A diary of torture

[Simon_Jester]

So, Ham, exactly how do we go about substantiating these claims?

What actually happens at this facility is a state secret because apparently it's too dangerous to let the public know how we interrogate accused terrorists. It's actively illegal to tell people what happens there, so the only people who could possibly tell us are the inmates who escape to report on conditions inside the gulag.

We have no other sources of information, precisely because of the secretive and the anti-freedom, anti-rights anti-rule-of-law stance taken by the US government since 2001.

[TheHammer]

So, Ham, exactly how do we go about substantiating these claims?

What actually happens at this facility is a state secret because apparently it's too dangerous to let the public know how we interrogate accused terrorists. It's actively illegal to tell people what happens there, so the only people who could possibly tell us are the inmates who escape to report on conditions inside the gulag.

We have no other sources of information, precisely because of the secretive and the anti-freedom, anti-rights anti-rule-of-law stance taken by the US government since 2001.

Well Sim,

What you're saying isn't exactly true. The memoir that is the subject of this topic was actually a document in the possession of the US government. It was also declassified by the government, which is how it got into the hands of publishers to begin with. We also have other reports from former guards et al., and we have the CIA torture report itself. When you start to see consensus, you can presume you're starting to see the truth, or at least as best as we can determine from afar. There were clearly abuses and misconduct, no one disputes that. I just don't believe some of the more fanciful claims made when they are essentially coming from one source who I think everyone will admit is biased.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What you're saying isn't exactly true. The memoir that is the subject of this topic was actually a document in the possession of the US government. It was also declassified by the government, which is how it got into the hands of publishers to begin with. We also have other reports from former guards et al., and we have the CIA torture report itself.

\

All of which substantiate sexual assault being used as a torture technique.

[TheHammer]

What you're saying isn't exactly true. The memoir that is the subject of this topic was actually a document in the possession of the US government. It was also declassified by the government, which is how it got into the hands of publishers to begin with. We also have other reports from former guards et al., and we have the CIA torture report itself.

\

All of which substantiate sexual assault being used as a torture technique.

"Sexual assault" is a blanket term that is utterly meaningless without details.

[Thanas]

Rape. That clear enough for you, you walking wall of ignorance?

[TheHammer]

Rape. That clear enough for you, you walking wall of ignorance?

Then no, the sources don't all show that you living lack of reading comprehension.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Rape. That clear enough for you, you walking wall of ignorance?

Then no, the sources don't all show that you living lack of reading comprehension.

Oh? So one of the gitmo detainees having documented* symptomatic rectal prolapse** is insufficient? How about the documented* "rectal rehydration" (read: shove a hose up their ass)?

What is documented in this memoir is tame compared to what our own government has documented in its internal half-assed investigations.

*Documented in the torture report released by the senate intel committee
**Rectal prolapse: When someone is subjected to particularly violent rectal trauma, usually as a result of a particularly brutal rape (with a phallus or object, probably an object), the distal colon can become detached from the connective tissue that holds it in the body. Leading to the extrusion of the distal colon during peristaltic muscle contractions. In other words, the detainee was ass-raped so hard that he shits out his own intestines when he uses the toilet.

[TheHammer]

Rape. That clear enough for you, you walking wall of ignorance?

Then no, the sources don't all show that you living lack of reading comprehension.

Oh? So one of the gitmo detainees having symptomatic rectal prolapse from being object-penetrated with sufficient vigour to induce his colon to come out of his body like a degloved sock as per the senate CIA torture report is insufficient? How about the documented "rectal rehydration" that was not medically necessary documented in the same report (read: shove a hose up their ass)

While I certainly consider the rectal rehydration to be physical abuse, I don't group that in with sexual assault/rape. You might feel differently. I don't find it any less deplorable either way. You might say "Well isn't the rectal rehydration bad enough?". The answer to that is "Yes it is", and that's precisely the point. What I don't believe happened are the ridiculous "forced threesomes" as described in the OP and is specifically what I'm disputing until I see some corroboration. I want to separate fact from fiction, not further muddy the waters with grandiose tales that no one substantiates aside from the author.

