Tweet
Hello Fire Dog Lake! The byline is not a misprint, and this is indeed Chris Bowers, formerly a full-time blogger for MyDD. In a little less than two weeks, I will be starting a new website with Matt Stoller and Mike Lux. In the meantime, Jane and Christy have been nice enough to allow me to post on Fire Dog Lake concerning a project we have been working on with The Alliance for Justice over the past month. Specifically, the project is a public opinion survey commissioned by the Alliance for Justice on Habeas Corpus and other civil liberties issues, and they are looking for input from the blogosphere on the construction of the poll. You can read the current draft of the survey here:
Alliance for Justice Habeas Corpus Poll Draft (PDF)
The current draft of the survey was written by Guy Molyneux of Peter Hart Research Associates, with some help from the MyDD community (for background information on the collaborative work that has taken place thus far, see here, here and here). In less than a week, the poll will go into the field. Appropriately, we will be asking Americans about civil liberties around July 4th. However, before the phone calls begin, Guy would like some more feedback on the survey. I am here today to ask the readers of Fire Dog Lake to check out the survey and, in the comments, offer him suggestions, revisions and other edits on how you feel the survey could be changed, expanded, improved or otherwise altered.
Alliance for Justice Habeas Corpus Poll Draft (PDF)
Now, there is an off chance that, like me, you are a polling geek who would jump at the chance to help draft a real public opinion survey and, as such, wouldn’t hesitate to read it over and offer suggestions. More likely, however, when presented with a proposal like this you may ask, “why should I help out some advocacy organization draft a poll on habeas corpus?” Either way, I can think of at least two good reasons why you should read this survey and offer suggestions on how to make it better.
First, polling helps set agendas. As such, the progressive netroots and blogosphere need to have a voice in how more polls are constructed. Whether we like it or not, polling helps campaigns, elected officials, and advocacy organizations determine how they frame messaging and construct legislation on a variety of issues. In fact, I would argue that they are right to do so because, when done properly, polling has been an accurate means of determining public opinion on any given issue for seventy years now. This poll will help not only the Alliance for Justice, but indeed the entire progressive ecosystem, determine how it will talk about Habeas Corpus another civil liberties issues in the national media. Further, it even has the potential to help determine how Democrats in Congress will approach legislation on this issue in the immediate future. Considering this, it is imperative for grassroots and netroots progressives to make sure that our best ideas and our messages are tested in polls like this sort. This is a process we cannot afford to sit out.
Second, as important as it is, polling is a political tool that has generally been out of the reach of grassroots and netroots activists. Simply put, telephone polls are expensive, and we in the progressive blogosphere cannot afford many of them. For quite some time now, we have struggled to find sustainable funding that will allow us simply to pay bloggers a living wage, or to provide them with health care. Given the shoestring budget on which the blogosphere operates, we just don’t have the resources to shell out $10,000–$20,000 on a single telephone poll. However, in this circumstance, the Alliance for Justice has offered to bring us into the process of drafting the poll, free of charge. So, we can take part in an important, agenda-setting process, and it won’t cost us anything. That sounds like a good deal to me.
So, help set the progressive agenda on Habeas Corpus and related civil liberties issues. Look over the survey. In the comments, let us know what you would like to see included in the survey that isn’t already there, and / or offer suggestions on how you think is currently in the survey can be improved. Guy Molyneux will be looking through them over the weekend, and incorporating your suggestions into his final draft. Also, even though I have to run for a few hours, I look forward to reading what you have to say as well. As I indicated above, I am indeed something of a polling geek, and any comments and questions people have about public opinion surveys are of great interest to me.
81 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
First?
fooey
Hey Chris, these silly statements have nothing to do with your post.
Welcome Chris!
looking for the poll . . . . ?
Where are the survey questions?
It’s not the PDF?
Thanks and welcome, Chris. Hope people take the time to look over the survey and give their thoughts. It’s an important issue and we appreciate both you and the Alliance for Justice stepping up to the plate.
Poll: pdf
http://www.mydd.com/images/use…..Survey.pdf
(there was a momentary hiccup and the links weren’t showing, refresh now and you’ll find them there).
