“The Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Scandal” is way too long a description for the Iraqi Prisoner Abuse Scandal. I propose that a new, snappier title be devised in order for it to be better remembered. Given the profusion of naked Iraqi bottoms in the pictures trickling out of Abu Ghraib, I propose the name “Bumgate”. It has a nice ring to it.
Hmmmm. Rummygate maybe - if the buck ends up stopping at his desk.
Here’s some useful background info about the ‘gating’ of scandals.
[quote]List of scandals suffixed with ‘gate’-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Following the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, the suffix -gate has been used to name various other scandals (linguists call this process back-formation). Its use sometimes indicates that the source of the scandal is an audio tape of a private conversation. Gatemania refers to its overuse.
Please add a descriptive note to each entry.
* Angolagate
* Applegate
* Betsygate
* Billygate - US President Jimmy Carter's brother, Billy Carter, legally representing Libyan terrorist
* Bingogate
* Camillagate (tape of a telephone conversation between Charles, Prince of Wales and Mrs Camilla Parker-Bowles)
* Cheriegate - concerning Cherie Blair's association with Carole Caplin
* Chinagate
* Coffeegate
* Contragate (aka Irangate)
* Debategate - Carter's debate briefing books
* Dianagate/Squidgygate (tape of a telephone conversation between Diana, Princess of Wales and a male friend)
* Donnygate - corruption amongst Doncaster councillors.
* Enrongate
* Filegate
* Fornigate
* Gropegate
* Healthgate
* Intimigate - the revealing, by Robert Novak, of the true identity of Valerie Plame
* Iraqgate
* Koreagate - Korean businessman dealings certain members of Congress (1976)
* Monicagate (aka Zippergate) - Monica Lewinsky
* Nannygate - noncitizen domestic help for U.S. attorney general nominees
* Nigergate
* Nipplegate (aka teatgate) - Justin Timberlake reveals Janet Jackson's nipple during the halftime show of Super Bowl XXXVIII
* Pardongate - President Clinton's presidential pardons
* Pearlygate
* pretzelgate
* Rubbergate
* Sexgate
* Strippergate - Seattle city council members vote for rezoning a strip club parking lot in exchange for unethical donations
* Travelgate
* Troopergate
* Visagate
* Whitewatergate [/quote]It’s also overly euphemistic to refer to a systemic program of state-sanctioned murders and torture as abuse, as though it were an aberration; and it’s odd to throw in the word prisoner, when the occupying forces have steadfastly avoided that word in favor of the milder detainee, which means, of course, anyone who was rounded up because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and may therefore be held without charges and tortured (oops, I meant softened up), because with detainees one doesn’t have to comply with troublesome international conventions banning torture, in order to interrogate them about any information the torturers (oops, intelligence officers) choose to interrogate them about, just because the occupying force’s own information is so flawed.
Anyway, I’ll have to contemplate a better title. For now all I can think of is “State-Sanctioned Imperialistic Deviant Sex/Torture/Murder Scandal in the Name of All that is Good.” But that’s probably not snappy enough for you.
I’d go with the Rumsfeld Administered Prison Experience…
Yea, that works. The military could call it “Operation RAPE” if they think that makes it sound more serious.
Yea, that works. The military could call it “Operation RAPE” if they think that makes it sound more serious.[/quote]
That’s the real problem, isn’t it? They are trying to make it sound LESS serious!
Whatever they call it, however, will not do justice to the pictures.
I’d go with “Torture-gate.”
Yea, that works. The military could call it “Operation RAPE” if they think that makes it sound more serious.[/quote]
That’s the real problem, isn’t it? They are trying to make it sound LESS serious!
Whatever they call it, however, will not do justice to the pictures.[/quote]
Agreed. Rumsfeld said, “My impression is what has been charged thus far is abuse, which I believe technically is different from torture and, therefore, I’m not going to address the ‘torture’ word.” Which, of course, is BS. This was not merely abuse. Prisoners were tortured, plain and simple.
The 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment or Punishment," of which the US is a signatory, defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.” That is exactly what happened here, which the administration euphemistically refers to “softening up” “detainees” rather than the more accurate description of torturing prisoners, most of whom have not been charged with any crimes.
As for a picture telling a thousand words, that is generally true, except that many of the most damning ones probably will not be printed by the media, just as they refused to show the dead soldiers coming home, and those that are shown are often cropped to make them less offensive.
Irackemgate,
Rack as in the instrument of torture.
An excerpt from the Economist.