[Flagg]

While I certainly consider the rectal rehydration to be physical abuse, I don't group that in with sexual assault/rape. You might feel differently. I don't find it any less deplorable either way. You might say "Well isn't the rectal rehydration bad enough?". The answer to that is "Yes it is", and that's precisely the point. What I don't believe happened are the ridiculous "forced threesomes" as described in the OP and is specifically what I'm disputing until I see some corroboration. I want to separate fact from fiction, not further muddy the waters with grandiose tales that no one substantiates aside from the author.

So you must have forgotten all of those pictures of piles of naked men with used panties draped over their faces, and that unforgivable cunt Lynndie England posing in front of a pile of naked men? You know at Abu Ghraib, where it turned out they were directed by CIA Nazis to treat them that way despite the fiction presented and reported by the Bush junta? If they did it there, I've no doubt they did it at a facility which waterboarded someone over 170 times.

[Alyrium Denryle]

While I certainly consider the rectal rehydration to be physical abuse, I don't group that in with sexual assault/rape. You might feel differently. I don't find it any less deplorable either way. You might say "Well isn't the rectal rehydration bad enough?". The answer to that is "Yes it is", and that's precisely the point. What I don't believe happened are the ridiculous "forced threesomes" as described in the OP and is specifically what I'm disputing until I see some corroboration. I want to separate fact from fiction, not further muddy the waters with grandiose tales that no one substantiates aside from the author.

If the objective is to assert dominance and power using forced penetration, it absolutely is rape with a foreign object. Textbook case, in point of fact. You would not consider it rape, but your opinion mercifully does not count. If this happened in any other context than a CIA torture camp, a prosecuting attorney would be filing rape charges.

I give you:

California Penal Code 289

(a) (1) (A) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the act is accomplished against the victim's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
(B) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration upon a child who is under 14 years of age, when the act is accomplished against the victim's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 8, 10, or 12 years.
(C) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration upon a minor who is 14 years of age or older, when the act is accomplished against the victim's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 6, 8, or 10 years.
(D) This paragraph does not preclude prosecution under Section 269, Section 288.7, or any other provision of law.
(2) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the act is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years. Notwithstanding the appointment of a conservator with respect to the victim pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving legal consent.
(c) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed and both the defendant and the victim are at the time confined in a state hospital for the care and treatment of the mentally disordered or in any other public or private facility for the care and treatment of the mentally disordered approved by a county mental health director, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail for a period of not more than one year. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving legal consent.
(d) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration, and the victim is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act and this is known to the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years. As used in this subdivision, "unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(1) Was unconscious or asleep.
(2) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.
(3) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud in fact.
(4) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.
(e) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.
(f) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim submits under the belief that the person committing the act or causing the act to be committed is the victim's spouse, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.
(g) Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the act is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years.
As used in this subdivision, "public official" means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.
(h) Except as provided in Section 288, any person who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 18 years of age shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or in the county jail for a period of not more than one year.
(i) Except as provided in Section 288, any person over the age of 21 years who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 16 years of age shall be guilty of a felony.
(j) Any person who participates in an act of sexual penetration with another person who is under 14 years of age and who is more than 10 years younger than he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.
(k) As used in this section:
(1) "Sexual penetration" is the act of causing the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of any person or causing another person to so penetrate the defendant's or another person's genital or anal opening for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or by any unknown object.
(2) "Foreign object, substance, instrument, or device" shall include any part of the body, except a sexual organ.
(3) "Unknown object" shall include any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or any part of the body, including a penis, when it is not known whether penetration was by a penis or by a foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, or by any other part of the body.
(l) As used in subdivision (a), "threatening to retaliate" means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury or death.
(m) As used in this section, "victim" includes any person who the defendant causes to penetrate the genital or anal opening of the defendant or another person or whose genital or anal opening is caused to be penetrated by the defendant or another person and who otherwise qualifies as a victim under the requirements of this section.

18 U.S. Code § 2246
The definition of "sexual act" used for every definition of rape and sexual assault in the US federal code.

