I think the provisions against torture only protect soldiers “in uniform”...
In all irony, legally, there was no torture. There was “harsh”.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/hayden_interrogations/2009/01/15/171897.html
Legal guidance was sought- and obtained- in all measures and means. Some circumstances had never been anticipated by the law - the Bush administration had to do the best it could to find a way to deal until law could be extrapolated or written
But as we have seen, facts have no meaning in show trials, which is what is planned.
It’s the seriousness of the charge, not the fact of whether it is true or even a crime