Seligman's Sophistry?

A reader writes:

I'm glad that Mayer responded to Seligman's non-denial denial--and also glad that you'e been highlighting the back and forth. Just like the APA, Seligman is happy to "strongly disapprove of torture" and to "never provide assistance in its process."  But ask the APA what it means by"torture," and it will refuse to answer--or refer you over to the federal government.  Credulous news outlets tend to run headlines like "APA passes resolution strongly condemning torture" without noticing the word games at play.  (Art Levine wrote a good piece about this in the Washington Monthly.)  Seligman plays the exact same game, and, since I once respected his work,  it's a sickening thing to see. So let's ask Seligman: How do YOU define torture?  Is waterboarding, forced standing, or exposure to extremes of heat and cold torture?  If what we read about Guantanamo Bay is true, do you condemn it?