Waterboarding is torture and anyone who allowed it/executed it should be prosecuted

My opponent's lack of a plan has made a mess of his case, but I will nonetheless debunk the arguments presented. Firstly, let me clarify the dispute over the respective burdens of myself and my opponent. The resolution is as stated: >Waterboarding is torture and anyone who allowed it/executed it should be prosecuted.< Take note of the word "and" in the resolution. My opponent, being the affirmative, must prove both of the claims within the resolution to fulfill his burden. However, the resolution can be successfully negated by disproving either of these claims. If I prove that waterboarding is not torture, OR if I prove that those affiliated parties should not be prosecuted, the resolution is negated, even if the other issue is left totally alone. Thus, my opponent is mistaken in saying that it is "all or nothing". If my opponent wished the contender to negate both claims, he could have specified by the revision of the wording of the resolution. For example, he could have posted the resolution "Waterboarding is not torture and legal action should not be taken against the affiliated parties" and taken the Con position. However, I can not be held responsible in my opponent's shortcomings in the wording of the resolution. Now we must address the proposed legal action inherent to the resolution. My opponent doesn't seem to have any particular method of action in mind, perhaps because there is no legitimate legal action possible. Even though his case doesn't fit together, I will now categorically debunk the disconnected portions of his case. My opponent asserts that the United States judicial system should hold these "affiliates to torture" accountable, but later attempts to reference the UNCAT and the Geneva conventions as laws to which they should be held accountable for. Firstly, the argument regarding the Geneva convention is ridiculous seeing as the waterboarded terrorists were neither uniformed soldiers nor members of signing parties to the conventions, and thus Geneva convention statutes have no application against the jihadist terrorists. In regard to arguments considering our obligations as signing parties of the UN Convention Against Torture, my opponent's case once again hits a legal wall. Firstly, current conditions do not regard waterboarding as cruel and unusual punishment. However, let's go out on an unlikely limb and assume that sometime in the future, the Supreme Court bans waterboarding as an instance of unconstitutional retribution. Even assuming waterboarding is declared unconstitutional, there are still two major roadblocks to any legal action. Firstly, the jihadists who were waterboarded were not citizens of the US and thus are not afforded constitutional liberties. Secondly, even if waterboarding was regarded as unconstitutional in the future, the punishment of past "waterboarders" would still be an illegal "ex post facto" action. Some of my opponent's responses to my reasoning are a result of flawed logic. For example, his argument against the use of waterboarding to save hundreds of American lives against a potential Brooklyn Bridge bombing was a simple desire for "legal" methods. However, it can be reasonably assumed that the affiliates asked Khalid Shaikh Mohammed about the proposed bombing several times before resorting to waterboarding. Furthermore, if he was waterboarded 183 times before releasing this information, there is little chance that he would give up trusted information if the government has simply asked him nicely. However, amidst my opponent's twisted exaggerations and flawed logic, he seems to hit upon the main obstacle preventing the affirmation of the resolution. He states "If someone is really poor, and they can't afford food, and they ran out of food stamps, maybe they would see it as justified to steal some food. That may be the case. Does the legal system care? No way, Jose." What we must realize when considering the issue at hand is the hard, blind justice that rules the American criminal justice system. My opponent proceeds with good intentions in mind but fails to address the practicality of those intentions. The legal system thoroughly obstructs the Affirmative plan from realization. When contemplating legal action we must take into account even basic legal provisions such as constititional liberties or the injustices assumed when punishing someone for an action that was neither illegal or determined to be unconstitutional at the time of the said act. The failure to recognize such obstacles leads to the failure of the resolution, and as such, the only responsible vote is a vote in the Negation of the resolution. In regards to my opponent, I thank you for an interesting debate, and thank you for not forfeiting any rounds (as is the case with many of my past debates). It's been a fun and rousing debate. Thanks once again.