Social Justice is a multi-leveled thing- to illustrate I will use the above:
I do not recall questioning anyone's statements about the Taliban dumping bodies at impact sites (in fact in discussions regarding drone strikes i have generally been pretty pro-drone), but i suspect, because I have been classified as "one of those liberals" because of my positions on other subjects it would seem that "in kind" retaliation against me for other people's actions is acceptable.
However lets assume for a moment that that were not the case- the fact is that "equal" weight is a matter of perspective when it comes to malfeasance. in fact most of the Republican dirty tricks are justified by "the democrats do worse" even though at this point intime any neutral observer can see that the Republicans are certainly going the extra mile in underhanded tactics. similarly Solaris probably does think it is equivelent to say what he said above to asking for confirmation of the Taliban dumping bodies, even though one situation would be an issue (if documented) for international news and teh other wouldn't even make the local paper. Additionally slight differences in perception can produce massive changes in outcome, for example him saying (hypothetically) "The Taliban are dumping bodies at impact sites" and being questioned about evidence would be very different from "I have seen the Taliban dump bodies at impact sites", in which case his eyewitness testimony *is* the evidence, and questioning it is inherantly less honorable than questioning teh evidence of a blanket statement (though i might question how he identified them as taliban versus a different insurgency group if that issue were in any way relevant, which i doubt)
Again though I am uncertain about the background and i am using it to make a point based on hypotheticals, which is that "an eye for an eye" is not as clean cut and equal as it sounds. Because if I accidently knock out a man's tooth, and he comes after my son to knock out his tooth in revenge, and perhaps knocks out two instead, or perhaps knocks one out but thinks he failed... escalation is an inherant principle in supposedly equal retribution.
On the other claw, from the perspective of disuading those with hostile intent, sometime intentional escalation is the best way to prevent future conflict. Sometimes.