Sex Crimes in the White House

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Sex Crimes in the White House

Postby slow_dazzle » Tue Jul 08, 2008 3:44 pm

The sexualization of torture from the top basically turned Abu Ghraib and Guantnamo Bay into an organized sex-crime ring in which the trafficked sex slaves were US-held prisoners. Looking at the classic S and M nature of some of this torture, it is hard not to speculate that someone setting policy was aroused by all of this. And Phillipe Sands' impeccably documented Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values, now proves that sex crime was authorized and, at least one source reports, eroticized: Diane Beaver, the Staff Judge Advocate at Guantanamo who signed off on many torture techniques, told Sands about brainstorming sessions that included the use of sexual tension, which was "culturally taboo, disrespectful, humiliating and potentially unexpected."


What type of mind dreams up this sicko stuff? That's a rhetorical question because those of us who post here know about the relationship between extreme power and psycho-sexual behaviour.

Sex Crimes in the White House
On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

John Perry Barlow - A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
slow_dazzle
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Foote Hertz » Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:52 pm

An Interview With Errol Morris, Director of Standard Operating Procedure
MORRIS: My two cents worth of opinion is that this is not just a war of humiliation but a war of sexual humiliation at its core, and the entire foreign policy. I wouldn't even think it's fair to say that America has a foreign policy in the years since 9/11, but if it has had a foreign policy, the foreign policy is, show them whose boss, humiliate them like they have humiliated us. "Shock and Awe" is about humiliation. It's about showing someone you're more powerful than they are. You can fuck with them; you can do anything you want to them. Why no thought about the aftermath of "Shock and Awe?" Because who cares about the aftermath? It's about the humiliation; there is no point beyond that.


The Market Economy rolls on.
Foote Hertz
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby StarmanSkye » Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:58 pm

From 'Sex Crimes in the White House':

"The nonsexual torture that was committed ranged from beatings and suffocation, electrodes attached to sensitive areas, and forced sleep deprivation, to prisoners being hung by the wrists from the ceiling and placed in solitary confinement until psychosis was induced. These abuses violate both US and international law. Three former military attorneys, recognizing this blunt truth, refused to participate in the "military tribunals" -- rather, "show trials" -- aimed at condemning men whose confessions were elicited through torture."

God DAMN 'em. Maybe not forever (I'm too nice for my own good, kind to those who don't deserve it) but at least for long enuff to have them KNOW, intimately and excrutiatingly, how sick and evil and what twisted fucks they are/have been.

When (sigh) are the much-ballyhooed Amerikanski peeples gonna demand these scum faux-leaders get what they deserve?

How I LOATHE that bunch that pretend to rule by the authority of the masses.

Thanks for the Heads-uP!
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby AhabsOtherLeg » Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:34 pm

Randi Rhodes did a great rant that used to be available on Youtube (where I first heard it). I don't know her background, except that she's ex-Air Force, but from what I've heard of her she is great. The video has since been removed, to my total surprise.

She basically stated the obvious but rarely spoken fact that most of the tortures used in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Bagram Airbase (let's not forget that place) conform to a very specific genre of pornography, and to a very specific type of sexual appetite. She put it better than I can, but the vid is gone from USATube, and I can't find it anywhere else.

To sum up her points, no doubt ineptly:

Fear and humiliation are to be expected, even in a standard prison. Some of us are familiar with that, and don't see anything surprising in it. Enforced group nudity, and the enforced wearing of clothing chosen by the gaoler, are just a part of that (though it would not normally include panties over the head, except perhaps in Texas and Florida).

These things can, if you're in a Limbaugh-ish mood, be considered no big deal. They happen every day in our homeland justice systems, and not many people are up in arms about it.

What happened and is happening in places like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib is different. Human mounds (why did that guy have rubber gloves on, btw?), groups of men smeared in their own feces, men on leashes, men commanded to fellate one another, women and children raped (if the
testimony not only of former detainees but of former servicemen is to be believed - and why shouldn't it be?) all points to something else.

Damn, Randi said it much better. Can someone find her rant on Abu Ghraib/ Guantanamo? She more or less states that these are Cheney and Rumsfeld's fantasies we are seeing - and as Congressmen have admitted, we have not yet seen the worst of the material, despite a judge ruling that it must be released.

Above all, the torture is filmed. Many regimes have meticulously recorded their atrocities for future reference, apparently believing they would never be called to account, or more likely believing their hard-won knowledge would need to be handed down to future generations of torturers for further refinement of the methodolgy - but why is it now filmed so regularly? Film is not a new medium, before anyone suggests it is down to the prevalence of digital camcorders nowadays.

Not long ago an apparent Egyptian activist began posting police brutality videos on Youtube. In short order his account was closed and all his videos removed. I can understand that. Youtube is a family site, and there was no pixellation of the victim's faces (which I see as a secondary degradation of them).

But two things struck me before he was huckled off - the routine and banal and laughing brutality of the Egyptian police (no surprises there - certain cops, the world over, seem to have attended the same School) and the fact that this guy had a LOT of videos of it.

.... how did he get all these videos? How much time did he spend in the police station, filming beatings, and not being beaten or threatened or thrown out himself?
A lot, it seemed, though I won't impugn his motives or his position without knowing more. Could've been a whistleblower.

But the filming of torture is significant, I think. For a proud Muslim man (or, indeed, any man, or woman) a filmed record of what has been done to them, particularly when it involves sexual degradation, holds value for the perpetrators as a "control mechanism". Many people would perhaps speak out more freely of the tortures they have been subjected to if they did not believe that actual film of it could later be leaked and viewed by half the world, most of them only viewing through sheer vulgar curiosity.
Knowledge of a person's abject humliation can be used to blackmail them in the same way as knowledge of a crime they have committed. It depends on the personality, and their position within society.

The public release of such films and pictures may not always be accidental or against the wishes of the PTB, is what I suppose I'm saying. And if I had been a prisoner in Abu Ghraib, I would want my suffering to be known, but not my face to be shown worldwide. Though I suppose for most people that would be the least of their worries.
User avatar
AhabsOtherLeg
 
Posts: 3285
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 8:43 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby tal » Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:26 pm

-


"...it would be a bad awakening for humanity! Man would pride himself upon the growth of his instinctive knowledge of certain processes and substances and would experience such satisfaction in obeying certain aberrations of the sexual impulses that he would regard them as evidence of a particularly high development of superhumanity, of freedom from convention, of broad- mindedness! In a certain respect, ugliness would be beauty and beauty, ugliness. Nothing of this would be perceived because it would all be regarded as natural necessity. But it would denote an aberration from the path which, in the nature of humanity itself, is prescribed for man's essential being..." -R. Steiner 1918



-
tal
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests