Torture and its Destination

Without going into the very dubious truth claims of this War on Terror process, I'd like to take a look at the results of the state's allowing itself practices of torture such as water-boarding and electro shock stun-belts in its interrogation techniques, granting for the sake of argument that this committing of evil actions is a felt necessary means to an end, rather than a wallowing in evil for its own sake.
Where the incarcerated is by official policy not deserving of human rights, essentially sub-human, then it is natural that the interrogators will find it easier to inflict the desired torture with an easy conscience that this quivering sub-human mass of fear and pain is deserving of his sub-human treatment. The fact of his quivering in fear will also confirm for the torturer his own superiority to this figure who in turn is deserving of the contempt with which he is being treated- we are not automatons and this is the nature of the psychological, emotional dynamic of this scenario. The 'terrorist' is guilty by definition, and the torture will yield the proof of this, thus justifying the torture.
My main line of interest though is what does the act of torture do to the torturer. The research of Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram, is well known when in 1960 he designed an experiment to test the limits of obedience. He recruited students from the university to take part in a pilot study, and in individual sessions they were told that they were participating in an experiment that would measure the effects of punishment on learning. Each participant was then directed to inflict a series of electric shocks on a "learner," increasing the intensity of the shocks with each wrong answer given. Although the learner appeared to be just another volunteer, he was actually a confederate of Milgram's and received no shock at all.
In short, about 60 percent of students administered what they thought were genuine shocks to the learners up to the point of fatal doses for the crime of giving wrong answers, even when hearing the death screams of those being tortured.
Likewise one could look at the Nazi concentration camp system, the gulag, etc in pursuit of this question as to what torture does to the torturer as a kind of psychological process or fact, and what is naturally found is that the torturer does not remain the reasonable, rational being he may have been prior to such actions, but that he quickly becomes the doer of these actions both inwardly and outwardly; he becomes with his inner being the torturer that he is in his physical actions.
It seems beyond comprehension in terms of modern civilised European life that the concentration camps could have happened, but evil is a spiral into which one quickly descends... with the committing of evil, one enters deep spiritual waters and opens the door to what seems a kind of demonic possession- or alternatively a very dark, primal area of the mind- and this all the more so when in a collective environment such as a state prison, where the vital first step through this trapdoor is positively encouraged by the state authorities before whom the soldier/warden is taught to surrender his will.
For this reason the events of an Abu Ghraib are in no sense an unfortunate aberration, but the logical and inevitable psychological or spiritual destination arising from practices of torture. This would inevitably be known by the relevant authorites, as is the certainty that the abuses that come to public light are exceptions only in that very sense of coming to public light, as opposed to being rare unfortunate occurences.