I don’t know whether or not it’s “torture” to waterboard someone, either in a general sense or in some legal sense. (I read one of the two “torture memos” and found it very bland. Basically the author, now a law professor, said that it wasn’t clear one way or the other. For this he was subjected to a serious effort to arrest and disbar him.)
What I do know is that NOT applying such or similar measures, which while very uncomfortable cause neither death nor lasting harm, is IMMORAL in some cases. If there is good reason to believe that someone knows where a ticking nuclear bomb is and how to stop it, and that bomb will kill millions of people due to its location, how is it morally right to say, “No, we dare not waterboard him. Better that those millions die than that he get a wet washcloth over his face for a few minutes”?
Shorter version: If it is moral to KILL in certain tactical circumstances, how can it not also be moral to INFLICT PAIN in some circumstances?
This labeling as “torture” is too often a liberal’s substitute for actual argument.
To summarize: The torture scenes in the movie are fictional, that isn't how enhanced interrogation works, and we haven't waterboarded since 2003. But enhanced interrogation WAS used, and it led to the information that allowed us to kill Bin Laden.
An excerpt that provided the 3 paragraphs which gave that information might have been more useful than the well-formatted excerpt we got here that simply asks questions without getting to the point.