Waterboarding: EIT or Torture?

The Waterboarding issue has been raised again as “torture” by the Communist Broadcasting System, also known as CBS in a recent presidential debate and, of course our fearless leader, while in the Pacific archipelago of Hawaii, which is not in Asia as he believes, had to input his opinion by saying that it is torture.

So, while I’m not a constitutional law professor,  or any kind of lawyer for that matter, just a “Joe Six Pack” (actually more like a keg lately),  who can read and think for himself, I'd like to take this opportunity to review the U.N. Convention Against Torture and define the act itself, which by its own definition, I am opposed to.

Definition of torture; Article 1 of the Convention defines torture as:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
 — Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

Now watch the video clip bellow from the motion picture G.I. Jane, with Demi Moore portraying Navy SEAL Lt. Jordan O'Neil. As a part of the SERE training she is waterboarded, the difference is that in the actual SERE training, the cloth is placed over the nose and mouth to keep the water in, distribute the water across the face, and prevent the subject from taking a clear breath. Mind you ALL special forces trainees go through this training.

Now read the definition of torture again as described by the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Notice the word “severe”?

This is where common sense is useful, and personally, I fail to see the severe pain and suffering in this video. Uncomfortable, I’m certain but severely painful, no.  As for the mental part I never met a SEAL who complained about waterboarding nightmares and I don’t believe that a terrorist who is hell bent on killing you, me and every other westerner is going to have many nightmares about his or her interrogation technique.

First of all, my liberal friend, you don’t have to worry, no one is going to be using this technique on you and if they did, I would be totally against for two reasons, one: It would be a waste of tax-payers money, because you have no information worth applying this, in that small liberal mind of yours . Reason number two, considering that recently they have found that liberalism is actually a mental disease, I am completely against using this technique on mentally challenged people.

The characters that we do use this technique on, are Islamic extremists A.K.A TERRORISTS. As I previously mentioned, they are hell bent, without any reservations on ending yours, mine and everyone else’s life, which do not ascribe to their perverted belief of Islam, and I’m not going to go into details here on how they justify this hatred, but let’s just say that is the law.

Not one of these people have been found wearing a recognizable uniform of a legitimate nation. They hide in plain civilian clothes amongst women and children so that they cannot be distinguished and as cowards. They are unlawful combatants or unprivileged combatants/belligerents, defined as: A civilian who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war, which clearly states that, you must wear a uniform.  Article 5, of the Third Geneva Convention, states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal” by the detaining power. Please note the bold words again, “MAY BE”, meaning,  the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war, including a trial, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant, under the Fourth Geneva Convention, must be treated with humanity and, IN CASE OF TRIAL, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial. Meaning, should the detaining power CHOOSE to afford the detainee a trial, it must be fair. We elected not to afford this illegal combatant a trial, because we did not have to. It is that simple and no international law has been violated.

These unlawful or illegal combatants that we use these Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, are such because they were found wearing civilian clothes not the uniform of a regular army, hiding amongst civilians and most likely holding an AK47, an RPG or a makeshift bomb belt with the intent to kill or cause injury to an internationally recognized uniformed legal combatant, another words, they broke the rules of war.

They were captured and brought to a military base in a sunny Caribbean island where they were given a place to sleep, food according to their dietary restrictions and afforded the rights of any other prisoner of war including their Holy book and prayer time. The only variance is the lack of a trial, because as we already discussed, the detaining power is not required by international law to provide one, due to the fact that they are unlawful or illegal combatants.  They have been treated with “humanity” as required by the Geneva Conventions, which is more than the consideration that they have for you and me and the millions of people that they are sworn to destroy, on their way to meet the seventy virgins.

The Enhanced interrogation Techniques of Waterboarding and Sleep Deprivation, while uncomfortable, are not torture, they do not cause SEVERE pain physical or emotional, and in full accord with all the requirements by the United Nations. Those being interrogated under these techniques are afforded all the legal rights of a prisoner of war with the exception of a trial as required by the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, if these techniques gives us information and intelligence that saves one single life, American or otherwise, I have no problems with its usage an neither should the Commander-in-Chief  as he has sworn to defend the people who elected him into office and which he serves.