Does it make you feel better to try to classify people into one of two camps, despite it being neither germane to the discussion, or in advance of your proffered argument? If you could defend your position against the arguments I am putting forward, I am confident you would not be presupposing any political affiliation, real or otherwise, held by me.

Thank you for clarifying what is becoming more and more obvious from your posts -- you don't care what the words mean in the English language, but rather you will interpret them (or refuse to interpret them) however you see fit if it makes you more comfortable with a position you adopted in advance.

"Saving American lives" is meaningless without context. Everything Bush (for example) did do and didn't do during his presidency could be framed as having been done with the goal of saving American lives, whether true or not.

I'm unclear why you feel KSM wasn't tortured, with you stating that having a good reason doesn't make it torture any more. These words have meanings in the language. Caveats don't take away from that, despite what the lawyers who made this possible may have written in memos during Bush's terms.

From the dictionary :

the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information

From the known history of prisoners being waterboarded in US custody :

WAS THERE :
"the act of inflicting excruciating pain"
ANSWER :
yes

WAS IT DONE :
"as punishment or revenge"
ANSWER :
yes

WAS IT DONE :
"as a means of getting a confession or information"
ANSWER :
yes

"really good reasons to do it" change nothing about it being torture, they just attempt to provide justification for it.