If you “Have a Body” then you have the right to seek redress from the Court. It goes back to the Magna Carta. Very simple concept that shouldn’t even be up for discussion.
Remember when Gonzales made arguments that the Constitution does not expressly grant “Habeus Corpus” to the citizens? I wanted to smack that little shit upside the head. How does one get a law degree from Harvard and still put forth such an argument?
Hey Chris, good to see you here at the lake
one of my pet themes is “framing the discussion” and of course “framing the question”
most people don’t understand how habeas laws protect US and that’s because it’s usually discussed as;
“it violates the constitution”
or
“it’s who we are”
which of course is true but it doesn’t serve our cause
in the discussion we HAVE to put a face on habeas proteteciton…we have to make it personal
the only way to do that is to use real life language and put ourselves in a position without habeas protection
like so;
“I don’t want some maniac who happens to hold public office able to hold me in prison with no reason”
“I don’t want someone who wants to steal my business do it by makeing up crap about me and then keeping me from proving his supposed “evidence” is a lie”
“I don’t want some moron to be able to make up any law in his own head, make it up AFTER I was arrested and then make believe I committed some kind of crime”
“I better be able to show the people charging me are full of crap”
you see that?
we have to put a face on it, avoid the “technical” and get right down to why we ALL need habeas protection
I regularly fill out polls on line for Zogby. This seems a familiar format.
Sometimes I am very frustrated with the format of the questions, especially when there is an either/or choice, and I feel some option has been left out.
I have read the survey and made these notes:
3–B
5–A
10–B
13–I am left to wonder the choice between federal courts and federal judge. Does courts imply that there is a jury? Is there an option for a jury or is it really only a judge? If a judge is the only person who hears the case, then I think it is not good to imply the possibility of a jury as in “federal courts.”
15–B
17–B (absolutely)
19–B
21–Perhaps this should be 2 issues, separate them. Perhaps gives more emphasis.
23–12
Read the whole thing. It’s extremely thorough, but FWIW, it’s too long. Something a little more succinct and to the point, as perris #12 points out, might be desirable. Everything you need is here-I just think it could stand being edited for length, in order to encourage as broad a participation rate as possible. Nice work, though.
My $.02
I still get nothing, tried 4 times after refreshing.
Any other link?
Actually, Zogby’s polls are really long. This is not as long as what I see, normally.
Installing some long overdue updates, maybe something I should have done sooner. Then I will try again.
My $.02
It is long but in depth. However, is it possible to be a little more direct on some questions. I.E.,:
Q: Do you think the US Government should be allowed to lock you up because you are arguing with your neighbor and refuse to allow a lawyer or family or firends to know where you are? A; Strongly Agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree.
Q. Do you think the US Government should pay a bounty to the individuals who denounced you as a terrorist?
I understand the rationale for the somewhat bland style of quesitons, but sometimes, you have to get in the face of those who are being questioned and show them in real words exactly what it is they are supporting.
Yup.What dakine01 #18 said, as usual.
That’s quite a read!
A few things, what is the difference between Form A & B in your plan?
Q8, “some people” that phrase has come to have a specific meaning here abouts. Might you phrase it differently?
Q10, among the things listed is “due process” each of the other items listed is specific and makes sense to most people. “Due process” needs further definition IMO.
Q21 can there be an option that sites both statements as equal in weight?
At the end you are gathering demographics. On the online surveys that are done by Zogby they usually ask if you or anyone in your family is or was in the military. That might be helpful here.
That’s my 2 cents.
This morning in the Pentagon briefing with Gates and Pace, Gates (when asked about closing Guantanamo) stated that they want to be able to arrest and detain indefinitely prisoners and that they are trying to establish statute to make sure they can continue to enforce their policies.
Another thing he said after blaming Al Qaeda 10 times for all of the violence problems in Iraq, and for the bombings of the Golden mosque, a reporter asked him if he had actual evidence that it was Al Qaeda. He stalled…and then he said it was an “analytical conclusion”, but that he was not aware of any actual “evidence” that it was Al Qaeda!!!
Also, this morning on Washington Journal, American Enterprise Institute’s Thomas Donnelly, said that it is against the law for there to be political partisanship in the think tank. Anyone know if that is true, because if that is true….well, well, well.
