Waterboarding is (still) torture

Thanks to Chris Eberle for his thoughtful response to my posting of the Armed Forces Journal's editorial regarding waterboarding.

First, I'm not sure what his friend means by likening the AFJ to the National Enquirer.  Does he mean that the AFJ usually focuses on reporting scandalous rumors regarding the Joint Chiefs of Staff?  That their reporting is often proved false?  That their editorial opinions are shown to be biased against the Bush Administration?  I posted the editorial because, in light of the fact that I've never even contemplated stepping onto the battlefield or into the interrogation room, I welcome perspectives from folks who have. Because they are not affiliated with the military formally, does that negate any expertise the editors would have?  Are the editors actually a bunch of long-haired pacifists posing as military types?  I'm not clear on the nature of the objection.

Second, creating an apprehension of imminent death through waterboarding is entirely different, in my view, from threatening death via a pointed gun.  Waterboarding, in my (admittedly limited) understanding, inflicts extreme physical suffering to the point that the subject expects death to result.  It is not simply providing information to the subject that they will be killed unless they cooperate.  Waterboarding violates the person's physical integrity, inflicts extreme physical suffering, and as a product of that physical suffering, creates the perception of imminent death.  I'm open to arguments as to why that's not torture.