(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight;
(B) contact between the mouth and the penis, the mouth and the vulva, or the mouth and the anus;
(C) the penetration, however slight, of the anal or genital opening of another by a hand or finger or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or
(D) the intentional touching, not through the clothing, of the genitalia of another person who has not attained the age of 16 years with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

The federal code even has specific listings for raping people who are in federal custody:

U.S. Code § 2241 - Aggravated sexual abuse

(a) By Force or Threat.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly causes another person to engage in a sexual act—
(1) by using force against that other person; or
(2) by threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.
(b) By Other Means.— Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly—
(1) renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or
(2) administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby—
(A) substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and
(B) engages in a sexual act with that other person;
or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

So yeah. It is rape.

Sexual abuse of the sort described in the OP was used at Abu Ghraib as well at the direction of the CIA, and there are documented cases of the CIA doing much worse. It is not in any way outlandish, because historically such techniques have been common methods of psychological torture.

Also: Who's testimony would you accept as corroboration? The perpetrators, when the ONLY people who have ever been punished with regard to torture have been the whistleblowers? Are you seriously using the standard of evidence for testimony admittance they use in Saudi Arabia? I love how you just ignore the fact that the CIA raped someone into rectal prolapse, then claimed a "lesser" form of sexual abuse is somehow too outlandish to be believed.

[TheHammer]

So yeah. It is rape.

Sexual abuse of the sort described in the OP was used at Abu Ghraib as well at the direction of the CIA, and there are documented cases of the CIA doing much worse. It is not in any way outlandish, because historically such techniques have been common methods of psychological torture.

Also: Who's testimony would you accept as corroboration? The perpetrators, when the ONLY people who have ever been punished with regard to torture have been the whistleblowers? Are you seriously using the standard of evidence for testimony admittance they use in Saudi Arabia? I love how you just ignore the fact that the CIA raped someone into rectal prolapse, then claimed a "lesser" form of sexual abuse is somehow too outlandish to be believed.

Fine, it meets the legal definition of rape. I wasn't really thinking of it as such because it didn't seem like there was a sexual connotation, it was more to inflict pain/discomfort - you know, "traditional torture".

Regardless, what I've specifically called into question is the "bad porno" story and other stories like in the OP. The reason I question is because the rectal rehydration, which as you noted would be "worse", is mentioned in pain staking detail, and yet no where do we see any mention of threesomes as an interrogation technique. Nor do we have any such stories coming from any of the whistle blowers.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Fine, it meets the legal definition of rape. I wasn't really thinking of it as such because it didn't seem like there was a sexual connotation, it was more to inflict pain/discomfort - you know, "traditional torture".

Newslash Asshole: Rape has been used as a torture technique and weapon of terror since the dawn of civilization.

Regardless, what I've specifically called into question is the "bad porno" story and other stories like in the OP. The reason I question is because the rectal rehydration, which as you noted would be "worse", is mentioned in pain staking detail, and yet no where do we see any mention of threesomes as an interrogation technique. Nor do we have any such stories coming from any of the whistle blowers.

The Intel Committee report is severely limited, in that what we have access to is an unclassified executive summary. What the author alleges has already been done by the CIA and their proxies before. We have pictures of it happening at other detention facilities. The author does not need to lie. He has no reason to. He gains nothing, is likely to have suffered vicious reprisals, and if he were going to fabricate something he could have gone with something others in that facility have been documented to suffer. He named names which were redacted, and the detail he goes into include internal thoughts that are perfectly consistent with the reactions of someone violated in that way. There is every indication that he is telling the truth.

And your only response is a combination of "it is ridiculous" and "he is biased"

Fuck you.

Of course it is ridiculous. All torture is ridiculous (in a "laugh instead of cry" sort of way), but the CIA engages in it anyway. In fact, this method is something we already have documentation that they engage in, and it is also a pretty "easy" form of abuse for a sadist to slip into. To the point that one can convince bored garrison troops to do it with minimal prodding, and sadistic teenagers will do it on their own accord. Facts already in evidence. They do it. So while the act itself might be ridiculous, accusations that they do it are ipso facto not ridiculous.

As for bias, what, do you expect someone who has been tortured to be dispassionate about it? Here. I will do some noun changing (all names fictional).

"Susan Goldstein claimed to have been kidnapped and held along with 12 other jewish women by two neonazi men for 11 years. During that time span, there is a great deal of evidence that 10 of these women were variously beaten, raped, held in sensory deprivation chambers, waterboarded, starved, and denied sleep in order to obtain information about the Conspiracy of World Jewry. Susan claimed to have been repeatedly subjected to forced simulated threesomes with these men."

