This is dedicated to our pet trolls, Nudnik and Beer Run

Short answer to both questions: yessiree bob. For proof, read on.

The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Signed by the USA on 18 Apr 1988, ratified by the USA 21 Oct 1994:

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Bush Administration: Guilty

Notes for our pet trolls:

Nudie: note that this convention makes no exception for people who may not be part of a uniformed military force. It applies to everyone and anyone.

Beer: note that this definition includes "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental". If getting strapped to a board and being made to feel like you're drowning ("waterboarding") isn't inflicting severe mental pain, I don't know what is.

And your "Bad Apples" argument is even more tired than I am. Torture is Bush Administration Policy. Ever heard of the Torture Memos?

Spiky Mikey:

In a Jan. 25, 2002, memo to Bush, Gonzales said the new war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners." Some State Department lawyers charge that Gonzales misrepresented so many legal considerations and facts (including hard conclusions by State's Southeast Asia bureau about the nature of the Taliban) that one lawyer considers the memo to be "an ethical breach."

Follow this link to the NYT for links to the PDF's of the memos and brief synopses. That page is so money, you trolls should be paying me.

2002
JANUARY A series of memorandums from the Justice Department, many of them written by John C. Yoo, a University of California law professor who was serving in the department, provided arguments to keep United States officials from being charged with war crimes for the way prisoners were detained and interrogated. The memorandums, principally one written on Jan. 9, provided legal arguments to support administration officials' assertions that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees from the war in Afghanistan.
...
2003
MARCH A memorandum prepared by a Defense Department legal task force drew on the January and August memorandums to declare that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal anti-torture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security. The memorandum also said that executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons, including a belief by interrogators that they were acting on orders from superiors "except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful.'

My argument has always been: if the the Bush Administration did not intend for US troops to commit torture, why did they have their lawyers look for ways for the higher ups to get away with it?

Need more proof? The Bush White House it threatening to veto the McCain anti-torture amendment, which passed the Senate with a 90-9 vote.

No individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

Yeah, pretty extreme stuff.

I'll leave the final word to US Army Captain and West Point graduate Ian Fishback, "A Matter of Honor":

While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq.
...
Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.