A diary of torture

[jwl]

If I buy the book do the proceeds go to his defence? Because I'm willing to do it for that reason alone.

I would think the author royalties go to him.

I'm willing to do it for that reason alone, even if every single thing he wrote is fake, he close to half a decade of his life because the American Government is run by morally bankrupt imbeciles.

If you want to send the guy money just send the guy money, the royalties he'll get from the book would be 5% or something.

[Raw Shark]

[snip] 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. [snip]

Even if the guy didn't regard it as torture, offers to fuck somebody / get somebody else to fuck somebody are used to influence people outside of prison all the time. Why should we think they wouldn't eventually try it in an interrogation scenario if it cost nothing and they had willing interrogators? "Shit, maybe he has a weakness for girls. Do that Tuesday and see what happens."

[Channel72]

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.

For me, it was basically the recently released CIA toture report that made me totally give up giving any benefit of the doubt to the USA.

Of course, I imagine your response would be something like "What the fuck took you so long? What about everything else that happened before it... etc."

Well, I've noticed that many Americans, myself included, have this weird skepticism towards any information that implies the USA is basically running something like a WW2 Imperial Japanese POW camp here. It seems so bizarre, so far removed from our daily experiences, where we freely shop in US malls, ride US trains, drive along US highways, free to badmouth whomever we want. We regularly complain to big companies because their service sucks, or complain to government officials that traffic sucks. The US government comes off mostly as a totally inept bureaucracy that just doesn't get much done, and politicians basically come off as "will suck your cock for votes". The idea that the government would just... suddenly just kidnap somebody and torture them seems... totally incongruous to our daily experiences in this country. And I suppose that is what causes this weird skepticism.

I initially assumed the whole torture program was probably greatly exaggerated by the media - that it basically amounted to the waterboarding of a few high-profile 9/11 planners, and that it was entirely a Bush Administration policy. And I dismissed Abu Ghraib as just a major discipline problem: a bunch of military personnel being assholes, not some kind of systematic policy. But at this point, I give up. The USA really fucked up here, and shouldn't be given any benefit of the doubt by anyone any more. This is some serious third-world shit we're doing, and it sucks.

[TheHammer]

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.

Who is this worthless fuck coming out of the woodwork with his worthless comments? Read what I actually wrote dipshit and then try to respond to it because clearly you skimmed or outright skipped it.

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.

No, I would have probably believed that would happen. However his story was far more grandiose which makes me skeptical. The concern I've been trying to convey is that "female prison guards grabbed my dick and I reflexively threw out prayers in shock" suddenly becomes "I was forced into a ten hour threesome with naughty talk" in a memoir and its accepted as unquestioned truth...

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"

Who is this worthless fuck coming out of the woodwork with his worthless comments? Read what I actually wrote dipshit and then try to respond to it because clearly you skimmed or outright skipped it.

...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.

Probably the most reasoned comments I've read in this thread. At least someone gets it.

[Thanas]

No, I would have probably believed that would happen. However his story was far more grandiose which makes me skeptical. The concern I've been trying to convey is that "female prison guards grabbed my dick and I reflexively threw out prayers in shock" suddenly becomes "I was forced into a ten hour threesome with naughty talk" in a memoir and its accepted as unquestioned truth...

Because that sounds more unbelievable than rectal feeding? Really? If he had written about rectal feeding, this would be more unbelievable than this. Yet that happened as well.

[TheHammer]

No, I would have probably believed that would happen. However his story was far more grandiose which makes me skeptical. The concern I've been trying to convey is that "female prison guards grabbed my dick and I reflexively threw out prayers in shock" suddenly becomes "I was forced into a ten hour threesome with naughty talk" in a memoir and its accepted as unquestioned truth...

Because that sounds more unbelievable than rectal feeding? Really? If he had written about rectal feeding, this would be more unbelievable than this. Yet that happened as well.

