Hitchens' "Believe Me, It's Torture"

1. What laws exist (within the U.S. or internationally) regarding what is classified as torture?
2. What standards should be used to determine if an interrogation method is torture or not?
3. What would be an ethical, effective way of extracting critical information regarding national security from enemy combatants?

 It's hard for me to judge the strength of Hitchens' argument, both regarding water-boarding's classification as a torture and the underlying assertion that torture should not be practiced in any form, when my own position is already so firmly in agreement. Torture (including, in my own mind, the practice of water-boarding) is one of a few select issues where I have extreme difficulty understanding the opposite side, or seeing much of any credibility in the opposing arguments, even hypothetically. It simply horrifies me to such a dramatic extent that I can hardly even imagine a debate about the issue.

Hitchens, on the other hand, seems much more understanding of the opposing side. He presents it as fairly as I can imagine anyone being able to do, stating that the opposing view feels that: "When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay..." and "[A]ny call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down."

When stated this way, I can almost hesitantly bring myself to some kind of understanding. But this argument personally falls flat for me, because within my own personal view of morality, the morality of one should not determine whether they are treated humanely. I do not believe in the death penalty for convicted murderers or rapists, and similarly, I do not believe in torturing even those who are morally despicable. I find it so endlessly worrisome to think about: if we give ourselves the power to decide who "deserves" torture, then we unwittingly give others the same power. Hitchens is right when he quotes Mr. Malcolm Nance. If we decide torture (or/including waterboarding) is acceptable to use against our enemies, then our enemies must have every right to decide that is acceptable against us.

So that brings me to my question: how can we define what practices constitute torture? I already firmly believe water-boarding qualifies, but what else does? Keeping prisoners or POWs or enemy combatants in darkness, denying them adequate food or water, isolation, intimidation, lying... I don't have an absolute standard for what I personally consider torture, and I'm afraid the country doesn't either. It scares me to think that something so horrifying, with such power to harm and destroy, is contained by such a blurry line.