If we're still talking about strapping people to a chair and beating them half to death, that goes without saying. No state would sanction that. Still, Washington have considered implementing some kind of law similar to the Israeli model. They have a law sanctioning limited physical pressure, if it could prevent terror- bombings. But this would be problematic for the US, I think, because as far as I know the constitution demands that noone should be subject to "cruel or unusual punishment". So instead of openly sanctioning torture or allowing prisoners to be held without charges, Washington seems content ratifying international conventions, as long as there is no demand for inspecting the prison conditions. The latest example of that is the optional protocol adopted by the UN, allowing regular inspections by international experts, where four countries voted against it - Nigeria, Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the USA. The ratification of the US in the end, due to the protocol's optional nature, contain so many reservations that it could hardly be considered a ratification.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/ca...ion-reserv.htm

So, the US clearly do not sanction torture, at least as far as the text in the constitution would demand, but the US do not want to be subject to regular inspections. At the same time, we know torture is used in US- controlled operations, but the state fails to put down any clear guidelines for it's use, or a definite condemnation. Perhaps the incident at abu- Ghraib will change that? Or perhaps this is a discussion they do not particularly care to have in Washington?