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

My opponent is under the misunderstanding that torture is illegal. I will sort this out before addressing the remainder of his case. My opponent states that torture is "illegal" because we "signed the resolution", although I'm left to guess what resolution he is referring to, though we have agreed to several human rights treaties, most within the UN. I would firstly like to point out that if we had tortured anyone under our agreement with the UN, the UN would thereafter take action and our membership would be terminated. Furthermore, the UN cannot "prosecute" people as it is not a government. We are not members of any international courts that prohibit waterboarding, otherwise they obviously would have prosecuted us after we made it public that we had done such. In short, my opponent's assumption that waterboarding is illegal under international standards is illogical because, if it was illegal, legal action would have been taken by now. The fact that no legal action has even been discussed is contrary to the resolution. My opponent seems to be under the impression that I must prove that waterboarding is not torture, even though he, as affirmative, has failed to fulfill his burden of proof in claiming that it IS torture. Nonetheless, such a stance is not required to negate the resolution. I am arguing against the second provision of the resolution, namely that "anyone who allowed (waterboarding)/executed (waterboarding) should be prosecuted". There are two reasons why this portion of the resolution is inadequate. Firstly, as I have already covered quite extensively, the involved parties cannot be prosecuted because they are under no legal system that criminalizes waterboarding and that has proper authority to prosecute prominent US government officials in the court of law. Secondly, I believe that these instances of waterboarding are justified and thus ought not to be criminally tried even if waterboarding WAS a crime (which it was/is not.) Unlike waterboarding, murder is a crime in most countries. However, US soldiers who participate in armed combat are not prosecuted when they return to the US. Why? Because they were doing something that would normally be considered unacceptable in the name of defending their country, a superior good when considering that those he fought against were enemies of his country and his cause. Likewise, all three instances of waterboarding were used to extrapolate information in the name of protecting the American public. One instance was used to stop a likely successful plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge (http://article.nationalreview.com...=), potentially saving hundreds of American lives. To say that the comfort of a terrorist should be valued above the lives of hundreds of Americans is ridiculous. If killing in defense of one's country is justified during times of war, then the comfort of a jihadist must be justifiably valued beneath the lives of many innocent Americans. I have a few questions so clarify the burden of proof that my opponent seems to be dodging. For an Affirmative vote to be even remotely possible, he must establish that there exists a court that holds authority over the members of government of the United States and that we have broken laws that apply to us and that consider waterboarding to be illegal. To my opponent: What body would act as prosecutor in these trials? What group do they speak for? What is this "international law" you refer to? Not agreements or treaties we have signed, but actual laws. What would be the action taken by the court if the parties are found guilty, and how does the court hold the authority to do so? Remember to show what laws or provisions we have violated to make sure that the proposed prosecution can actually be carried out. I await my opponent's response.