So, terrorist: we meet again. Hey, it's just to talk, man. I just want to get inside your head and find out who gave you the idea to do all the bad things you've done. Let's start by having you take your shirt off. No? Here, I'll help you.
Hmmm.... I don't think that approach will work. Let's try another...
Now, terrorist, we have to get to know each other better, so you can get out of this Cuban hellhole. How about we get more comfortable? I've got a couple of Mai Tais here, and we can soak up some sun on these chaises, and...
Man! There must be something in the Army Field Manual covering this! Let's see: Ah, here it is. Forced removal of clothing is a Category II technique. Category II: banned by the Geneva Convention! So what do I do if he won't take his clothes off voluntarily?
Douglas Feith to the rescue!
Feith says there's a way to force a detainee's humane removal of clothing. Fascinating! Isn't clothing removal a tactic of humiliation? Humanely humiliating oneself might be alliterative, but it's extraordinarily illogical. Under what circumstances could it possibly be humane?
Let's note that the current Army Field Manual (pdf, 10th page), issued in September of 2006, is now coy about Geneva Convention protection. It divides Enemy Combatants into two categories, Lawful and Unlawful. It states that Lawful Enemy Combatants receive Geneva Convention protection; it is comletely silent on the matter where Unlawful Enemy Combatants are concerned. It would be easy to infer that the Army Field Manual permits torture, based on that omission.
Feith:
"Those techniques were supposed to be done within the law and the decision by the president in favor of humane treatment," Feith told a House Judiciary subcommittee. "There is no excuse whatsoever for any inhumane treatment."
Square that, if you can, with this:
The panel chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), expressed skepticism that acts like stripping a detainee's clothing off could ever fail to qualify as inhumane. "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."
How? Strip poker? No; even Feith says that he relied on the tortured (pun intended) logic of John Yoo and Jim Haynes to create his policies regarding torture. With his testimony yesterday, Feith would like us to believe that there are humane ways to do the following:
. use dogs in interrogations.
. conduct 20 hour interrogation sessions.
. use stress positions.
. And, of course, forced removal of clothing.
A man who would fail to question the legal opinions of Yoo and Haynes does so for either ambition or lack of a conscience. I think we can discredit Feith with both.