SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Poll Reveals Widespread Support for US Drone Program 'That Doesn't Exist'
Even more troubling, close to half of all respondents said they would back drone strikes where law-abiding Americans were possible collateral damage
May 01, 2015
Despite President Barack Obama's recent admission that drones had inadvertently killed two innocent hostages during strikes on suspected militants in Pakistan, a new poll released Friday reveals that nearly 75 percent of Americans say it's acceptable to use such drones to kill an American citizen abroad if that person is said to have "joined a terror organization."
The poll, conducted by the Associated Press and the GfK Group between April 23-27, also found that a majority--6 in 10--supports the use of drones to target "terrorists" in general. Only 13 percent oppose the use of drones altogether, the poll said, and another 24 percent don't feel strongly either way.
"What [poll] does show is broad [American] support for a drone program that doesn't exist."
--Dan Froomkin & Jon Schwarz, The Intercept
Strikingly, close to half of all respondents (47 percent) said they would back drone strikes where law-abiding Americans were possible collateral damage.
According to the AP:
The survey is the latest in several years of data showing broad support among the U.S. public for a targeted killing program begun under President George W. Bush and expanded dramatically under Obama. While the U.S. once condemned Israel for targeted killing from the air, such operations are now the centerpiece of American counterterrorism policy, and they enjoy widespread public backing.
Support for targeted killing with drones crosses party lines, the new poll found. Nearly 6 in 10 Democrats favor using drones to bomb members of terrorist groups, while only 16 percent are opposed. Among Republicans, 72 percent are in favor and only 10 percent are opposed. Independents are more ambivalent, with 45 percent in favor and 12 percent opposed; 37 percent are neutral on the issue.
However, as Dan Froomkin and Jon Schwarz point out at The Intercept on Friday, the poll responses belie a lack of understanding among average Americans of the true nature of the U.S. drone program:
The problem is the U.S. drone program does much more than kill members of al-Qaida: it also kills a significant number of civilians, and drone operators often don't even know exactly whom they're targeting. So the AP's own poll doesn't show, as the story claims, "broad support among the U.S. public for a targeted killing program begun under President George W. Bush and expanded dramatically under Obama." What it does show is broad support for a drone program that doesn't exist.
Froomkin and Schwarz highlight this passage from the AP's own reporting: "The poll did not include questions about foreign civilian casualties or about public confidence in the government's assertion that the vast majority of those killed in drone strikes are terrorists."
The journalists suggested the poll would get much different responses if different questions were asked. They wrote, "We'd prefer a question like: 'Do you support the U.S. government killing Americans who it claims to be involved in terrorism, without charges, trial or a lawyer?'"
According to the Bureau for Investigative Journalism, since 2002 there have been up to 548 drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan, which have resulted in more than 1,000 civilian deaths.
A poll conducted by The Hill last year also found that of the 1,000 Americans polled (a bipartisan group of likely voters), most were "inclined to support the government in its lethal attacks on citizens and non-citizens it deems to be terrorists."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
Despite President Barack Obama's recent admission that drones had inadvertently killed two innocent hostages during strikes on suspected militants in Pakistan, a new poll released Friday reveals that nearly 75 percent of Americans say it's acceptable to use such drones to kill an American citizen abroad if that person is said to have "joined a terror organization."
The poll, conducted by the Associated Press and the GfK Group between April 23-27, also found that a majority--6 in 10--supports the use of drones to target "terrorists" in general. Only 13 percent oppose the use of drones altogether, the poll said, and another 24 percent don't feel strongly either way.
"What [poll] does show is broad [American] support for a drone program that doesn't exist."
--Dan Froomkin & Jon Schwarz, The Intercept
Strikingly, close to half of all respondents (47 percent) said they would back drone strikes where law-abiding Americans were possible collateral damage.
According to the AP:
The survey is the latest in several years of data showing broad support among the U.S. public for a targeted killing program begun under President George W. Bush and expanded dramatically under Obama. While the U.S. once condemned Israel for targeted killing from the air, such operations are now the centerpiece of American counterterrorism policy, and they enjoy widespread public backing.
