But in the case in which torture is being argued here there is a threat. And it is from a group of people. And the person being tortured either A) has connections with the group or B) is a member of the group.

If a gang threated to kill your loved ones, or one of your own, then in selfdefense killing them all would be fine by most people I know. Selfdefense CAN target a group.

And the purpose of selfdefense is to protect yourself or your own from being hurt. Thus it is preemptive action. Torture can be used as a preemptive form of selfdefense.
I didn't say that self-defense didn't apply to a group. I'm saying - something which you either refuse to see or are continually avoiding - that to defend yourself from someone does not mean you can hurt someone else.

If members of a certain group attack you, you have no self-defense justification to attack someone else that happens to be in the same group. That would be ruled in every rational court across the world.

Self-defense is not justification for torture.

That is where you are wrong because the those violations never had an outline in them as to the concequences. Since there is no concequence stated there must be a resolution of what an acceptable punishment is. War was not an acceptable punishment. I don't care if it got voted down for corrupt reasons. That just goes to show that UN has yet another problem.

The president just couldn't declare war on Afganistan after 9-11. He still had to get congress approval first(which he did immediatly). Unless these things are outlined a head of time it isn't legal...more or less in reference to declaring war on another country in the international community...and such.
Congress gave Bush the power to invade Iraq and whatever-the-hell else he wanted. Something I very strongly disagree with, but whatyagonna do.

It isn't the UN that is fear but it is the UN that should be feared. If they pass something and it isn't followed then everyone needs to enforce some sort of penalty. If not then why have the UN at all?
Exactly. The UN wasn't going to do anything about Iraq. Not that I'm saying we should've invaded - I disagree, in fact, with the invasion of Iraq. But the UN has a history of incompetence when it comes to dealing with force. It does great with resolutions on how much we should stop industry, but doesn't do well when it needs to make a quick decision concerning a war/the possibility of war.