Since 2004, there has been a flood of information confirming that the US systematically and pervasively tortured thousands of people in Afghanistan, Guant?namo, Iraq and CIA "black sites." This paper uses the American case to analyze the "liberal ideology of torture." What distinguishes "liberal" from "illiberal" torture is not the harshness of the practices themselves--not some mythic distinction between "torture" and "torture lite" or other euphemisms. Rather, "liberal" torture derives from: 1) the nature of the perpetrating state as a representative democracy, and 2) the ideological rationalization that interrogational violence is necessary and thus legitimate to protect an innocent and vulnerable society, and 3) the unrepresented "otherness" (i.e., foreign, alien, enemy) of those who "need" to be tortured (or do not deserve not to be). The liberal ideology of torture is popular and seductive--"our guys" used "enhanced techniques" on "terrorists/evil doers/the worst of the worst" "for us." Its opposite, the liberal ideology of prohibition, is unpopular, literally: no constituency has applied electoral muscle to enforce the prohibition, and there is bipartisan consensus to immunize US officials from accountability. Moreover, critics of the torture policy have been derided as "un-American" and "terrorist sympathizers." In the first part of this paper, I examine why torture was embraced as a "war on terror" tactic, rationalized as a necessity (rather than a choice), and popularly accepted as a legitimate exercise of state power. In the second part, I address the issue of tortureability, which has been premised on the basis of racial-religious-ethno-national identities (i.e., Muslims and Middle Easterners). In the third part, I provide a comparative analysis of the treatment of three individuals: Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen of Arab origin who was rendered to Syria for torture, subsequently found to be entirely innocent and released, but denied recourse in US courts; Muhammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi citizen who was suspected of being the "20th 9/11 hijacker" and for whom the "special methods" for Guantanamo were initially devised, which led in 2008 to a determination that he is unprosecutable but will remain imprisoned without trial; and Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the "mastermind" of 9/11, whose brutal torture overshadows efforts and plans (as yet, still in flux) to "bring him to justice." As these cases illuminate, the liberal ideology of torture cannot be reconciled with the liberal tenets of individual rights, limited government and the rule of law.