Also, Wolfowitz is going back to work at AEI, and said he was getting back into politics and wants to work in the government again. Can you believe these people!!!
Some what OT..but when I saw that the SCOTUS had decided to look at the issue of Habeas and Gitmo, rather than being happy with the news, I have a feeling of dread and a sick feeling in my stomach. With Alito on the court, the fix may be in, and the theory of the unitary executive will become established law.
Believe as in a) is it true or b) as in gall?
a) little they ever say is true and b) they should all be in the hospital with piles of gall stones.
Steve @ 22
I had that same feeling. The appellate courts ruled in favor of defendants in 2 important cases. This gives SCOTUS the opportunity to turn the other decisions on their heads. Scary.
Steve @ 22
I’m thinking that is what Gates meant today when he said he wanted it basically set in stone by statute. They will fight tooth and nail. They are really scaring me these days.
RevDeb @ 23
http://thinkprogress.org/
LS @ 26
yep, I saw that before you posted. Wolfie is a piece of work, isn’t he? Maybe we can send him monogrammed combs covered in Brylcream as a welcome to the AEI gift.
RevDeb @ 27
Shudder…shiver…Ack Ack.
I’m pretty sure we’ve been coup’d.
OT, just received my copy of A Tragic Legacy.
Rev Deb, I see we are on the same wavelength WRT 21.
I do think that the questions should not lead. . .I like it to seem objective.
But it is instructive, a good thing IMO.
1. Way too long & I’m interested. Anyone else would hang up the phone after 11 or 12 Qs.
2. Replace “suspected” terrorist with “alleged” terrorist. The later is the normal legal phrase so I see not reason to depart from it, and the former conveys the impression that there is some probable cause to suspect them whereas in many cases they were a neighbor someone didn’t like who got turned in for a bounty.
3. Order of Qs is all wrong. Assume the average pollee doesn’t know much about the subject. So before asking them about what they think the legal situation should be, ask them attitudinal Qs that will get them thinking. For example, Q7 should precede Q6, Q16 and like Qs should be before any of the Qs about what legal remedy the pollee prefers.
And as for legal remedies, the Qs are way to detailed, both in terms of time it would take and the level of expertise (lack of) that respondents would have.
I’ve heard Hart’s name and think he’s a respectable poller. However, I’ve done a little polling in the economics field and our Qs were much simpler. I’m frankly surprised that a respectable poller would ask such detailed Qs, and wouldn’t begin to know what they’d hope to accomplish by asking them. After all, any legislation will be drafted by lawyers, not by pollees.
As for the political influence, remember how talk radio killed immigration reform. KISS. It wasn’t subtle or nuanced. If this poll hopes to make a political wave, it MUST be simpler.
RevDeb @ 24
I think the “gang of four” will try to do as much damage as possible before 01/20/09. Even with a Dem government after that date it is unlikely that there will be the 60 plus Dem Senators needed to undo all the bad shit these people have done and will do.
A few things, what is the difference between Form A & B in your plan?
This designation means that only one-half of the survey respondents will be asked the question (randomly selected). Usually, it’s done to allow us to see if a difference in wording of one of our arguments elicits a different response.
agree with eCAHNomics — too long and too wordy. As a teaching tool it might be useful as is, but as a poll you will lose people half way through.
I believe the most outrageous aspect of the government’s position on “enemy combatants” is that to avoid giving you due process, and to hold you indefinitely without trial,all the government has to do is label you as an “enemy combatant.” You have no right to contest the government’s decision to label you as an enemy combatant.
This is similar to the situation that would exist if, in order for a district attorney to hold you indefinitely in prison without trial on, for example a drug charge, all he/she would have to do is to label you as, say, a “Lawbreaker,” and you would have no legal right to contest the government’s decision to label you as a lawbreaker; there would be no requirement to show probable cause.
I don’t know how well most Americans understand this aspect of what it means to be denied the right of habeas corpus. In other words, they don’t realize the government could deprive them of all their rights, simply by labeling them as an enemy combatant.
