Torture according the U.N. Convention against torture:

...any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

It is clear, this includes acts which our military and CIA participated in, including, but not exclusively, waterboarding. waterboarding This was enacted under the direct order of the administration, under George W. Bush.

To further highlight the hypocrisy, ignorance, and blight on our American fabric, we ourselves have in the past executed Japanese war criminals specifically for waterboarding link

So it's okay for us? But not okay for anyone else?

hm...

Here is an article about the domestic spying program which Bush admitted to enacting without warrants, and admitted the program had been going for years.

This is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

The "Protect America Act" of 2007 Repealed the "warrant" part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act... some would argue this would be unconstitutional, but that is beside the point, because this specific Act states clearly in the wording that surveillance of foreign intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside of the United States was allowed. That is all it says.

Did they stay true even to the amended act? Do some research and find out link

It would appear the program was only partly concerned with actual foreign terrorists. It looks more akin to the groundwork of a McCarthian witch hunt.

Regardless of the reasoning behind its inception, and even ignoring whether the entire thing was constitutional, it clearly over reached the bounds of the act which tentatively allowed some form or warrant less wiretaps.

"there is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.'" - John Adams

Ironic

With countless Geneva Convention violations and numerous accounts of blatant disregard for international law, there is no question that he should be at least prosecuted under the ICC, where objectivity would be at its paramount, instead of a domestic court in the US. The only possibly defense (which has a gaping hole that should immediately become obvious to even your casual observer) is that he was the President of the United States/was acting wartime/blah blah blah, but even that falls apart under close scrutiny because many of the Geneva Convention's protocol specifically refer to wartime policies, plus we were never even in a state of war, just some imaginary war on terror. there is absolutely no concrete justification for it, historically, and former president George W. Bush is a criminal who should be prosecuted.