For anyone who supposes the United States to have begun as an Enlightenment experiment in institutionalizing “natural [that is, moral] rights,” this sentence from a memo of a U.S. president must come as a surprise. It explicitly assumes that human beings can lose the moral right to be treated “humanely” (that is, as human beings are entitled to be treated). Underlying that explicit assumption seems to be another, that certain “unlawful combatants” have somehow forfeited their status as human beings – or, at least, their right to be treated humanely. It is that assumption I want to investigate here. If, as I believe, I can show that even terrorist suspects such as those held at Guantánamo are entitled to humane treatment, especially to be safe from torture, then it is unlikely that war provides any context justifying torture or similar forms of inhumane treatment.

This chapter has four parts. The first part offers an analysis of torture. The second explains why torture so understood is always prima facie morally wrong. Torture is a form of inhumane treatment and all inhumane treatment is always prima facie morally wrong.