That's very cynical. In reality, that probe was examining things that might be too harsh to be legal, but not necessarily extreme enough to fall under the category of torture.

One example is verbal threats. Those aren't really "torture" (using the most common definition), but they shouldn't necessarily be legal.

They were also investigating waterboarding, even though it wasn't considered torture in the US at the time. The Obama Administration now officially classifies it as torture, but it's good that waterboarding was examined before that reclassification was officially made.

There is a terrible injustice here, though, and it doesn't have to do with definitions. It's that the aforementioned probe supposedly found no wrongdoing and led to zero criminal trials.