While the "forced threesome" is certainly less horrible of the two, at least in my opinion, but still more unbelievable to me because I could see rectal feeding as being something done as retribution to a detainee on hunger strike. I can't see two female interrogators having a threesome and 10 hour sex talk session while he prays the whole time in the hopes that this will somehow get him to confess. He also contradicts himself saying he was forced to have sex, and yet kept his clothes on the entire time.
Again, its certainly within the realm of possibility that it did happen exactly as he described. I can't rule it out. I'm just saying it sounds highly unlikely - even more so than the events we know took place.

To be clear, he doesn't necessarily have to be lying for that to be the case. It may simply be something lost in translation, and something along those lines did happen to him, but the details don't match reality. Or perhaps it was a hallucination/dream that due to the stress of his situation "felt real" to him. It would hardly be the first such instance of a thing happening. It's also in human nature to embellish events, especially when they happen to ourselves. A scratch to the face becomes "I almost got my face ripped off" etc.

Bottom line, you might not give a shit if its true or not, but I happen to think its important to be skeptical and verify/debunk as much of these stories as we can. Because if you fail to differentiate fact from fiction you actually help obscure the misdeeds of those you'd wish to punish.

[Thanas]

Bottom line, you might not give a shit if its true or not,

That is a great strawman. Let me answer with another: You might not give a shit if people are tortured or not, but...

but I happen to think its important to be skeptical and verify/debunk as much of these stories as we can. Because if you fail to differentiate fact from fiction you actually help obscure the misdeeds of those you'd wish to punish.

Oh yes, this is all one noble spiel of yours leading to the end game of the true perps being punished.

Here is what should happen: The US should an independent prosecutor investigate the stories and give him full access to Guantanamo. That is the only way to determine if it is true or not. Unless that happens, all you have is probability.

And in the age of rectal feeding and innocent dicks being cut with razors, I don't find the idea of some female guards talking dirty to someone for a few hours that implausible. It is not as if it would require more effort - and it would also leave far less traces of abuse behind.

[bilateralrope]

I can't see two female interrogators having a threesome and 10 hour sex talk session while he prays the whole time in the hopes that this will somehow get him to confess.

You seem to be assuming that the interrogators are competent. Why are you making that assumption ?

They keep using torture. Which doesn't work as an interrogation technique. Which means that they can't be competent interrogators.

Since they aren't competent, and there is nobody who cares about their results and is in a position to stop them, I don't see anything that would stop any of the parts you don't believe, as it only requires enough interrogators who enjoy whatever they are doing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If you want to send the guy money just send the guy money, the royalties he'll get from the book would be 5% or something.

Cant. There are restrictions on financially supporting terrorist groups or individuals that could get someone who sent this innocent person money put on various lists/sent to prison. He has not been convicted of a crime, so laws against him profiting off a book dont apply...

No, I would have probably believed that would happen. However his story was far more grandiose which makes me skeptical.

Or he is recounting things that occurred over a period of time as his torturers increased the pressure. Similar principle from going from lash to the strappado to the rack. Only in this case it was escalating unwanted sexual contact.

I can't see two female interrogators having a threesome and 10 hour sex talk session while he prays the whole time in the hopes that this will somehow get him to confess.

That is because you dont know how psychological manipulation works. They are pressing the cultural/religious guilt buttons. They are forcing him to sin. Something he does not want to do. And even though it is forced, he will go through the same sort of guilt and shame reaction that civilian rape victims do.

He also contradicts himself saying he was forced to have sex, and yet kept his clothes on the entire time.

Or, you know, there is a language barrier. English is not this guy's first language.

They keep using torture. Which doesn't work as an interrogation technique. Which means that they can't be competent interrogators.

No, not competent interrogators, but they are competent torturers. There are two reasons to torture.
1) To obtain information/confession
2) Punish.

They say they are using investigatory torture, when they are really using punitive torture. Seriously, there is no reason to waterboard someone 180 times other than to punish them because you will never get anything out of the 179th that you did not get after the first 10.

