In a warzone that would be correct.
Yay! We're back to discussing facts!
In another country, that is incorrect, as Italian Judges have ruled, according to their laws.
The judges were not ruling according to their laws. Italian law does not try to supersede international law and say that enemy fighters cannot be captured on Italian soil. If Italian law ever did attempt that, it would mean Italy had withdrawn from most of their international treaties (including the Geneva Accords).
It is possible that Italy could try to be a neutral party and not allow military action on their soil. But as it happens, we were there with the permission of the Italian government, conducting a joint operation in which Italian agents were equal participants.
If the detention site didn't include torture, this would also be correct, but torture is against both american law, and the Geneva Convention, and international law.
Most laws have the 'enablers' as being as much responsible as the torturer, so transporting a person to be tortured is 'enabling' and therefore an offense.
OK that I can agree with. But I'm not about to accept foreign jurisdiction over American torturers until I start seeing foreign interest in justice for tortured Americans.
American soldiers have been tortured in WWII/Korea/Vietnam/Iraq91 and probably more I can't think of. When I see some level of interest in providing justice for those victims, I'll revise my opinion on letting Americans be brought to justice for the same crimes.