Would you make the same objections to this? That Susan Goldstein fabricated what she experienced and that she is biased against her kidnappers and thus not to be trusted?

[White Haven]

That a single justifiably-biased and scientifically-proven-to-be-inaccurate eyewitness might not be either entirely honest (with the opportunity to try to screw over captors) or incorrect (given that one of the effects of prolonged isolation and torture is to blur the lines between reality and imagined reality), no, I wouldn't automatically accept that testimony. I especially wouldn't go out of my way to accept it automatically when there's no NEED to accept it, because plenty of other tortures are fully corroborated and as such don't rest on single person's account that is potentially shaky for entirely valid reasons. This isn't victim-blaming, any more than it's victim-blaming to doubt the word of someone with a clear conflict of interest OR the accuser in a rape case that relies entirely on he-said, she-said given the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony even under conditions that AREN'T designed to fuck with the victim's sense of reality.

Seriously, Alyrium, cool your fucking jets. Nobody, Hammer included, is saying that torture is cool or that torture did not occur. You're heading out on the outstretched arm of Michael Moore, desperate to make every possible charge stick to the point that you abandon critical thinking.

At the same time, Hammer, it's not at ALL a ridiculous possibility, insufficiently substantiated though it may be. If you are engaged in systematic torture, why the fuck WOULDN'T you reach for any tool you can find that doesn't leave a mark? Fuck, I'm surprised they were sloppy enough for the whole rectal-prolapse bit to occur, with so many other torture options available that don't risk that kind of obvious damage behind.

Is sexual torture possible, even probable? Fuck yes. Once you've opened the torture toolbox, there aren't many reasons to not reach for that particular tool. I wouldn't even be faintly surprised were there to be more evidence available tomorrow or a week from now that substantiated its use. Is there as much evidence to support it as there is for other forms of torture? Not yet, and until that changes, I don't think it's at all unreasonable for someone with a different viewpoint than you possess to bring up such fun concepts as reasonable doubt.

In short, everyone involved can grow the fuck up and stop shrieking at each other like fucking howler-monkeys.

[Thanas]

The same torture is corroborated by other accounts. Those same accounts have been proven correct in court and by science. I see no reason to assume this one is different. What reason do you have to believe this, Haven?

[Simon_Jester]

The obvious reply to White Haven is "Precisely because this form of torture is not 'ridiculous' or at all unlikely, and is in fact precedented... why would we assume someone is lying if they say it happened to them?"

What actually did happen to the guy is bad enough. Why assume that because he might have an incentive to lie, he must necessarily be lying, when he claims something we already know happened?

I mean, if a Guantanamo detainee-victim claims to have been waterboarded, you wouldn't say that he might be falsely claiming it, would you? Because the prior probability of "this Guantanamo detainee was waterboarded" is basically 100%.

The idea that there are a couple of female guards/interrogators/whatever who thinking rubbing up against a detainee to taunt him sexually is cool, and who actually do that... really isn't that much of a stretch. Especially not when similar things have already happened elsewhere in the CIA gulags.

[Flagg]

The same torture is corroborated by other accounts. Those same accounts have been proven correct in court and by science. I see no reason to assume this one is different. What reason do you have to believe this, Haven?

It's idiotic that he does. Anyone that believes anything the government says regarding torture and other war crimes is a gullible idiot. At this point the moral high ground has flipped and suspect statements are the ones coming from the authorities.

And whoever said that this is just a "he said/she said situation needs to be institutionalized. It's more like, he said/she said when "he" has a rap sheet of sex crimes a mile long.

[TheHammer]

Fine, it meets the legal definition of rape. I wasn't really thinking of it as such because it didn't seem like there was a sexual connotation, it was more to inflict pain/discomfort - you know, "traditional torture".

Newslash Asshole: Rape has been used as a torture technique and weapon of terror since the dawn of civilization.

And yet it is often described in addition to torture. My understanding was that the rectal rehydration/feeding was used as retribution to detainees engaged in hunger and water strikes. There did not seem to be any sort of sexual aspect to it from my perspective, and thus I didn't group it in with the sort of sexual abuse described by the OP i.e. forced threesomes etc.

