Two psychology researchers, it is reported here, propose the hypothesis that a motivation of many who support 'harsh interrogation techniques' - otherwise put, torture - is retributive rather than utilitarian. It isn't about whether or not torture results in good information so much as it's about punishing the detainee for 'past (immoral) behavior'.
Even if the research is about motivation, and not overtly about justification, its result is revealing if true. It shows that, in the way it is thought about by some of its supporters, torture is not merely indefensible; it is doubly indefensible. It is indefensible, first, because it violates a human right that ought to be considered absolute; and it is indefensible, second, in so far as it is thought appropriate as a punishment for people whose guilt has not been established by due process.
