Am I comparing apples to oranges? Other than the SS sending their prisoners to death camps, are the CIA's practices much different? If not the SS, would there have been (or are currently) anything comparable?
I think it's a really dubious comparison — to me, it seems more like political rhetoric than intellectual analysis.
The CIA's 'enhanced interrogation' practices certainly constitute torture, and torture was a common coercive tactic of the Nazi security forces — but there the comparison should end.
The CIA were not attempting to terrorise a population into docility. They are not a secret police force like the Gestapo. They're an intelligence-gathering and covert operations agency — though not a particularly competent one — and their torture programme was designed to extract information, not as part of a broader programme of control of the populace through violence.
You can deconstruct Nazi use of terror, including torture, on a few different levels — in brackets are the state agencies primarily responsible for these goals:
The CIA's detention/rendition/interrogation programmes were (and are) clearly in conflict with democratic ideals, and deeply problematic in terms of human rights and civil liberties — but to compare them to the organs of control of a totalitarian state which sought to subjugate most of Europe and to obliterate entire populations is pure hyperbole.
A more apples-to-apples comparison would be to look at the role torture and coercion play in espionage throughout history — and particularly as used by supposedly liberal-democratic countries. Torture is generally regarded as a spectacularly inefficient way to elicit reliable information; the general orthodoxy is torture will commonly lead to the victim telling you whatever he thinks you want to hear. But that hasn't stopped the intelligence services of many democratic countries from engaging in torture at times.