But that's neither here nor there is it? It's still a horrible act, and I think we can agree on that. It really doesn't matter to me that much how you want to classify it.

Regardless, what I've specifically called into question is the "bad porno" story and other stories like in the OP. The reason I question is because the rectal rehydration, which as you noted would be "worse", is mentioned in pain staking detail, and yet no where do we see any mention of threesomes as an interrogation technique. Nor do we have any such stories coming from any of the whistle blowers.

The Intel Committee report is severely limited, in that what we have access to is an unclassified executive summary. What the author alleges has already been done by the CIA and their proxies before. We have pictures of it happening at other detention facilities. The author does not need to lie. He has no reason to. He gains nothing, is likely to have suffered vicious reprisals, and if he were going to fabricate something he could have gone with something others in that facility have been documented to suffer. He named names which were redacted, and the detail he goes into include internal thoughts that are perfectly consistent with the reactions of someone violated in that way. There is every indication that he is telling the truth.

And your only response is a combination of "it is ridiculous" and "he is biased"

Fuck you.

All I'm saying is the scenario, as described, sounds unbelievable to me. When I read it, it comes across as a humble brag. Here he was being seduced by two American women having a forced threesome who talked dirty to him for 10 hours but he was a pious Muslim and prayed the whole time. I'm not saying 100% it didn't happen, I'm just saying it sounds extremely unlikely and I'm not going to believe it without some corroboration.

Of course it is ridiculous. All torture is ridiculous (in a "laugh instead of cry" sort of way), but the CIA engages in it anyway. In fact, this method is something we already have documentation that they engage in, and it is also a pretty "easy" form of abuse for a sadist to slip into. To the point that one can convince bored garrison troops to do it with minimal prodding, and sadistic teenagers will do it on their own accord. Facts already in evidence. They do it. So while the act itself might be ridiculous, accusations that they do it are ipso facto not ridiculous.

As for bias, what, do you expect someone who has been tortured to be dispassionate about it? Here. I will do some noun changing (all names fictional).

I'm not faulting him for being biased, or telling things from his perspective. I'm just pointing out that historically these memoirs are fraught with inaccuracies and exaggerations. And that we should be careful at accepting them at face value which I see far too many people here doing and is my primary point.

"Susan Goldstein claimed to have been kidnapped and held along with 12 other jewish women by two neonazi men for 11 years. During that time span, there is a great deal of evidence that 10 of these women were variously beaten, raped, held in sensory deprivation chambers, waterboarded, starved, and denied sleep in order to obtain information about the Conspiracy of World Jewry. Susan claimed to have been repeatedly subjected to forced simulated threesomes with these men."

Would you make the same objections to this? That Susan Goldstein fabricated what she experienced and that she is biased against her kidnappers and thus not to be trusted?

Did the other women corroborate her statements? If so, then I think where you've got consensus you can presume you're looking at the truth.

It essentially comes down to two words to me: FACT CHECK

[Simon_Jester]

If each person is being tortured alone and away from other inmates, how can one inmate corroborate the statements of another?

All that can happen in terms of corroboration is that several inmates can separately step forward and say "yes, I was abused in thus and such a fashion..." which has basically already happened here. We have multiple occasions in multiple CIA or other US internment camps where interrogators and guards engaged in sexualized taunting of male Muslim inmates.

On that level, this guy's story is corroborated.

[TheHammer]

If each person is being tortured alone and away from other inmates, how can one inmate corroborate the statements of another?

All that can happen in terms of corroboration is that several inmates can separately step forward and say "yes, I was abused in thus and such a fashion..." which has basically already happened here. We have multiple occasions in multiple CIA or other US internment camps where interrogators and guards engaged in sexualized taunting of male Muslim inmates.

On that level, this guy's story is corroborated.

You hit the nail on the had for corroboration. As for the sexual taunting, I'm quite certain that happened. I'm not saying he made everything up, but I think its important to be skeptical of some of these statements that seem to be embellished because some of it almost certainly is.

[Thanas]

All I'm saying is the scenario, as described, sounds unbelievable to me. When I read it, it comes across as a humble brag. Here he was being seduced by two American women having a forced threesome who talked dirty to him for 10 hours but he was a pious Muslim and prayed the whole time. I'm not saying 100% it didn't happen, I'm just saying it sounds extremely unlikely and I'm not going to believe it without some corroboration.

