Hispanic Pundit would like to know how a person would react to the argument that waterboading isn't torture. It's a good question in that it does reflect a common response from the advocates of Bush's "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
I might start by asking such a person if they thought the display of one of Pol Pot's waterboards was out of place at the Genocide Museum in Cambodia. I would note that Ronald Reagan championed and signed the UN Convention on Torture, which appears to define torture in a way that would include waterboarding. I would also direct them to additional torture law, which includes U.S. law, and I would ask them to explain how waterboarding wouldn't qualify under the definitions in that law.
Finally I would note that the United States has repeatedly prosecuted others for waterboarding as if it was a serious crime.
I think many that don't regard it as torture just don't understand what is happening. For instance Bob Dutko said yesterday on the air that when somebody is waterboarded, water doesn't actually make its way into the mouth and nose. This is just entirely wrong. So he obviously doesn't understand what is happening. Watching Chistopher Hitchens or Mike Guy get waterboarded would probably be helpful for such people.