3 ms·

> Abu Ghraib a crime against humanity? Depends on how you define such, your examples meet old UN definition, Abu Ghraib meets newer ICC definition. > How many

> Abu Ghraib a crime against humanity? Depends on how you define such, your examples meet old UN definition, Abu Ghraib meets newer ICC definition. > How many people died in Abu Ghraib.. at least one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jamadi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jamadi > How many innocent lives were put at risk because of Abu Ghraib? Depends on how you define innocent, but given WMD was a false pretence, and regime change the moral justification retreat position, torture and prisoner abuse at the same site as the former regime is pretty damning. I would say a lot of lives were put at risk by this change in 'optics'. > let's get outraged about the Taliban.. No problem. > By the way, the guys in Abu were fighting.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jamadi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jamadi was a suspect, not a combatant. > One specific and direct result of Manning is the case of Shakil Afridi There's absolutely nothing specific or direct about Manning and this, the link you provide makes no such suggestion. > There are dozens and dozens of intelligence sources and relationships that were significantly harmed because of Manning. This was not to the case according to military testimony: http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/31/59869.htm http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/31/59869.htm http://www.thenation.com/blog/174622/seven-myths-about-bradley-manning http://www.thenation.com/blog/174622/seven-myths-about-bradl... (see number five.) EDIT: I misread, thinking you meant injured or killed. It just hurt relationships, I think that point is fairly hard to argue. Sure, it hurt relationships. I'd say Abu Ghraib looms larger in their consciousness than the leaks that took place though. > Being morally outraged over Bradley Manning puts you in the same shoes as a Taliban sympathizer because not only was Manning a soldier Echoes of GWB: you are either with us or against us. Most people have the maturity to rise above this simplistic level of thinking.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
> How many innocent lives were put at risk because of Abu Ghraib? further to what I wrote above: On April 20, 2004 insurgents fired forty (40) mortar rounds into the prison. Twenty-two detainees were killed and 92 wounded. Commentators thought the attack was either as an attempt to incite a riot or retribution for detainees' cooperating with the United States.[6] reasonable to surmise shelling was to stop or prevent information being given up under torture.
- smsm42 13y ago
  So wait, now US soldiers must take the blame for one set of terrorists killing other terrorists to prevent the latter from talking? Maybe also the police is to blame when Mafia is killing witnesses? Abu Ghraib abuses are bad, but it looks like you're losing perspective here and try to paint every wrong being done as US fault, no matter who did it or why.
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
    Blame isn't as black and white as you are making out. If the police have a duty of care to witnesses, and the Mafia kill them, then the police should take some blame. Not as much as the mafia. Think of a witness protection program, if they fail at their task then they are partially to blame. So no, I am not trying to paint it all as being US' fault, you can tell that because I wrote "insurgents fired".
    - smsm42 13y ago
      You wrote "insurgents fired" but also you wrote that "innocent lives" (supposedly talking about imprisoned terrorists) are at risk because of what happened in Abu Ghraib and brought other terrorists firing as an example. SO you laid the blame not on terrorists that fired but on US forces that captured the terrorists.
      - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
        in my initial comment, which applies as much to the staff as the people you assume are terrorists: > How many innocent lives were put at risk because of Abu Ghraib? Depends on how you define innocent

eliasmacpherson 13y ago

> How many innocent lives were put at risk because of Abu Ghraib? further to what I wrote above: On April 20, 2004 insurgents fired forty (40) mortar rounds into the prison. Twenty-two detainees were killed and 92 wounded. Commentators thought the attack was either as an attempt to incite a riot or retribution for detainees' cooperating with the United States.[6] reasonable to surmise shelling was to stop or prevent information being given up under torture.

smsm42 13y ago
So wait, now US soldiers must take the blame for one set of terrorists killing other terrorists to prevent the latter from talking? Maybe also the police is to blame when Mafia is killing witnesses? Abu Ghraib abuses are bad, but it looks like you're losing perspective here and try to paint every wrong being done as US fault, no matter who did it or why.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  Blame isn't as black and white as you are making out. If the police have a duty of care to witnesses, and the Mafia kill them, then the police should take some blame. Not as much as the mafia. Think of a witness protection program, if they fail at their task then they are partially to blame. So no, I am not trying to paint it all as being US' fault, you can tell that because I wrote "insurgents fired".
  - smsm42 13y ago
    You wrote "insurgents fired" but also you wrote that "innocent lives" (supposedly talking about imprisoned terrorists) are at risk because of what happened in Abu Ghraib and brought other terrorists firing as an example. SO you laid the blame not on terrorists that fired but on US forces that captured the terrorists.
    - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
      in my initial comment, which applies as much to the staff as the people you assume are terrorists: > How many innocent lives were put at risk because of Abu Ghraib? Depends on how you define innocent