I was referring to Abu Graib because of the big public reaction to that—not because it was the worst thing ever per se, but because of the scandal it caused due to these photos. That damaged the war effort quite a bit, I think.
I don’t think “the other side does it too, and worse” is a valid justification. Even putting the ethics aside, it is very bad PR, makes you loose support and makes reaching your goals so much harder.
not because it was the worst thing ever per se, but because of the scandal it caused due to these photos.
So you agree that the media reaction to Abu Graib cannot be justified as a rational reaction to those photos. The question thus arises why the media reaction was what it was? I believe the answer is because a lot of people in the media were already opposed to the war and thus were looking for any excuse to show it in a negative light.
Sure, media have their biases—one way or the other; the biggest one is
probably that focus primarily on what their readers find noteworthy—so they
pay more attention to some celebrity’s new dress rather than to a thousand
deaths in Africa.
One reason that excesses on “our side” are more noteworthy is because we tend
to believe that we have higher standards than the enemy. Thus, it is more
noteworthy when some on our team do not live up them. Also, having
incriminating photos did not really help...
In any case, I’d say that any politically-motivated selection bias is the
least of the problems, compared with the fate of those that were severely
abused or worse.
Also, there’s good reason to believe that torture degrades the intelligence apparatus that uses it. Torture seems easier than rational methods, and also feeds false information into the system.
I was referring to Abu Graib because of the big public reaction to that—not because it was the worst thing ever per se, but because of the scandal it caused due to these photos. That damaged the war effort quite a bit, I think.
I don’t think “the other side does it too, and worse” is a valid justification. Even putting the ethics aside, it is very bad PR, makes you loose support and makes reaching your goals so much harder.
So you agree that the media reaction to Abu Graib cannot be justified as a rational reaction to those photos. The question thus arises why the media reaction was what it was? I believe the answer is because a lot of people in the media were already opposed to the war and thus were looking for any excuse to show it in a negative light.
Sure, media have their biases—one way or the other; the biggest one is probably that focus primarily on what their readers find noteworthy—so they pay more attention to some celebrity’s new dress rather than to a thousand deaths in Africa.
One reason that excesses on “our side” are more noteworthy is because we tend to believe that we have higher standards than the enemy. Thus, it is more noteworthy when some on our team do not live up them. Also, having incriminating photos did not really help...
In any case, I’d say that any politically-motivated selection bias is the least of the problems, compared with the fate of those that were severely abused or worse.
Also, there’s good reason to believe that torture degrades the intelligence apparatus that uses it. Torture seems easier than rational methods, and also feeds false information into the system.