Outside of the Mudcat, the name "Wolfgang" normally goes with Mozart in my experience.
.....................

Since the Convention completely bars the whole range of treatment included in that definition , I can't see what the point is of using different words for different degrees - it would just seem to invite people to go in for "it's not really torture, it's just abuse" sort of logic.

Whether it's called "torture" or "other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", it's still criminal behaviour, and orders from a superior are specifically excluded as providing any kind of defence.

In fact, however, I note that in Article 16 of the Convention there are references to other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1. This rather implies that the definition Article 1 is intended as a definition of torture as such, rather than "torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" as Wolfgang suggested.

Either way, there seems a strong case that the USA has a binding obligation under the Convention, which it has ratified, to prosecute all those responsible for controlling and authorising what has been happening in places such as Guantanamo Bay. Treatment such as sleep deprivation, which have been given official, even if circumscribed, authorisation for use in such settings, pretty clearly fall within the range of activities totally barred under the Convention.