[bilateralrope]

No, not competent interrogators, but they are competent torturers. There are two reasons to torture.
1) To obtain information/confession
2) Punish.

I see a third reason. They enjoy torturing people. Probably a combination of all three for the torturers.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No, not competent interrogators, but they are competent torturers. There are two reasons to torture.
1) To obtain information/confession
2) Punish.

I see a third reason. They enjoy torturing people. Probably a combination of all three for the torturers.

Well yeah. Forgot that one.

[Crown]

I missed this earlier but;

The cowardice of Obama for refusing to prosecute those responsible is beyond limits.

But not without precedent; there was no Italian equivalent of the Nuremberg trials despite Italian occupation forces having committed numerous acts of barbarism against occupied civilian populations. They whole thing was quietly swept under the rug and stepped aside and the mythical meme of the "good Italian" was allowed to propagate into the collective public consciousness of the post war period.

Hell, even if he (and the other detainees) weren't tortured and/or abused at all, being held for 10+ years without trial or charges is despicable.

That's what I meant to say before I got hit with 'fat finger syndrome' and typed something totally ineligible!

[Thanas]

I missed this earlier but;

The cowardice of Obama for refusing to prosecute those responsible is beyond limits.

But not without precedent; there was no Italian equivalent of the Nuremberg trials despite Italian occupation forces having committed numerous acts of barbarism against occupied civilian populations. They whole thing was quietly swept under the rug and stepped aside and the mythical meme of the "good Italian" was allowed to propagate into the collective public consciousness of the post war period.

There was also little investigation into allied war crimes, but I would have liked to think that after the lessons of Vietnam the USA changed a bit. That was wrong.

[TheHammer]

Bottom line, you might not give a shit if its true or not,

That is a great strawman. Let me answer with another: You might not give a shit if people are tortured or not, but...

Not a strawman, just a question because it doesn't really seem like you care if its true or not you're going to push it as though its true regardless.

And I find your "answer" laughable because I've been accused more than once of "not caring about torture" in this thread despite having condemned it multiple times.

but I happen to think its important to be skeptical and verify/debunk as much of these stories as we can. Because if you fail to differentiate fact from fiction you actually help obscure the misdeeds of those you'd wish to punish.

Oh yes, this is all one noble spiel of yours leading to the end game of the true perps being punished.

I feel that getting the truth out is important, yes. And I'd like to see perpetrators of abuse identified and punished. Unfortunately it might never happen, but its certainly never going to happen so long as the truth is obscured by both lies AND exaggerations.

Here is what should happen: The US should an independent prosecutor investigate the stories and give him full access to Guantanamo. That is the only way to determine if it is true or not. Unless that happens, all you have is probability.

I don't disagree on the premise. I think we just disagree on the percentages. The thing is, when you take things like this memoir, other detainee and guard information, the torture report etc you start to see patterns emerge. As of now, I see no such corroboration for the story given vis-a-vis the threesome. On the other hand, there are other elements that are confirmed by other sources. Those are the things you can be confident really happened. That's how you separate fact from fiction.

And in the age of rectal feeding and innocent dicks being cut with razors, I don't find the idea of some female guards talking dirty to someone for a few hours that implausible. It is not as if it would require more effort - and it would also leave far less traces of abuse behind.

Like I said, I don't doubt that "dirty talk" and the like was performed in some fashion. I just don't buy his version that he was subjected to ten hours of it, and forced into a threesome, especially given his contradiction that his clothes were never off. Did he say what he really meant?

And while I'm on the subject, while the rectal feeding is known and confirmed the "dicks being cut with razors" is not. If it happened, as I noted earlier the victim states that it was perpetrated by a Moroccon interrogator. He may have been acting as a CIA proxy, but that's not to say his activity was sanctioned or "standard procedure" by them. That's another incident where we need more information to identify who all is responsible.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Not a strawman, just a question because it doesn't really seem like you care if its true or not you're going to push it as though its true regardless.

