[Professor S]

Ric, my statements were about the legality of waterboarding and it's definition as torture, not whether or not you can personally define it as torture. I apologize if I confused the two. Anyone can view waterboarding as torture if they like, and I can subjectively disagree with your subjective definition, but the only concrete idea that the law can act on it is the legal definition of torture. My intent was not to contradict the validity of our personal opinion, only that the issue is not as legally black and white and it is in your opinion.

Thats where we come into an interesting conumdrum when it coms to waterboarding: Waterboarding was defined as torture or more clearly as illegal interrogation techniques in the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and banned from use, but yet waterboarding is not technically an illegal act. Meaning: you can not prosecute someone if they follow the steps laid out in the memos. At least that's what I took from skimming through the Act. I did not read it in it's entirety, so I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong on that account if I missed misread something.