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.

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 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.

if I have the time and opportunity, perhaps I’ll try to fashion some questions

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.

(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.

1. Way too long & I’m interested. Anyone else would hang up the phone after 11 or 12 Qs.

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.

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.

This is a good point, too. In fact, I’d almost rather you used “so-called” instead of “alleged” :-)

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. . . .

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

remember 10-17-06!

peas!

Take out the trash day.

A lot of empty offices over there…