Contesting the meaning, permissibility and use of torture: Enhanced interrogation methods and the norm against torture

US President Donald Trump proclaimed during his election campaign that he would bring back waterboarding and ‘a hell of a lot worse’. As far as we know, however, this threat never materialised during his time in office. This chapter argues that international law and being seen to act legitimately constrained Trump’s policy aspirations with regard to proposed interrogation techniques. The prohibition against torture is a strong norm, institutionalised in international law that influences US government decisions. To make the argument, this chapter looks at the ‘torture memos’ which show that former President George Bush’s administration not only tried to frame its policy (practically) as in line with international law but also conceded (normatively) that it should be doing so. The main argument is that discussions about the legality of US actions with regard to interrogation methods reflect the importance of international law for policy decisions. The rule of law matters and it has an impact on the Trump administration that has not been able to construct a convincing argument that ‘torture’ is a lawful way of gathering intelligence that the government can pursue legitimately.