Torture is wrong because it inflicts unspeakable pain upon the body of a fellow human being who is entirely at our mercy. The tortured person is bound and helpless. The torturer stands over him with his instruments. There is no question of "unilateral disarmament," because the victim bears no arms, lacking even the use of the two arms he was born with. The inequality is total. To abuse or kill a person in such a circumstance is as radical a denial of common humanity as is possible. It is repugnant to learn that one's country's military forces are engaging in torture.
The Nation's website is chock full with interesting articles, including profiles of Sen. Durbin and Rep. Waxman as well as the discussion (quoted above) on why torture is wrong. Other articles talk about execution of minors (via a discussion that includes a member of a victim's family who opposed the execution of the fifteen-year-old involved) and how columnists such as Charles Krauthammer* praised Bush's inauguration address without disclosing how they were consulted.
In respect to that issue, I somewhat respect Maggie Gallagher's explanation of receiving 21.5K government consulting fees relating to her traditional marriage activities, but am a tad bit disdainful about her alleged cluelessness on why not disclosing is problematic. It is amazing how conservatives can be quite scornful of Clinton and other "liberals" for being immoral and unprincipled (and journalists as biased shills), but when challenged for doing things that are or surely look unprincipled, they suddenly become quite defensive and cagy. And, I must say, Gallagher must have quite a busy life given her "forgetting" about being paid over twenty thousand dollars by the government.
Overall, this is another case where we cannot allow extreme cases (e.g., Armstrong Williams, who she did not want to be associated with) to be seen as isolated wrongs, when ultimately they are just the most glaring of a more fundamental problem -- the idea that the rules do not apply along with a totally hypocritical tendency to cry out when the other side do something they find wrong. Or, pretend to be totally innocent, perhaps saying that they are insulted that their integrity is being challenged. [As noted here and here, if we compare Republicans and Democrats, the ultimate "winner" in the nastiness sweepstakes is obvious.]
Also, it underlines my belief that editorials should have basic disclosure rules, especially guest columnists who many might not know are special interest advocates. This might seem obvious to some people, but enough readers do not take such material with the grain of salt justified that I think it is a necessary safeguard.
How about the involvement of editorialists and others with those they write about, including paid gigs? It is simply naive to be shocked about this sort of thing, though 240K is simply ridiculous, since it has been done forever. And, opinions from those connected to the government are fine as far as it goes. The important thing is disclosure. For instance, it surely is unsavory for the likes of George Will to portray himself as a neutral above the fray commentator, while behind the scenes helping Ronald Reagan with his political activities.
And, when I say "neutral," it does not mean lack of ideological bent -- surely his very purpose is to supply a point of view. I mean that he has a certain special connection or at least the appearance thereof to one side, which should be disclosed. Now and again we need to be reminded about such things.
---
* Krauthammer is a downright nasty columnist and the Bush Administration should find him quite congenial. His column today finds it troubling that a few senators "dissented" by voting against Dr. Rice's confirmation. Others might argue this was their job, given they honestly felt she was a bad choice. Likewise, joined his fellow conservatives by being so upset that some felt she lied in part because a majority of the nation did not think so. How very democratic of you, Charles!