I can't really follow your arguments. Wether the actions have been approved by a democratic majority seems orthogonal to whether human rights have been violate

I can't really follow your arguments. Wether the actions have been approved by a democratic majority seems orthogonal to whether human rights have been violated (if a government performs torture on some humans it would still be a human rights issue even if there's democratic support for it). The fact that this would imply that other countries, such as India and China, also would have similar human rights issues doesn't seem very strange either - several countries often violate human rights in the same way. Not saying I agree with the legal case, but your explanations of why it's "insane" doesn't really hold water to me.