"Realistic" captivity training

Remove all ads!

In reaction to the happenings from 1991 when two members of the US army female personnel (I don't know if soldiers or civilians, but army personnel nonetheless), they came up with the idea of cross-gender captivity training and training involving rape scenario. It was a very realistic training to say the least. Here's an excerpt:

(WARNING: Gross content inside. If you're extremely sensitive, you probably shouldn't read further. This is not something I would give a child to read. This is not something you want to read to bed or while having a meal.)

More:

Source: http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=2844

I realise it's not done in normal circumstances nowadays and much has improved, instructors being barred from even consensual sexual contact. At least not in the places where it used to be done. And not officially. But what about the other places where journalists didn't reach, where no one testified afterwards, where they didn't stop after a female trainee kicking someone in the groin?

When I read about such things, I'm less and less worrying how it came to Abu Ghraib and all the abuse of detainees in Iraq. Reading about what's done by the police and prison guards on detainees who are even fellow citizens isn't helping, either. Isn't there a whole-round problem in the uniformed forces mentality?

Reaction of the highest superiors:

Rape in training is not actionable. Yeah. Just like "having sex with a female detainee". Don't I know this language from somewhere?

 

In the 1950's or 60's, There was an infamous prison experiment supervised by a doctor Zimbardo. The simulation was of a prison where subjects were divided into prisoners and guards. The experiment was supposed to last three weeks but was canceled after about 6 days because it was noted that the guards became extremely sadistic. The conclusion was that when people were placed in a position of authority over a captive audience, they tended to abuse their position. The stories, though shocking, do not surprise me.

 

I've read about that one too, Gnarff. It's strange how easily people can stoop to such levels.

Yeah, sweep it all under the carpet and recite all the byrocrat banalities. This is so ridicilous it's not even funny. And the worst part is that in a few weeks nobody remembers this.

 

The next step is realistic "being shot" training.


"Alright, listen up pukes! To pass you have to keep up the cadence!"

Cadets: "I don't know what I've been told...!"

Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!

Cadets: "But...eskimo...cold...urghh..."

 

I don't understand: did the people going into this know they were going to be raped, as part of 'realistic training'? I would think they should have to consent before doing so, or it is in fact rape, not some training assignment.


And in Polintan's case, did they actually rape him, or did they not go as far as actual sex?

This is a horrendously stupid idea: if you want realistic training, there should be complete consent, or they should use some other method, of which I have no ideas on.

 

Saber, you cannot give away your right to revoke consent to sex at any point. You can't sign your sexual freedom away. You can sign an obligation that you will have sex and you can be sued for failing to deliver, but you cannot ever be lawfully forced to have sex with anyone. So if you are screaming and kicking and saying you don't want it, no one has the right to go on, no matter what kind of papers you may have signed.

Even if someone gives consent to rape training, it's still criminal rape if the training goes on despite the consent being revoked, as, as I said before, you can't sign your sexual freedom away (as you can't allow someone to kill you, mutilate, imprison etc).

And, in Polintan's case, I don't suppose anal penetration really took place. But this depends on how they understand "as if he were having sex with me", simulation of intercourse etc. In my view, penetration is no simulation of anything, but (some of) Abu Ghraib guards and their superiors would probably disagree with my statement...

 

I guess its in certain males mindsets. Just look at the hords of wrestling fans (WWE, WWF etc, not real wrestling). It looks like simulated male rape. One strange move is where a male comes up behind his opponent, wraps a leg and arm around his body, and thrusts his hips towards the guys ass. Apparently he is trying to break his opponents back, but I can see what it really is Of course the 'homo-hating' rednecks love it

Anyway this kind of thing no longer surprises me. You can see this on everyday television, in some degree or otheer.

 

No, chev, I did not mean what you thougth I meant. When I said they should give consent, obviously, if the person who gave consent says they don't want it anymore (by kicking, screaming, etc), then the people doing the actions should immediately stop. I meant that they should need consent to even go into such a program. It seems as if everyone was required to take it, instead of it being optional.

I apologize for my miscommunication.

 

Ah, okay then. I wasn't sure, so I considered it a good opportunity to throw in a mention of it being impossible to give irrevocable consent to being deprived of freedom, including sexual freedom. No worries.

Personally, I think whatever superior officer has ever given orders to make such cross-gender, sexual or even rape training non-optional, should be indicted for rape. It's not like they can ever order you to have sex as a part of training or an intelligence mission or whatever such.