We operate as if a lot of things are true despite not being certain because the probability of it being true or at least mostly true is sufficiently high to warrant it.

1) We know the CIA uses Gitmo and sites even less accessible like certain facilities in afghanistan to engage in torture
2) We know they have used the specified method of torture directly and by proxy in the recent past.
3) We know they have very happily done far worse

Even if, in this particular case, the victim has some details wrong/confused/conflated (afterall, the days sort of blend together while you are being tortured and denied sleep, bits might be hallucinated etc) it does not fucking matter. We can operate as if the broad strokes at least are true, because the bayesian prior probabilities are sufficiently high that it stops mattering.

If someone escaped from captivity, the victim profile matches a known (but uncaptured) serial killer, medical examinations and forensics match other victims (albeit without the terminal ligature strangulation), said escapee gets lumped in with the other victims. Even if they were roofied prior to abduction and never saw the guy's face. Even if they cannot accurately describe events because they were kept doped up on LSD. The jury would STILL convict on those charges on the basis of prior probability alone.

Same thing here.

Victim Profile: Match
Modus Operandi: Match
Proof of Custody: Match

The standard of evidence is not absolute proof. That is impossible. It is legally and in terms of good sense, reasonable doubt. There isn't any here.

He may have been acting as a CIA proxy, but that's not to say his activity was sanctioned or "standard procedure" by them.

Really? When someone says "I am going to lock this door and look the other way and whatever happens, happens" they just as responsible. The UN Convention Against Torture has clauses for that shit, and legally as well as ethically they are equivalent. You're not allowed to use other countries to do your torture by proxy.

The thing is, when you take things like this memoir, other detainee and guard information, the torture report etc you start to see patterns emerge.

Except the information pool here is highly limited. Namely, because documents are classified and the guards face prison terms if they ever say anything. That is not how you separate fact from fiction. At best, you can rank-order events in terms of frequency or openness. The more something is done, the more likely it is that information has leaked one way or other. The less secretive it is done inside the facility, the more likely it is that something leaks. The problem is, you dont know the actual values in the frequency distribution. There is for example a site in Afghanistan. We know some really rancid shit happens there because one dude was let go (that German citizen I mentioned earlier). As far as I know, he is the ONLY one to get out and have an unrestricted ability to talk about his ordeal. We dont know how many other people are there or what happened to them.

[Thanas]

And Obama refused red cross access to that as well, which is one giant red flag when it comes to dealing with foreign nationals.

[Metahive]

Has anyone ever heard of the 50 Yuan Party, those people the chinese rulers pay 50 yuan a post to kiss governmental ass on webboards? What would be sadder, if TheBehämmert were an american version of this or if he wrote all of these inispid torture apologetics* for free?





*and yes, it's torture apologetics. Pay lipservice to condemning them all the way you want, your repeated attempts to throw doubt on them happening in the first place still mark you as an apologist. Deal with it, Hammerooney.

[Flagg]

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"

Who is this worthless fuck coming out of the woodwork with his worthless comments? Read what I actually wrote dipshit and then try to respond to it because clearly you skimmed or outright skipped it.

Nice try. Prove that I skimmed what you wrote or didn't read it.

Also, since just about every worthless post the worthless "human being" TheHammer has posted has tried to excuse or minimize what the US torture industry has done, including willfully ignoring testimony of the VICTIMS because, and I'm just summing up the tone of your posts in this thread, they are just mad at the US and are making stuff up because I don't believe the great red white and blue would do these outrageous sounding things!