I don’t know how adequately the survey in its present form treats this issue. When it asks whether “suspected terrorists” should or should not be given certain legal rights, it may cause some survey-takers to assume that there is some factual basis for describing them as “suspected terrorists.”
They need to understand that all the government has to do to treat someone as a “suspected terrorist,” or enemy combatant, is to label them as such, and that this could happen to any of us that the government decided, for whatever reason, to label as an enemy combatant (say, for example, U.S. citizens participating in a peaceful protest march).
So, perhaps, consideration should be given to whether the repeated use of the words “suspected terrorist” would cause the survey-taker to assume that some sort of factual basis, determined by some form of due process, is required in order to label a person as such.
The noun “terrorist” may tend to overwhelm the modifier “suspected.” I wonder whether the term “accused terrorist” or “accused enemy combatant,” or “person held in custody by the government, or some other term, would be any less prejudicial to the survey results.
Habeas Corpus? How can we support that silly little rule when we’re threatened by Terror, Murder, Car Bombs in England?
Emergency cabinet meeting in DC while dubya boats around with puti-put.
Come on America where are your priorities?
Don’t you want to feel safe while waiting in line for your iphone?
Arca @ 36
There should be a hefty take out the trash Friday load today. Car bombs in London will certainly take the spotlight.
I skipped over the comments, so I don’t know if this has been remarked: I think questions 9a and 9b should be omitted. Once you’ve asked someone a very general question like 9a and 9b, their gut reaction is likely to color their responses to subsequent specific policy questions, like the ones in 10a and 10b.
I think that eCAHNomics at 31, in point 2, says what I was trying to say, much more succinctly.
Emergency cabinet meeting.
Iran/Syria?
I’ll say what terrifies me: Bushco. Emergency cabinet meeting. I am terrified.
I’m assuming this length of poll is for in-depth results. Otherwise, yes, it is long. (I’ve gotten long polling on the phone. They at least said up front it was long. I hope that’s what’s planned.)
Q21: you really do need a ‘both’ option.
You’ll get people like me who have trouble picking out which of several choices is ‘most’ anything, too, maybe because to me the choices are all of a piece in the situation, and they don’t really come apart into neat little sections.
OT and maybe re-post but un-redacted DC court docs now available..show Rove was very close to being in the dock with Libby.
Court Reissues PlameGate Opinion Adding Karl Rove’s Name
http://www.talkleft.com/
link to pacer
There should be a hefty take out the trash Friday load today. Car bombs in Londen will certainly take the spotlight.
Agreed RevDeb!
They’re not even talking about Paris Hilton anymore!
to Chris Bowers
Are you proposing to attach something to a physical manifestation of Habeas Corpus or do you mean “……ABOUT Habeas Corpus”?
A general comment about legal rights–very few understand them until you’re cought up in them. Much less than half the pop has ever been in an adversarial legal proceeding, and a much smaller percentage has ever been up against all the power of the govt. I once got out of a federal jury by stating in voir dire that I thought the legal system was biased in favor of the side that had the most power & therefore I would vote against that side. (Case was a little old lady who was fabricating marriages to get illegal immigrants into the country. Her lawyer almost cried when I was excused.)
Another way to put the general subject is that Larry Flynt is the man we hate to love. In other words, when drawing lines to protect individuals’ rights, you have to draw them very far away (3 standard deviations?) from where the average person lives, to make sure that nothing that average people do is infringed.
But few understand that principle. If you listen to segments on Washington Journal that involve such subjects, a great % of callers say that they have nothing to hide and anyone who has nothing to hide should feel happy with govt doing anything.
Britain had an emergency cabinet meeting. Was there for sure one in DC as well?
neurophius @ 39
“Alleged” sounds dismissive of the charge, suggesting that the questioner thinks the charge is bogus. How about “accused tairist” (sorry), as a factual and neutral description.
dakine01 @ 18
Since this is a poll for the purpose of shaping opinion, asking the question both ways might be helpful. It seems to me that you’ll get different answers from many people depending one which threat you emphasize, terrorism or our own government.
Although I missed the opening minutes of Hardball, it appears that Tweety is devoting the full hour to the London bombing attempt.
So, as RevDeb and Arca said above, we should expect a substantial news dump today.
I’ve scanned this survey very quickly and need to scoot, but my top-line critique is that these are all opinion questions, and none of them knowledge assessments. I find that frustrating.
How about a starting with a series of questions that actually test respondents’ knowledge about habeas corpus and detainee rights under the Constitution, Geneva Conventions, and US statutes?
I commented a couple of weeks ago that if Americans had to answer a multiple-choice question on what “habeas corpus” means, a lot of them, maybe even a majority, would choose “the need for prosecutors to produce a corpse before trying a murder suspect.”
I’d recommend leading with key questions that will differentiate respondents who possess indisputably correct objective knowledge about the subjects you’re asking about from those who don’t.
Then you can stratify the opinions among the respondent pool as a whole, those who know something about what you’re asking about, and those harboring common (and potentially dangerous) misconceptions…along with all the traditional demographic subanalyses you typically see in these kinds of polls.
IOW, I want to see more opinion research that stratifies educated from uneducated opinions on the topics under review.
LS @ 47
Can those of you who have seen links to stories about emergency cabinet meetings please post them? Looking at the BBC’s site, I see nothing reported about an emergency cabinet meeting in Britain.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 52
Nor could I find any mention of an emergency cabinet mtg in the UK on a thorough google search, FWIW.
The survey is definitely too long and over wordy.
“Suspected terrorists” should be “alleged terrorists” since often they are held on allegations without evidence.
I’m not sure if you should include Q2 and Q3. Makes this issue sound too political. Keep your focus on the issue. Start with Q4.
Q6 is pretty hard to follow and if I was asked over the phone I doubt I would get it.
Q8 – Agree that “some people” should be changed. That is a political dodge.
Q9 – Poorly written question. Maybe: “In your opinion, should alleged terrorists who are not U.S. citizens be imprisoned by the government without the same legal rights as U.S. citizens?”
Q10 – That is a very long question. Each of those rights is really a seperate question.
Q12 is also really long. You’re trying to do too much here.
Q13 is a good one.
Q15 – forget it. No way would I be able to answer this question coherently over the phone.
Maybe what you want to do is have a general opening statement that gives background on the issue of detentions. Tyring to shoehorn all this info into the questions is deadly.
And what about a general definition of habeus corpus and its importance?
Q17 is good.
Q18-20 are too complex to ask on a poll.
Q23 – OMG! Are you kidding me?
Q24 and 25 are good.
This is a great effort and I applaud the hard work that has gone into it. However, to be an effective poll (especially over the phone!) you REALLY need to simplify. Most of these read like essay questions.
I’m very supportive of the issue, and I would never sit through this entire thing on the phone.
Have you practiced this script? How long do you expect it to take?
Think simple. And good luck.
Stephen if you go to the bbc uk site it says they are meeting Saturday.
newspaperbrat @ 53
Very strange. They reported this morning on the news. I just saw an article that mentioned it, and when I went to link to it, I got kicked off the internet. I went back to it, and couldn’t find the same article, but I did find this:
http://www.axcessnews.com/inde…..w/id/11442
Chris,
Q12 Next, you will read three current federal government policies for dealing with people being detained as
suspected terrorists. These policies apply only to people who are not U.S. citizens. For each one, please
indicate whether you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of
this policy.
1. The detainees, called “enemy combatants,” are tried by secret military tribunals, not in the courts
——————————————————————————————————————–
In one of the recent court or military appellate decisions the terms “enemy combatants” & “unlawful enemy combatants” were taken to task. The term “enemy combatants” simply means prisoners of war, and they can not be tried in the tribunals set up by the Military Commissions Act. There are very few “unlawful enemy combatants”, whatever they are, at Guantanamo. The classification of “unlawful enemy combatants” is under review, and your question about them is not really accurate, I don’t think.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6255960.stm This link discusses meetings that occurred and the meetings tomorrow.
Way OT but needed to be pointed out…
Bernie Kerik was just on Tucker (hosted by Shuster thank goodness) to pontificate on the London bomb threat.
Yes, Bernie FUBAR-everything-I-touch Kerik.
These people need a more expansive Rolodex.
Chris,
What a great opportunity, thanks for sharing it.
All in all this seems like a well-crafted, neutrally phrased poll with the few minor exceptions noted below.
I’ve done a bit of polling and surveying and admit to being a rather picky when it comes to phrasing questions in an unbiased manner and, in the case of political polls, also trying to treat each party equally. That would include randomizing the options, e.g. don’t present the options in the same order for every caller: Bush, Dems, Repubs. Mix it up.
Otherwise, here are my recommendations:
Q2 – Add Approve/Disapprove of
a. job Democrats are doing in Congress
b. job Republicans are doing in Congress
Q10a & 10b – I agree with Rev Deb that it would help to define ‘due process’.
10a5- recommend striking ‘eventually’, so it reads ‘unless they are charged with a crime’
Q13a &13b – Detainees are referred to as ‘he’. Are there any female detainees? If yes, then rephrase to ‘he or she’.
Also, earlier questions refer to a ’secret military tribunal’. For consistency do you want to use this phrase in Q13 instead of ‘military? Or do you think repeatedly using ’secret military tribunal’ would bias the results?
Q15 – all the statements seem a bit long, but I don’t have a suggestion on how to trim them. Sorry, not too helpful on this one.
Q18, Statement A – I think it would be clearer to most people to phrase the first sentence, ‘Supporters of the legislation say the right have a judge review someone’s detention, called ‘habeas
corpus,’…’
Q23.7 – drop the word ‘valiant’, it’s too value-laden.
Q24 – Ranking seven options is too many. Reduce it to no more than five. Consider adding an “OTHER’ option, even though coding the responses will be a pain.
QF6 – Shouldn’t you add ‘Muslim’ to be equitable?
JPL @ 58
Thank you for your 3:07 pm comment. From the link you provided above, I see this excerpt:
Whew- just back from workin- so what’s President DickHead up to today?
rwcole @ 62
Well, after he heard about the alleged attempted terrorist bombings in London, he went fishing, declining to call Prime Minister Brown to lend moral support or whatever (perhaps snubbing him for not being Tony Blair and being less supportive of the war in Iraq?)
rwcole @ 62
Trying to whittle UK bombs into Iran war… developing.
Chris:
May have read through your post too quickly, but I did not catch how we communicate our suggestions to you about the survey. (I apologize if I just missed it.)
newtonusr @ 64
Timing stinks…in fact the whole thing stinks.
new thread upstairs – just FYI
rwcole @ circa 62:
Well you’re still here so you know that he didn’t drop the BIG ONE!!!
Chris!
This is a late drive-by, because I’m at work, but I wanted to welcome you to FDL, and add an Amen! to your Habeas Corpus project! I’ll try to provide some feedback today, later if not soon.
Again, welcome!
Bob in HI
Take out the trash day.
I believe the question that specifically references Mohammed Sheik Khalid is too biased. His is the only name mentioned but as far as I know, there is no more proof against him than any of the others (coerced confessions don’t count). He still has a right to a trial, no?
It’s too long for a phone interview; some of these questions require re-reading. It’s more like a take-home exam.
I agree with others when they wrote that people should be divided between what they know already and what they do not know so as to better understand the answers you are given. Too many poll results these days offer conflicting results, something for everyone, so it would be nice to know when the confusion arises, as it will, whether it was the poll or the pollee.
One question — security or freedom presents a dilemma and I don’t think it offers much in the way of information. Don’t most people want both — unless they already see it as a “code” question?
RevDeb @ 70
A lot of empty offices over there…
read the first q in your proposed survey re voter registration. if i read it correctly, only registered voters can do the poll, yah? sounds a bit limiting.
remember 10-17-06!
peas!
eCAHNomics @ 31
Length is an important issue. Perhaps in training interviewers, if this is to be read over the phone, coach the interviewers to thank the interviewee periodically, and express appreciation for their opinions.
This is a good point, too. In fact, I’d almost rather you used “so-called” instead of “alleged” :-)
Whatever the order is, it is important. The order of the questions should be carefully thought through, because each question helps set the context for the next question. Of course, this is what push-polls do, to an obscene degree, but no poll can avoid inter-question influence. If an example is needed, think of this: suppose the questions are:
#6a. Why do people think that George Bush is such a blockhead?