 

Multiple counts. At the very least there should have been a safe word; I can imagine someone fighting as part of their role as prisoner, which might make it kind of confusing for the ones implementing it. Something this personal and fraught with opportunities for abuse should have been VERY carefully monitored, but they clearly didn't give a ****.

 

The whole simulated rape thing makes me nauseous. However, I'm going to throw out an idea that I can imagine the military might use to defend its actions, even though I want to clearly state before doing so that I do not buy it:

According to what I've heard, informally, the military actually drowns some of its special forces as part of training -- each drowned soldier is then given CPR. This is to train them in how it feels to drown, I suppose, and is "necessary" because of the harsh conditions into which soldiers are often placed. It would not be acceptable in the rest of society, but it is appropriate training in the military. This same logic can be applied to this captivity training.

All in all, yet another reason why I'd do just about anything to avoid military training outside of a serious threat to my homeland.

 

I don't think unlawful sexual intercourse is justified by training to survive the harsh effects of rape in an organisation which considers adultery to be a punishable crime (as does the US Army).

 

@Saber

SERE training is only for pilots. In order to become a pilot you HAVE to take the course, you don't have to take the entire course just parts of it.

Now I know why everybody knows the united states military secrets. It's because people can't keep their mouths shut about what happens. Until about 6 months ago this was all classified information that would probably have gotten Tal shut down. Now that it's been published though I'm sure he's safe

 

Tal is always safe unless he gets kidnapped from his home country and put in Gitmo. But AFAIK, the SP server is located on American territory.

Wonder which parts of the course pilots have to take. I don't particularly like the idea of obligatory training involving any sort of nudity or even simulated sexual behaviour. Then again, not everyone needs to be a pilot or another specialised military job. It's just it isn't so easy to turn away from the military path, especially after they pay for all your courses, so the "love it or leave it" argument doesn't always apply and people may still end up being institutionally forced to disrobe before the opposite gender or participate in something sexual. A country's government has no claim on the citizen's bodies and no right to any sexual favours. Governments can't just say you won't be getting unemployment money because you don't want to be a sex worker and they can't order you to take part in a sexual training course or be fired from your job. Governments should protect families and family values, not elicit sexual favours from citizens under whatever pretence or become an institutional partner in sex business.

 

When you sign up to the 'core, your body belongs to the 'core. It's grass and they're the lawnmower.

As long as these kinds of methods of training don't reach the public, they are used. When they do reach the media and get appropriately disapproved, they might make a statement that someone hasn't done the training as they should, or they might make slight alterations into the directions.

The same thing is going on in every countries military. In Finland, it might be dressing up only to gas-masks over the private parts and posing in sexually degrading positions. When pictures of this got out, the issue was more over the matter that it had gotten out, not that it's degrading.

In Russia, they have systematically beaten up soldiers. Some of these escape the compulsory military service every now and then, and try to seek refuge from Finland. We send them back, of course .

And was it last week that a private died and six got injured in a grenade launcher accident here in Finland. A similar accident happened in 2001, but only minor corrections were made into the training regulations, while the whole training was recommended to undergo larger changes.

Minor adjustments to rules don't help much if the whole systems malfunctioning.

 

Personally, I believe that anyone on the top of the military ladder who approves of that (the sexual stuff) is unfit to be a soldier and is a simple psychotic criminal who should be both treated and locked up. There's no place for that kind of scum in the society. They are unfit for even the lowest of the low, let alone the top. They should have chosen the mafia over the military. No matter what discipline we have, rotten apples will always find their way.

 

There is a place for realistic--that is, brutal and degrading--training, but it should neither be commonplace nor forced. It absolutely must be consenual, and there must be strict safety guidelines and strict enforcement of the guidelines. Which is to say, it cannot be like what was described in the initial post.

I don't agree that those responsible for the incidents reported, assuming the reporting was accurate, don't have a place in the military. They have a place perfectly suited for them in Fort Leavenworth. Hopefully for 25-life.

 

I still believe the universal mate-ship of soldiers in the army doesn't include sex under whatever pretence, whatever excuse. Sex is just sex.

 

There's been rumors and memoirs (from admittedly questionable sources) about extreme training regimens used by the American Delta Force and the British and Australian SAS. I've never heard of anything quite so extreme as this - they're more psychological, things like being placed in mock combat against other members of your own squad, being blindfolded and pushed out of a helicopter at a height of five feet (after being told it was a height of fifty feet), etc.