Jeff and I had a look at the torture memos which attempt to delineate prosecutable offenses from acceptable interrogation techniques.  There are many interesting passages.  On “interstate stalking” (page 32):

To establish the requisite intent, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant undertook the travel with the specific intent to harass, or intimidate another. See Al-Zubaidy, 283 F.3d at 809 (the defendant “must have intended to harass or injure [the victim] at the time he crossed the state line”). Thus, for example, a member of the Armed Forces who traveled to a
base solely pursuant to his orders to be stationed there, and subsequently came to be involved in
the interrogation of operatives, would lack the requisite intent. He would have traveled for the purpose of complying with his orders but not for the purpose of harassment. Nevertheless, because travel within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction is also covered, the intent to travel within that base for the purpose of intimidating or harassing another person would satisfy the intent element.

The definition of maiming:

Section 114 makes it a crime for an individual (1) ”with the intent to torture (as defined in section 2340), maim, or disfigure” to (2) “cut, bite, or slit the nose, ear, or lip, or cut out or disable the tongue, or put out or destroy an eye, -or cut  off or disable a limb or any member of another person.” 18 U.S.C. § -114. It further prohibits individuals from “throw[ing]or pour[ing] upon another person-any scalding water, corrosive acid, or caustic substance” with like intent.

This implies the following is not ruled out:

So long as the interrogation methods under contemplation do not involve the acts enumerated in section 114, the conduct of those interrogations will not fall within the purview of this statute. Because the statute requires specific intent, i.e., the intent to maim, disfigure or torture, the absence of such intent is a complete defense to a charge of maiming.

Pages 23-39 in the first memo are interesting reading of what is or is not allowed in the Bush administration interpretation of various laws.  The second memo picks up on international themes.  For instance, I believe the British practised the following techniques in Ireland (p 69):

(1) Wall Standing. The prisoner stands spread eagle against.the wall, with fingers high
above his head, and feet back so that he is standing on his toes such that his all of his ) weight falls on his fingers.
(2) Hooding. A black or navy hood is placed over the prisoner’s head and kept there .. except during the interrogation.
(3) Subjection to Noise. Pending interrogation, the prisoner is kept ina room with a loud and continuous hissing noise.
(4) Sleep Deprivation. Prisoners are deprived of sleep pending interrogation.
(5) Deprivation of Food and Drink. Prisoners receive a reduced diet during detention and pending interrogation.

These were judged not to be torture by a European court.  Similar techniques were ruled not to be torture by an Israeli court.  There are many other interesting passages.  It would be an interesting exercise to list every method discussed in the two memos and whether they constitute torture.