From a legal standpoint I do not think that waterboarding meets the current definition of torture.
But from a common sense standpoint it clearly is torture.
And yet I still think that the choice to use waterboarding is better than the choice to have let the LA terror plot to have gone off without being thwarted. Waterboarding was wrong but it was less wrong than not doing it.
If we begin to talk about soldiers instead of terrorists then a case can be made that not doing it is less wrong than doing it. And in the case of American citizens the case can be made that doing it wrong and not doing it is right.
My begrudging acceptance of waterboarding in this instance* does not make me pro-torture in any sense that I want to see it happen but it is also too strong to say that I am definitely not pro-torture. Just like knowing if the technique is legally torture is kind of grey a characterization based on a grey acceptance of it is grey too.
*
on non citizens
on those without geneva agreements
on terrorists
who are high level terrorists
rarely
after other techniques have been tried
without pain
without discomfort of any more than 20 seconds
without physical damage
with a presidential order
with a doctor present
with approval of congress and both parties
And the three or four other restrictions I have forgotten
