Torture is not self-defence

I do not think that Bagaric makes a defensible argument in the two pieces we read by him. The main problem I have is his reliance on the comparison between torture and self-defense, which I believe to be a false analogy which leads to problematic outcomes. The author states that our right to self-defence is undeniable and that this is the most comparable thing to torturing for some greater good. I see a multitude of problems with this. For one thing, for self-defence to be morally permissible, I believe the harm has to be undeniably apparent and that the threat has to be of an equal magnitude to what is imposed on the perpetrator through self-defence. Since the person being tortured is held captive and presumably does not have access to weapons or means of harming the captors, the analogy of self-defence is faulty. I grant that they may hold information that can prevent harm, but we must critically analyze who is being tortured and on what grounds.More importantly, self-defence is, in my opinion, horrendously misused and the racial biases built into institutions of self-defence and torture alike need to be critically assessed. We all know of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. A story that has received much less media attention is about a man in an Ohio Walmart, John Crawford III, with an unloaded BB rifle, looking at pet supplies, who was shot dead by officers. Apparently the officer had gotten a call that Crawford was pointing the gun at customers, even though video surveillance clearly contradicts this; the cop was not prosecuted on any charges. If all it took to kill a father of two, holding a toy gun, was a phone call claiming they were a threat, most likely due to the color of their skin, then under this same logic, all it would (and I think probably does) take is some person claiming some man from the middle east is connected to terrorism for them to be tortured and basic human rights violated. Perhaps I am straw-manning, but my conclusions remain true even if it is less simple than torturing someone that easily - the argument that torture is permissible because self-defence is permissible is a faulty and highly problematic argument based on the reasons I just provided. The way self-defence stands now, at least in the US law force is morally flawed because it is racist and unjust. Using one flawed, violent system as a justification for the violent system of torture, does not provide the ground necessary to make torture morally permissible.