Laws and Ethics?

Waterboarding is back in the news. I have a few observations to make in regard to "waterboarding." First, I don't care what we are being spoon fed, there is a clear and simple fact that remains. Anyone that can sit down and think up torture techniques is clearly an individual of, shall we say, "thoughts not appropriate for polite society . . ." And apparently they are well respected in some areas of our government. I find that unsettling to begin with. Next there is the fact that if someone truly does believe their life is threatened or made uncomfortable or pained for prolong periods of time, repeatedly, they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear. Think about it on a basic human level. You're already in captivity for an undefined period of time, held without being charged, and as far as you know, the representation you will be allowed are members of the same organization that is holding you. Now, there is no immediate way out, and you can't phone home. I'm guessing the thought will at least cross your mind that those who are holding you captive will stop their intense interrogation methods if they get some sort of answer to investigate. Just a thought. Next, I read that the waterboarding was repeated numerous times on some of these detainees and it resulted in so much valuable information. If it took several times, was it really effective? Or back to my previous point, did the detainee finally come up with a story that would put an end to the torture? I still have to ask, will we truly ever know if something was prevented. If it didn't happen, will we ever know if it really was going to happen?
Next we have Nancy saying the CIA misled her regarding waterboarding. She said they said they weren't doing it. Now, they say when they briefed her on it and they told her they were doing it. If they were already doing it when they told Nancy, then the CIA was operating without Congressional approval, and now that Nancy is in the majority she wants to make an issue. They need to be careful about their definition of torture. Since waterboarding is not considered torture, what would they do if they were faced with it, to get the truth about this situation? We're choosing to blur a line that should never be blurred and never be crossed. If our government can define and redefine torture and then deny knowing anything, when will it be determined to be appropriate in other circumstances? After all, it won't be torture, if it's US doing it . . . right?
And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Y'hshuah, and let them go. Acts found in the New Testament