US, North Korea, torture

It is difficult for me to understand how torture apologists think America can retain any moral standing if we fail to bring US war criminals to justice:

Take a look at the most recent State Department human rights report on North Korea, updated in February. Under the section forthrightly titled "Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment," it lists that among other tortures, the North Koreans prefer "prolonged periods of exposure to the elements"; "confinement for up to several weeks in small 'punishment cells' in which prisoners were unable to stand upright or lie down"; "being forced to kneel or sit immobilized for long periods"; and "being forced to stand up and sit down to the point of collapse." If these aren't exactly the "confinement box" or "stress positions" or the "cold cell," they're close cousins. Shall we get into a debate about whether stripping someone naked and placing him in a cell chilled to 50 degrees and dousing him with cold water is materially different than "prolonged periods of exposure to the elements"?

One of the core commitments of the Enlightenment is universalism: the idea that morals apply universally. So long as we apply different standards to the out-group as we do to the in-group, we abandon this core commitment.