Is torture always political?

Having read further in Scarry's book, I'm wondering about one key issue:
Is torture always political or does torture politicize the individuals involved (torturer and tortured) or must it always have a political context? For example: to "illicit confession or information." My own thoughts on this tend more toward the idea that torture politicizes the individuals involved, and the act of torture itself need not necessarily have a political context or goal. I'm confused though by Scarry's points in this because she seems to suggest that to assign meaning or context to why one tortures, through motive, is to assign a role to the torturer that he/she does not have. She writes, "Torture, ...consists of a primary physical act, the infliction of pain, and a primary verbal act, the interrogation. The verbal act, in turn, consists of two parts, "the question" and "the answer" each with conventional connotations that wholly falsify it. "The question" is mistakenly understood to be the "motive"; "the answer" is mistakenly understood to be "the betrayal." The first credits the torturer, providing him with a justification, his cruelty with an explanation. The second discredits the prisoner, making him rather than the torturer, his voice rather than his pain, the cause of his loss of self and world" (35).
So, I'm wondering if her argument is that to try and understand the "motive" of torture is to automatically give it an excuse? By seeking justification, it is somehow justified? My biggest question though of the above quote is that where does the differentiation come from regarding torture for confession's sake vs. torture that stems from rage, such as the mental torture of knowing one or one loves is about to be executed by a death squad or the torture that might occur (such as rape, deprivation of food/sleep/shelter etc) in a time of war that is not "used" to gather information but as a punishment or tool of annihilation? Is that not torture? I don't understand where that distinction comes from and why it is even desirable to distinguish between torture for national security vs. torture as a means of further (and near total) dehumanization? When does torture become seperate from abuse if by definition it encompasses abuse and amplifies it? Does this seperation hinge on intention, and if so does the intention being "ethnic cleansing" or "policies of differentiation" or "security," distinguish it any way from the violence that is embedded in the very structure of certain occupations, such as being a soldier? What I mean by that is, not to equate soldiers as torturers but as agents who are both dehumanized by their occupation but also must in turn dehumanize others in order to "defend" "protect" or "conquer" and "destroy" a perceived threat or enemy.

One of those most fascinating points that Scarry brings up is the use of the location of torture, a room, a hospital, a factory, a ditch...the way that the location and the objects used to torture are often very every day objects such as a bathtub, a rope, soap, water, showers, a telephone, electricity. She explains that this is the very inversion of "civilization" in that by using every day objects associated with domesticity and civilization as tools and rooms of torture, this turns the connotations of what it means to be civilized on its head. She also comments on the way that the torturers build their own vocabulary alluding to the "work" they do, naming a torture room and the tools of their 'trade' also with domestic references. This idea of torture being part of their work/trade/occupation is also interestingly in line with what I wrote before about occupations that require the dehumanization of all involved. Soldiers are expected to adhere to the "rules of engagement" and be able to just "turn off" the ability to kill when they return from war but when does the process of turning that on begin, if not with their own dehumanization and dissolution of their individuality for the sake of the collective, ambiguity required to subscribe to such abstract notions as "duty." Yes, individuals can act on their own conscience but doesn't "training" that strips the individual down to a programmable machine defeat or at the very least undermine the notion of the individual still having the freedom and the responsibility to act ethically in an entirely unethical situation? More later.

peace!