I examine the American use of international law on torture to legitimate its torture policies and practices in the 2000s. The case shows a problem in how much international law and political science scholarship conceptualizes compliance and non-compliance with international law. The gap between the legal commitments and the practice of the US is not captured by the suggestion that the US was choosing to violate rather than comply with its obligations under the Convention against Torture and other instruments. Instead, the US used the international law against torture to justify its policies of torture. International law was used as a tool in the legitimation contests of the US and others. I suggest that this is a common practice, which opens a more political understanding of the nature and power of international law.