You saying such is a lie. It has been disputed and that is not a lie. You may not believe it, but you do not get to say it is a lie that it was disputed.
Secondly, it wasn't done as punishment, but to extract information. Which shows your argument to be infirm.
Your argument was unsound. The Constitution does not outlaw enhanced interrogation techniques.
What you are looking for is passed legislation which has become Law or in it's stead, a Treaty obligation. Which while authorized by the Constitution, is not itself a Constitutional argument.