If the Bush administration's various definitions of torture had been the international standard when John McCain was a POW in Vietnam, he would not be able to say he was tortured.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/was-mccain-tort.html
At one point, the Bush administration defined torture as only those things that resulted in death, organ failure, or impairment of a significant bodily function.
Rumsfeld approved stripping people naked, using stress positions, and threatening them with dogs was fine, and waterboarding was specifically discussed in the White House.
Torture memos:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html
White House meeting:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,349948,00.html
So would the members of the Bush administration say McCain is a crybaby for saying he was tortured as a POW, or is it okay to have one standard of torture for what is done to our people and another for what we do to others?
Tags: