‘Removal of Clothing’ Is Different From ‘Naked”
Doug Feith was just asked about Jim Haynes’ 2002 memo on what tactics are legal in interrogation. He says in his recommendations in April 2003, what was and was not permissible in interrogations relied "on the general counsel… Mr. Haynes," Feith says, throwing Haynes under the bus.
But then Feith starts whining about how people haven’t read the Oct. 11, 2002 memo on interrogations that give "great care" to how to apply, say, stress positions, isolation, removal of clothing, exploitation of "Arab fear of dogs" and 20-hour interrogations "humanely." Chairman Jerrold Nadler is incredulous. How could that possibly be humane?
"I imagine one could apply these things in an inhumane fashion," Feith replied. "’Removal of clothing’ is different from ‘naked.’ … It could be done in a humane way." He says that in the policy office’s considerations, there was "great care" given to how these practices should be applied. "They could be used in a way that could violate the [Geneva] Convention," he explained, "they could be used in a way consistent with the Convention."