Tuesday, May 01, 2007

US: Torture Used Against Falsely Accused Men

I thought this article should speak for itself:

"Among enforcement actions reported to members of Congress, the use of physical torture to coerce acquiescence to false claims of domestic violence is the most egregious. The term "torture" has sadly become all but a catch phrase in our culture. Because of this, we are required to be brutally specific in describing what we are calling torture today: genital electrocution and hypothermic shock.

Torture victims have described events during their imprisonment where they were stripped naked and doused with cold water, and then "stun-gun/tasers" were applied to their testicles by law enforcement agents. This was repeated until they confessed/agreed to the fraudulent complaint filed against them. The cold water is used to keep them awake during the process. This practice leaves permanent scaring with distinctive patterns that can be forensically verified. Indeed, the type of stun-gun/taser used in the assault can be identified. The residual scaring is the result of the testicular tissue in the current path between stun-gun's prongs being completely cooked.

Other victims report being exposed to cold so extreme it caused them to experience hypothermic shock lasting as long as two days. For some individuals, this has resulted in permanent paralysis and mental deterioration. Once fit, healthy citizens are now disabled Americans solely because they refused to agree to a lie.

In a number of cases, the hypothermic shock resulted in the destruction of the muscles in their pelvic floor. These are the muscles that control your ability to evacuate your bowel (those we "push" with during a bowel movement). These victims must use mechanical means to remove the fecal material from their bowel for the remainder of their lives, or they will die a slow, excruciating death.

Some victims with this type of disability were provided with a medical device which resembles a parfait spoon to dig the material out of their bowel manually. Others are able to use high does of fiber and laxatives and then bounce on the toilet seat, causing the fecal material to be ejected. This process is similar shaking thick ketchup out of a bottle.

Over 800 cases of the prior listed types of torture have been reported to the victim's representatives in the United States Congress. To date, only two members of Congress have made contact to inquire about these heinous acts against US citizens. One Senator and one Congressman stand alone among the entire US Congress.

Despite these atrocities, members of Congress are preparing to present the "International Violence Against Women" (I-VAWA), which will fund the international deployment of this disastrous system through programs such as the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)."


Jim said...

The way to go at this is to find black victims. Get the NAACP involved. White men don't get the same sympathy, but that is a step further down the road.

The second step is to launch civil suits against the accusers, and against the police departments. The judgements have to be for more than the jurisdictions make in federla funding for VAWA enforcement. If you can intimidate local jurisdictions off their prey, VAWA will become a dead letter.

The third step is to press perjury charges against false accusers. Make a huge stink if the prosecutors don't prosecute.

Then maybe down the road do something for the white guys.

BrusselsLout said...

20 or 30 years ago, civilised people would have expressed outrage at this sort of thing happening to confirmed serial murderers, let alone to alleged face-slappers.

What I find most disturbing is the number of people now, who regard themselves as civilised in today's terms, who would find this kind of action justified.

I mean, I don't even know what emotion to express at this.

Surely there must be American senators and congressmen sympathetic to the men's movement, who find this as deplorable as we do. Likewise, there must also be some British Members of Parliament.

What I would like to see is a list of names of members from various governments (American, British, Canadian, or whatever) who are sympethic to men's rights, and the extent to which that sympathy goes.

Jim said...


You'd be lucky to find one, and the chances are very good it would be a woman.

BrusselsLout said...

Jim -- your post made me smile: you could well be right. I wrote to my MP (in London) 3 months ago and I am still awaiting his reply.

I pointed out to him my dismay at the UK government's constant pandering to the press and to other man-haters such as feminist extremists. In my letter I focused on anti-male legislation, such as the presumption of guilt in rape cases.

He is a very left-wing MP, and I mentioned to him that I too was from a socialist background, but found it odd that a socialist government should have such a hatred of men. Support of men, I would have thought, would be the natural territory of socialists, (which, however, for some historically cock-eyed reason, is not so.)

I am still awaiting his reply with bated breath.

Jim said...


I think there are several reasons for the situation you describe.

One is that being progressive is part of the left-wing self-image. Backing women against men is seen as a change form the past, so that's progressive.

Second is that sex has replaced class as the arena for progessive efforts. Women are the oppressed, even if they are rich and iddle. That is quite a change from socialist thought of even a generation ago.

Also, you are in Britain, and Britain is hopelessly pussy-whipped. Deferring to women is seen as the essence of manliness.

Finally, I think it's natural for men to protect women from men and for women to protect men from women. The low status of men in our socieities reflects the powerlessness of women.

Anonymous said...

Can this be confrimmed by a credititbel soruce?
If do you have links to these creditabel soruce at hand?

Anonymous said...

It is natural for men to protect women. It is NOT natural for women to protect men.

It isn't even natural for men to identify women as any kind of threat, although in a political sense women are now the oppressors of men (in particular, feminist liars and hatemongers).