What was nipped in the bud was another one of your thinly-disguised attempts to trivialize torture by painting it as something annoying but not damaging.
Not even close, since if it couldn't be understood that things like loud music isn't torture, there was no need to delve into the more serious issues of actual debatable acts of supposed "torture", such as waterboarding
I think you also ought to consider the history of torture.
Sinners were/are tortured for their own good.
In mainstream christianity, a whole half of all karmic outcome there is is solid, round the clock torture, endured for all eternity. (This last one often the result of fey whimsy).
So here is evidence that possibly the christians know of a deeper, more spiritual essense involved in its use.
It can be seen then that torture has scope.
When you spin the definition, you are already there, btw.
Outlawing torture in war seems the most presumptive of ironic absurdities. The issue is war or no war, but not a societal blush and smelling salts regarding torture. Torture in war is inevitable, I don't care who. I would also add that it is monumentally absurd to believe you can snatch and patch behavior in war.
In Vietnam, it was standard MI interrogative technique to load a chopper of about l6-20 "gooks" go up four hundred feet, and throw one out before you even started to ask questions.
Mostly, it worked.
When you argue about the level of torture in a war, you have had your elcted and assigned argument already reduced to a panicky negotiation, and while you arrive on this square, you have tacitly nodded to the war, and are now desparately demanding that the most ugly be spared.
I am for voting for who wants the war ended, and who does not; those who do not should be spared, but the architects of this imperialistic attack on Iraq should have their fingers taped to a steering wheel, their fingers cut off one by one, and the stubs be cauterized with the cigarette lighter.