Bush's moral exceptionalism - acceptable or not?

[StrawDog]

Bush as a proud and self confessed supporter and enabler of torture and rendition, has been, and is now again in the cross-hairs of Human Rights Organizations. This thread has less to do with whether a legal process will actually eventuate, and more to do with how a national leader of a leading nation can possibly support the very actions that provided the platform for the Nuremberg Trails. How has the moral compass of the Western world been so thoroughly trashed?

From the The International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)

“Bush Torture Indictment

Synopsis

On February 7, 2011, two torture victims were to have filed criminal complaints for torture against former president George W. Bush in Geneva, who was due to speak at an event there on February 12th. On the eve of the filing of the complaints, George Bush cancelled his trip. Swiss law requires the presence of the alleged torturer on Swiss soil before a preliminary investigation can be open. The complaints could not be filed after Bush cancelled, as the basis for jurisdiction no longer existed.

These two complaints are part of a larger effort to ensure accountability for torturers, including former U.S. officials. So on February 7, 2011, CCR publically released the "Preliminary Bush Torture Indictment." This document presents fundamental aspects of the case against George Bush for torture, and a preliminary legal analysis of his liability for torture and a response to some anticipated defenses. This document will be updated as developments warrant. The exhibit list contains references to more than 2,500 pages of supporting material.”

(complete indictment here)

Anyone have a rational argument why this indictment should or should not stand?