Support for targeted killing with drones crosses party lines, the new poll found. Nearly 6 in 10 Democrats favor using drones to bomb members of terrorist groups, while only 16 percent are opposed. Among Republicans, 72 percent are in favor and only 10 percent are opposed. Independents are more ambivalent, with 45 percent in favor and 12 percent opposed; 37 percent are neutral on the issue.
However, as Dan Froomkin and Jon Schwarz point out at The Intercept on Friday, the poll responses belie a lack of understanding among average Americans of the true nature of the U.S. drone program:
The problem is the U.S. drone program does much more than kill members of al-Qaida: it also kills a significant number of civilians, and drone operators often don't even know exactly whom they're targeting. So the AP's own poll doesn't show, as the story claims, "broad support among the U.S. public for a targeted killing program begun under President George W. Bush and expanded dramatically under Obama." What it does show is broad support for a drone program that doesn't exist.
Froomkin and Schwarz highlight this passage from the AP's own reporting: "The poll did not include questions about foreign civilian casualties or about public confidence in the government's assertion that the vast majority of those killed in drone strikes are terrorists."
The journalists suggested the poll would get much different responses if different questions were asked. They wrote, "We'd prefer a question like: 'Do you support the U.S. government killing Americans who it claims to be involved in terrorism, without charges, trial or a lawyer?'"
According to the Bureau for Investigative Journalism, since 2002 there have been up to 548 drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan, which have resulted in more than 1,000 civilian deaths.
A poll conducted by The Hill last year also found that of the 1,000 Americans polled (a bipartisan group of likely voters), most were "inclined to support the government in its lethal attacks on citizens and non-citizens it deems to be terrorists."
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
Despite President Barack Obama's recent admission that drones had inadvertently killed two innocent hostages during strikes on suspected militants in Pakistan, a new poll released Friday reveals that nearly 75 percent of Americans say it's acceptable to use such drones to kill an American citizen abroad if that person is said to have "joined a terror organization."
The poll, conducted by the Associated Press and the GfK Group between April 23-27, also found that a majority--6 in 10--supports the use of drones to target "terrorists" in general. Only 13 percent oppose the use of drones altogether, the poll said, and another 24 percent don't feel strongly either way.
"What [poll] does show is broad [American] support for a drone program that doesn't exist."
--Dan Froomkin & Jon Schwarz, The Intercept
Strikingly, close to half of all respondents (47 percent) said they would back drone strikes where law-abiding Americans were possible collateral damage.
According to the AP:
The survey is the latest in several years of data showing broad support among the U.S. public for a targeted killing program begun under President George W. Bush and expanded dramatically under Obama. While the U.S. once condemned Israel for targeted killing from the air, such operations are now the centerpiece of American counterterrorism policy, and they enjoy widespread public backing.
Support for targeted killing with drones crosses party lines, the new poll found. Nearly 6 in 10 Democrats favor using drones to bomb members of terrorist groups, while only 16 percent are opposed. Among Republicans, 72 percent are in favor and only 10 percent are opposed. Independents are more ambivalent, with 45 percent in favor and 12 percent opposed; 37 percent are neutral on the issue.
However, as Dan Froomkin and Jon Schwarz point out at The Intercept on Friday, the poll responses belie a lack of understanding among average Americans of the true nature of the U.S. drone program:
The problem is the U.S. drone program does much more than kill members of al-Qaida: it also kills a significant number of civilians, and drone operators often don't even know exactly whom they're targeting. So the AP's own poll doesn't show, as the story claims, "broad support among the U.S. public for a targeted killing program begun under President George W. Bush and expanded dramatically under Obama." What it does show is broad support for a drone program that doesn't exist.
Froomkin and Schwarz highlight this passage from the AP's own reporting: "The poll did not include questions about foreign civilian casualties or about public confidence in the government's assertion that the vast majority of those killed in drone strikes are terrorists."
The journalists suggested the poll would get much different responses if different questions were asked. They wrote, "We'd prefer a question like: 'Do you support the U.S. government killing Americans who it claims to be involved in terrorism, without charges, trial or a lawyer?'"
According to the Bureau for Investigative Journalism, since 2002 there have been up to 548 drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan, which have resulted in more than 1,000 civilian deaths.
A poll conducted by The Hill last year also found that of the 1,000 Americans polled (a bipartisan group of likely voters), most were "inclined to support the government in its lethal attacks on citizens and non-citizens it deems to be terrorists."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.