[quote]
Abuse in Iraq
The view from within
Moreover, while the ghastly reports from Abu Ghraib horrified people in the West, the ruling coalition had long since lost its innocence in Iraqi eyes. Promises of freedom and democracy may be believed in far-away America, but long ago became incredible to Iraqis as the violence worsened and the counter-insurgency got harsher. Mr Hussein kept 5,000-odd detainees in Abu Ghraib jail, remarked a local human-rights campaigner, while the Americans have held some 7,000 there.
Nor were the allegations new. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had repeatedly aired its concerns. Thousands of ex-inmates bore the scars of the nylon cuffs which held their hands tightly together behind their backs. If they wanted to defecate, they said, soldiers pulled down their trousers. Many said they had been stripped naked of all clothing, bar the ubiquitous hood, and subjected to kicks and beatings. The news agency Reuters protested in January that three of its employees had been detained and tortured for three days in January, enduring sleep deprivation,
What about West Virginia Gate?
No wonder Senator Byrd is against the war, its making his state the laughing stock of the union. 
But seriously people, every war has these events. Vietnam sure did. Ask John Kerry. Should these acts of lewd and monkey-like behaviour at Iraqi prisons be excused? No. Should we stay the course? Yes. Should the US further internationalize operations in Iraq and make ammends with its European allies – yes. Powell has been marginalized within the Bush administration. Its time the neo-cons were given the boot and moderate Rockefeller Repubs get back in the driving seat. Bush should kick Cheney out of the VP slot. The meaning would be symbolic to those in the Rockefeller/LaGuardia mold.
Chewy
No.
It has failed. It’s time to admit it.
Had you raised that question shortly after the invasion, the answer could have been “yes” - perhaps even from some of those opposed to the war.
[quote=“wipt”]No.
It has failed. It’s time to admit it.[/quote]
But since the CPA (Can’t Plan Anything) has failed at almost every turn, it’s time to leave.
So eager to fail? So eager to quit?
How about the Iraqi Horror Picture Show?
[quote]In one statement, a prisoner tells how he witnessed a US army translator raping an Iraqi boy, aged somewhere between 15 and 18. Kasim Mehaddi Hilas, prisoner number 151108, says a female soldier took photographs of the rape. Sheets had been hung to block the prisoners’ view, but Mr Hilas says he heard the boy’s screams and climbed a door to see what was going on. “The kid was hurting very bad,” his statement reads.
The statements were published in The Washington Post, accompanied by images that will haunt America. One shows an Iraqi completely naked, his arms outstretched, his back to the camera. His body is smeared with a thick brown substance that looks like excrement. It is caked around the back of his head.
Yet it is not simply these images and details that are so shocking, but the overwhelming evidence suggesting that, far from being an isolated episode involving a “few bad apples” from Appalachia, as the administration claims, this abuse was part of a systematic, gloves-off approach to dealing with suspected “terrorists” in the post-9/11 world.
Compelling evidence is emerging that responsibility for the abuse goes right to the Pentagon, where an ultra-secret “black operation” was set up to run the interrogation process. This unit, under the direction of Stephen Cambone, under-secretary of defence for intelligence, reportedly used theories developed by an academic to guide the torture of the detainees.
CPA has already failed. Only the blind can’s see it.
Bush surely is.
[quote]With no sign of lasting peace in sight, and many gruesome photos and videos showing the abuse of prisoners yet to be released, a handover of sovereignty may seem, at best, a damage-limiting strategic withdrawal. At worst, it may be portrayed as a shame-faced retreat.
Economist[/quote]
[quote=“Chewycorns”]
But seriously people, every war has these events. Vietnam sure did. Ask John Kerry.[/quote]
The U.S. once stood as a beacon of liberty and moral responsibility in the world. That reputation is now being squandered for the power and glory of Empire.
It is unclear how this will ever result in
The mission is reform in Iraq and the entire region. Bush stated very early on that this War would be different than any previous and that it would take a LONG time to complete. I have never understood why the Bush admin. was pushing for a handover on any arbitrary date (yes, I know the pressure is political)…
Just because the first plan fails is no reason to give up. If the mission is worthy, and I believe it is, then it deserves renewed efforts and perseverence.
The pressure to quit comes from people who oppose Bush primarily on political grounds and they are hoping for us to fail in Iraq. They cheer each set back.
How churlish. “They” opposed the illegal occupation of Iraq from the first, so the Bush-supporters allegations of schadenfreude against the opposition are unfounded and primarily on political grounds. Besides, the Coalition isn’t limited to Bush.