It also sounded unbelievable that the US would willingly torture people it knew to be innocent.
It also sounded unbelievable that innocent people would be left rotting in prison.
It also sounded unbelievable that US interrogators would slice open a man's dick with razors.
It also sounded unbelievable that US would justs chuck out innocents in a foreign country with no money and no passport.

All those things sound far less unbelievable than the scenario of "female prison guards grabbed my dick and I reflexively threw out prayers in shock", because obviously religious people never do such things in response to stress.

Honestly, I don't get why the US gets the benefit of the doubt. This is even more ridiculous considering the US refused red cross access or any kind of independent fact check. The US also blocked courts from dealing with this.

If you do those things, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. Rather, it is on you to prove that those things did not happen.

[Flagg]

All I'm saying is the scenario, as described, sounds unbelievable to me. When I read it, it comes across as a humble brag. Here he was being seduced by two American women having a forced threesome who talked dirty to him for 10 hours but he was a pious Muslim and prayed the whole time. I'm not saying 100% it didn't happen, I'm just saying it sounds extremely unlikely and I'm not going to believe it without some corroboration.

It also sounded unbelievable that the US would willingly torture people it knew to be innocent.
It also sounded unbelievable that innocent people would be left rotting in prison.
It also sounded unbelievable that US interrogators would slice open a man's dick with razors.
It also sounded unbelievable that US would justs chuck out innocents in a foreign country with no money and no passport.

All those things sound far less unbelievable than the scenario of "female prison guards grabbed my dick and I reflexively threw out prayers in shock", because obviously religious people never do such things in response to stress.

Honestly, I don't get why the US gets the benefit of the doubt. This is even more ridiculous considering the US refused red cross access or any kind of independent fact check. The US also blocked courts from dealing with this.

If you do those things, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. Rather, it is on you to prove that those things did not happen.

I have a feeling that TheHammer is a member of the "America Does No Wrong Because We Are Special (and even if we do do horrible things it's for freedom so who cares?) Brigade"

[White Haven]

...Gah. I had a whole load of replies swimming around my head while I was at work and didn't have the time to post, and now they've all jumbled together into a mess in my head. The meat of what I wanted to say, as I recall it, is that I'm hardly advocating giving the US the benefit of the doubt with regards to the use of specific torture tactics, and if you read what I actually wrote rather than just skimming it you'll take note of that. As I said, quite explicitly, I'd be quite surprised if sexual torture wasn't used, once torture itself was on the table.

I don't assume a goddamned fucking thing, and I'd appreciate it if the howler-monkeys would stop shoving words in my mouth like so many prison-guard dicks just because I pointed out the unreliability of eyewitness testimony of ANY kind and the totally reasonable bias of someone who has already been tortured by the US. He could very well be telling the truth, in fact I expect he probably is. But his testimony alone isn't something I 'm willing to take as a holy writ on the subject, and that's NOT AN ATTACK ON HIM, for fuck's sake. He, and others like him, are the victims in this piece. Now, if you lot are finally done building me a nice, false position for you to feel self-righteous attacking, I'm going to go do something productive like stare at the paint on my wall for the next few hours before bed.

[Simon_Jester]

White Haven, if you do come back, I'm curious: do you think I am strawmanning your position by giving the reply I did?

Basically, I think that the prior probability of sexual tortures like this being used in the new system of 'terrorist' internment camps is high. High enough that sooner or later you're bound to find someone who was subjected to them. Thus, the prior probability that this guy or someone like him WOULD experience such treatment is high, and there is relatively little need to be skeptical.

It's like, if someone comes into the room you're in with their shirt wet and says it's raining outside, would you believe them? Probably, unless you have other reasons to assume it's not raining. Sure, they could be lying or it could be a hoax or some confusion may be involved. But in practice we don't even consider those possibilities.

[loomer]

Fuck you, Hammer. The use of rape as a torture technique is widespread in pretty much every system where torture becomes commonplace. Read a fucking book.

[Thunderfire]

Read a fucking book.

"La guerre moderne" is a book he should read.