#7. Do you think George Bush is a blockhead?
Now pull #6 and substitute this alternative:
#6b. Where do people get the crazy idea that George Bush is a blockhead?
Whether Question #7 is preceded by Q6a or Q6b will obviously influence the answers to #7.
I’m betting that the order here is not accidental, but don’t know of course what thoughts have gone into the order issue.
I’ve encountered many of these questions in questionnaire construction with my job, but we didn’t do political polling, and I don’t pretend to any expertise. (I know the questions; I just don’t know the answers!)
Bob in HI
1. re the repetition of the phrase “terrorist”, what if you just said “accused person” or something like that?
2. you ask have they been following the news… what about asking where they get their news? that would be enlightening.
3. also, is there any distinction made between how an accused US citizen and an accused other nationality is, or should be treated?
*poof*
(A ragged, limping, barely visible scrap of ectoplasm appears, wavering….)
Just a brief hello from Al The Spook with three very heartfelt comments about life, the universe, and everything:
1) Do NOT, repeat NOT try to play frisbee with your grandkid and her friends on a lawn which has just absorbed 10 inches of rain. Reason: slip slidin away. I was lucky, no broken bones but a bad sprained wrist and bruises all over. Ech.
2) Under no circumstances believe that when you need to sleep, any vagrant piece of construction machinery in the continental US won’t waft its way to the street outside your home and begin performing unnatural acts on the concrete and any other machine within range. I sweartaghod I was looking for my MANPAD by about noon…
3) For my sins, I have tried to answer all the questions in the comments on my blog. Clicking on the comments links should display them. There won’t be a post until monday, because I have to let my left wrist heal.
And to all of you, particularly the professionals who have rendered me such high praise, thank you. I deserve it. Yes! Recognized at last! Now my hordes of….oh, wrong script, sorry! Seriously, my blushes and my thanks. All I promise is the best analysis I can deliver, until we are safely out of this mess, or until we are in the furball. If the latter, the rethugs will learn the hard way that I am not a nice man. If they break the constitutional covenant of our nation, and they are dayam close right now. the wrath of heaven is going to land right between their eyes. The August Emperor of Jade has had enough of this crap. And so have I.
I will lurk later in the comments, and may post if I can get the pain easy. Otherwise, be excellent to each other.
Note to self. QUIT WRITING WAR AND PIECE IN THE COMMENTS. Dweeb.
I believe this is wonderful, but perhaps a bit too long and repetitive.
Per your call for ideas I went a little bonkers. FWIW, here are a few changes I’d make:
10A – Explain “Due Process” in parentheses for those who might not know what that entails.
21 – Reword to “Do you think it is more important to … ” Then add “because” followed by the choices. Add “Both are equally important” as a choice.
22- Last sentence with the scale seems redundant. I’d remove the sentence & place the scale at the top, revising the original explanation to incorporate it.
23-4 In the last sentence, after “the government makes too many mistakes” add “, is to slow to correct or unwilling to admit to mistakes, or…”
23-8 Add the phrase “creating questionable legal authorities such as” before “the military commission.”
23-9 (I’m a pacifist and I believe tone is important in any conflict resolution. Respectfully stating our case, even when we vehemently disagree with someone elevates our standing and makes us appear more reasonable. Rather than using language that attacks others or appears disrespectful, we would be better to point out that we do not agree with some of their policies.) It is not necessary to name any specific country. I would suggest a) removing the country names and say “some countries” and b) change the last sentence to something like “That is not a policy America has historically chosen to embrace.”
23- Last sentence with the scale seems redundant. I’d remove the sentence & place the scale at the top, revising the original explanation to incorporate it.
Note: I lost track of the pdf halfway thru this, so some of the wording may not be exact, but I believe you’ll get my drift if you read the questions.
