, but not in this case. Any criticisms you have should be aimed at the respective polsters.

But it's not that relevant a question.  Exactly how many Americans have been killed by drone strikes?  I doubt very many.  The other question about strikes in the US is even less relevant.  I don't think it's ever happened.

[Maximus]

The drones are irrelevant. Killings are justified or not regardless of the tools used to accomplish them.

[Valmy]

Often a legitimate criticism, but not in this case. Any criticisms you have should be aimed at the respective polsters.

But it's not that relevant a question.  Exactly how many Americans have been killed by drone strikes?  I doubt very many.  The other question about strikes in the US is even less relevant.  I don't think it's ever happened.

So therefore we should set policies now before allowing precedent to do so for us.

[derspiess]

The other question about strikes in the US is even less relevant.  I don't think it's ever happened.

So it's best not to think about it at all, then?

[DontSayBanana]

But it's not that relevant a question.  Exactly how many Americans have been killed by drone strikes?  I doubt very many.  The other question about strikes in the US is even less relevant.  I don't think it's ever happened.

It hasn't.  In fact, Eric Holder gave one of his rare, definite, no-strings-attached "no" answers when asked whether that could happen.  Clearly, Rand Paul should have been an Italian prosecutor- he won't stop until he tricks somebody into giving the answer he suspects.