I mean assuming you're correct (you are not, but playing pretend can be fun. It isn't now because I have to get inside your head with all the creepy crawlies infesting it), don't you think they have a valid reason to be pissed at the US for all the horrible shit it has already admitted to doing? Maybe you should try to learn to at least pretend to feel compassion for what are essentially male Jayce Duggards, who were kidnapped and held for eleven years while being subjected to all kinds of torture, including plenty of the sexual kind, only there is no one coming to their rescue because their captors are the the entire US government? So maybe a few embellishments (which I don't believe ARE embellishments) can be excused given the years and years of trauma?

[jwl]

If the US works in any way like the UK, surely it's the police's job to prosecute somebody, not the president's. The only thing the president is required to do is commission an inquiry or equivalent.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If the US works in any way like the UK, surely it's the police's job to prosecute somebody, not the president's. The only thing the president is required to do is commission an inquiry or equivalent.

Unfortunately, he has direct command authority over every single federal law enforcement agency. He can, and has, directed said agencies to pointedly not prosecute those guilty of torture.

[jwl]

If the US works in any way like the UK, surely it's the police's job to prosecute somebody, not the president's. The only thing the president is required to do is commission an inquiry or equivalent.

Unfortunately, he has direct command authority over every single federal law enforcement agency. He can, and has, directed said agencies to pointedly not prosecute those guilty of torture.

Anyone guilty of torture or just CIA people?

[Edi]

If the US works in any way like the UK, surely it's the police's job to prosecute somebody, not the president's. The only thing the president is required to do is commission an inquiry or equivalent.

Unfortunately, he has direct command authority over every single federal law enforcement agency. He can, and has, directed said agencies to pointedly not prosecute those guilty of torture.

Anyone guilty of torture or just CIA people?

Practically anyone. The last torture prosecutions in the US were the low level flunkies at Abu Ghraib and since then, nobody has needed to even worry about any charges being leveled against them. Unless they were whistleblowers exposing this bullshit to daylight, of course.

[Grumman]

If the US works in any way like the UK, surely it's the police's job to prosecute somebody, not the president's. The only thing the president is required to do is commission an inquiry or equivalent.

Unfortunately, he has direct command authority over every single federal law enforcement agency. He can, and has, directed said agencies to pointedly not prosecute those guilty of torture.

Eric Holder serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed by him at any time. If Obama was not an asshole, that would have happened about five seconds after Holder said the CIA's torturers should be actively protected from prosecution.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If the US works in any way like the UK, surely it's the police's job to prosecute somebody, not the president's. The only thing the president is required to do is commission an inquiry or equivalent.

Unfortunately, he has direct command authority over every single federal law enforcement agency. He can, and has, directed said agencies to pointedly not prosecute those guilty of torture.

Eric Holder serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed by him at any time. If Obama was not an asshole, that would have happened about five seconds after Holder said the CIA's torturers should be actively protected from prosecution.

Pretty much. I understand why he would not go after Bush and Cheney (even though he should) because that opens up a political hornets nest of partisan prosecutions when someones party goes out of power. But not going after those more directly involved like CIA, DOD, and DOJ personnel...

Yeah, if he was not an asshole, he could have at least done that.

[Flagg]

If the US works in any way like the UK, surely it's the police's job to prosecute somebody, not the president's. The only thing the president is required to do is commission an inquiry or equivalent.

Unfortunately, he has direct command authority over every single federal law enforcement agency. He can, and has, directed said agencies to pointedly not prosecute those guilty of torture.

Eric Holder serves at the pleasure of the President and can be removed by him at any time. If Obama was not an asshole, that would have happened about five seconds after Holder said the CIA's torturers should be actively protected from prosecution.

Why would Obama do that? The entire campaign (and I believe even the official Democratic Party Platform in 2008) he said he would "look to the future, not dwell on the past" every time he was asked about torture prosecutions. Essentially he said "there will be none because it will cause a political shitstorm lasting my entire first term and nothing will get done". Which is no excuse, but that's what happened. And it's not like it's all on Obama, either. the Democrats said in 2006 when they took back both Houses of Congress that they weren't going to seek impeachment over the Iraq war or torture.