then yes they are. that is the way the world is governed. it's the same laws which allowed us to try in nuremburg. at the end of the day there needs to be some higher power able to say "now mr sadamma/north korea/lybia that isn't jolly nice and if you don't stop it we will kick you in the head"

law and order on an international scale.

"Ah but you see, if someone attempts to rape or kill your girlfreind and you kill or critically wound the guy. You know what? You just broke the law." actually you didn't. the law allows for this, reasonable defence of you and others. reasonable force for defence has alays been allowed.

torture on the other hand is absolutely ruled against. in possible situation is it to be allowed. upon punishment of death.

certain human rights are voided upon criminality. the right to freedom being one of them. but most still apply and how this all works is found in the declaration.

"Now if the other side won't follow the rules in international law, they have voided their rights under international law." no it's exactly the opposite certainly for morality. do you want to drop to the level of our enemies? do we want to start beheading people. at that point what do we fight for? freedom and justice? if we're fallen so far that we are no longer within our own morals then we have no justifiable reason to fight. we are no better than the enemies we are trying to fight.

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

would we be okay if we had seen lindy england tortured? would it be anymore shocking if it was her in those pictures being abused? or would we shrug it off as we are now saying it is necessary?

at the end of the day the law is there. and so is punishment the nazi leaders had it, milosevic and sadamme will have it. it's just a shame lindy england and the rest of her ilk won't.