The Volokh Conspiracy - Redefining "Sexual Torture":

What interrogation tactics should be allowed, especially for people to whom we should apply the Geneva Convention (because they are lawful combatants covered by the Convention, or unlawful combatants to whom we have unilaterally agreed to extend Convention protections) is a difficult question, on which I have little to add. But I do think that in discussing the subject, both critics and defenders of various practices should call things by their proper names.

Consider this item in The Guardian (UK):An American soldier has revealed shocking new details of abuse and sexual torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay in the first high-profile whistleblowing account to emerge from inside the top-secret base. . . .What's the "sexual torture" that the article then gives as an example? Here are the only materials that relate to sex:

Among the most shocking abuses Saar recalls is the use of sex in interrogation sessions. Some female interrogators stripped down to their underwear and rubbed themselves against their prisoners. Pornographic magazines and videos were also used as rewards for confessing.

In one session a female interrogator took off some of her clothes and smeared fake blood on a prisoner after telling him she was menstruating. 'That's a big deal. It is a major insult to one of the world's biggest religions where we are trying to win hearts and minds,' Saar said. . . .

This may or may not be acceptable. Giving porn as a reward hardly seems like a Geneva Convention violation; taking off one's own clothes doesn't seem particularly problematic, either, though it may well be embarrassing to the prisoners; rubbing up against to people may be more problematic; I don't quite know what to think about the fake blood. I also realize that they may have been taking advantage of the prisoners' sense of modesty, and of their religious taboos. One can debate to what extent this is proper, effective, or good policy given how it might look to outsiders.

But surely "sexual torture" is a pretty substantial exaggeration of what the article describes, even as to the most potentially troubling items.

	[Eugene Volokh, June 10, 2005 at 7:02pm] Trackbacks Redefining "Sexual Torture": What interrogation tactics should be allowed, especially for people to whom we should apply the Geneva Convention (because they are lawful combatants covered by the Convention, or unlawful combatants to whom we have unilaterally agreed to extend Convention protections) is a difficult question, on which I have little to add. But I do think that in discussing the subject, both critics and defenders of various practices should call things by their proper names. Consider this item in The Guardian (UK):An American soldier has revealed shocking new details of abuse and sexual torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay in the first high-profile whistleblowing account to emerge from inside the top-secret base. . . .What's the "sexual torture" that the article then gives as an example? Here are the only materials that relate to sex: Among the most shocking abuses Saar recalls is the use of sex in interrogation sessions. Some female interrogators stripped down to their underwear and rubbed themselves against their prisoners. Pornographic magazines and videos were also used as rewards for confessing. In one session a female interrogator took off some of her clothes and smeared fake blood on a prisoner after telling him she was menstruating. 'That's a big deal. It is a major insult to one of the world's biggest religions where we are trying to win hearts and minds,' Saar said. . . . This may or may not be acceptable. Giving porn as a reward hardly seems like a Geneva Convention violation; taking off one's own clothes doesn't seem particularly problematic, either, though it may well be embarrassing to the prisoners; rubbing up against to people may be more problematic; I don't quite know what to think about the fake blood. I also realize that they may have been taking advantage of the prisoners' sense of modesty, and of their religious taboos. One can debate to what extent this is proper, effective, or good policy given how it might look to outsiders. But surely "sexual torture" is a pretty substantial exaggeration of what the article describes, even as to the most potentially troubling items.