Sorry if I went overboard. I’m a writer by trade and a political junkie by nature and I can’t seem to help myself. ;>)
Bless ya and good luck in this endeavor.
this is a rapid response, but I was wondering if there should be questions specifically dealing with the whole “don’t you know there’s a war on” class of argument in dealing with this issue of civil liberties….whether being in a “state of war” means that civil liberties must be curbed (and whether we are really in a “state of war” to begin with.
if I have the time and opportunity, perhaps I’ll try to fashion some questions
Guy and Chris
I see that there are 2 forms – A and B . However they both begin by talking about terrorists and I think that by doing that you have already predetermined the outcome. which will be pretty negative in terms of restoring Habeas Corpus- which is what this poll is supposed to be abou and not about terrorists..
I think you should begin by either talking about Habeas Corpus — its long history or at the very least begin by asking people questions to see if they have any kind of understanding about what role Habeas has had in protecting people from unjust Kafkaesque imprisonment and as a bulwark against tyrranny in general
I’m on the board of NARAL/NY and if we began a poll about abortion talking about sexy, irresponsible adolescents we’d be PRIMING THE UNCONSCIOUS THOUGHT PROCESS (read The Political Brain by Drew Westen who is a psychologist who’s work with political thought processes –conscious and unconscious in terms of actually measuring them in neuroscientific ways, This book is an absolute must for any pollster who does polling and /or focus groups)
I know that at the end of this lengthy poll there are a whole series of mitigating observations posing as questions, but I think that the terrorist reference at the beginning makes this less valuable or helpful in terms of guidance to decisionmakers as you would like.
Secondly there are some who think that the Bush administration’s assault on Habeas is not just confinable to “terrorists’ at Gitmo, but can be used against Americans in general by just having GWB designate them as an unlawful enemy combatant. Indeed by making this more about their loss of rights rather than those awful terrorists loss of rights, the poll could provide better LEADERSHIP VALENCY TO THE LAWMAKERS AND THOSE DOING A CAMPAIGN TO RESTORE HABEAS.
Polling is intended to both see where people are but it is also about bringing them to a place you would like them to go — but about issues they don’t know much about — and Habeas is one of them — the poll itself provides that guidance. People can easily have multiple, ambivalent, conflicted feelings about something and the way this poll is presently constructed it frames Habeas in the least friendly arena possible.
Polls should help clear the way in a forest so that you can find the emotional and rational arguments (though emotional is always a stronger way to effect real change–again read The Political Brain) that will will give leadership the path to getting from the dangerous present to the restoration of Habeas.
Too often polls only reenforce the status quo, because they take the arguments as they are now. But polling should also provide a key to how LEADING on an issue can actually CHANGE the status quo.
I reitierate that I think you need to begin the poll differently. Or at least test this out by doing asking a a smaller group within the larger set of pollees to take this suggested version.
Q9/10 – It sounds like you are asking if terrorists should get “special” rights. How about a question immediately before it generically asking if an “American citizen” accused of “any” criminal act should have these rights. Then a follow-up question just after it asking the person being surveyed if they were accused of being a terrorist if they’d like those same “special” rights…
Q18 – This administration’s illegal wiretapping alone invalidates statement B that American citizens retain ALL their Constitutional rights.
Q23.3 Perhaps another question along these lines about how our own troops, if taken prisoner by another country, would expect those quaint Geneva Conventions to apply to them too. This policy isn’t helping them either.
Q23.4 Clarity. How about “Current policy allows the government to hold…”
Q25 If someone is a real terrorist, it should not be difficult to come up with some actual evidence of this, which, even with habeas in effect, will keep genuine bad guys locked up. Our legal system is (or should be anyway) based on more than gossip and innuendo.
I ran this by a friend who is a recovering pollster (RP).
RP’s main comment: split sample the entire poll, using the phrase “suspected terrorist” in one half and “detainees” in another.
We need to know what language to use. Using the phrase “suspected terrorist” buys into the Republican framing of the issue. Would “imprisoned” or “prisoners” work better?
Another key issue: compare results from winter 2001 and summer 2002 to a base question on willingness to sacrifice liberties for security. Presumably Hart has that in their databanks. Has there been movement on the protecting from terrorism vs. protecting civil liberties issue, and in which demographics? That would be useful info for a habeas fight.
Factuals comments:
QF6a – ask about religiosity, rather than religion.
QF7 – if urban, ask where. Do they live in NYC, WashDC, or Seattle? This might make a big difference in their responses.