The act is so depraved so violent, so sickening, one shudders at the thought of what else percolates in the minds of those perpetrating it. Some of the details get lost in the translations, but evidence coming out of Iraq in the form of photographs and first-hand accounts make the torture at Abu Ghraib seem like child’s play by comparison.
According to reports, a program of “sexual cleansing” is being perpetrated against homosexuals in Iraq.
One of the methods, known as either “American Gum” or “Iranian Gum,” involves using industrial strength glue manufactured in Iran, which sticks to the skin, and can only be surgically removed. Death squads targeting homosexuals proceed to glue their anuses shut and then force feed them diarhetics, causing them to die an excruciating death.
Much like photographs of blacks being lynched in the American South were subsequently circulated by the proud perpetrators, videos of this violent form of torture are being virally distributed on mobile phones in Iraq.
While life under Saddam Hussein was no picnic, Iraq was far more secular than it is today, and while America’s “liberation” of Iraq put an end to the Baathist dictatorship, the absence of any post-invasion plans for rebuilding and restructuring allowed for the rapid spread of Islamic fundamentalism, resulting in a campaign of terror that has been waged against gay Iraqis.
In 2005, Iraq’s leading Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued a fatwa urging the killing of gays, lesbians and transgendered people in the “worst, most severe way” possible. “Ahl al-Haq” (the Followers of Truth) have stepped up attacks in recent months.
Attacks against homosexuals have increased significantly in Shiite neighborhoods, as well as the southern provinces and in the Hurriya, Sho’la and Sadr neighborhoods in Baghdad. In Sadr City a lists of the names of allegedly gay men were circulated including a quote stating, “You, prostitutes, we will punish you!”
Gay assassinations are reportedly being orchestrated by police and security agents in the Ministry of the Interior.
“Honor killings” in Iraq are widely accepted, whereby fathers or brothers are given wrist slaps and virtually hailed as heroes for killing daughters and sisters if they “bring shame” on the family by having pre-marital or adulterous sex (even if she is raped). The same barbaric culture applies to homosexuals. In newly liberated Iraq, homosexuality is a crime, punishable by seven years imprisonment or, de facto, by execution.
Reminiscent of World War II, London based Iraqi LGBT, comprised of Iraqi exiles, have set up an underground system of safe houses and escape routes in Baghdad and other cities, smuggling gays and lesbians out of Iraq into neighboring countries and helping them apply for United Nations humanitarian protection. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs believes up to 30 people have been killed during the last three months alone.
Men are targeted simply for being perceived as gay. Men who dress in Western styles, or who shave their beards, are suspected of being gay. Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, (who reportedly has assumed the title of Grand Ayatollah), and his Mahdi army militias are suspected of being involved in these murders, although an Iraqi government source told ABC News (one of the few media outlets actually reporting on this) that Ahl al-Haq was suspected of playing a role.
The Rainbow Fund and Gays Without Borders are among organizations in the United States that are seeking to draw attention to the crisis and raise money to support the Iraqis in imminent danger.
At a rally held at Harvey Milk Plaza in San Francisco on May 17th, 2009, a group of politicians, religious leaders and activists sought to raise awareness of the plight of gay Iraqis and raise money for the Rainbow Fund. (See photos|video)
California Senator, Mark Leno, stated: “Once again we see the results of radical religious zealots, whether they are in Iraq, California or anywhere else…who are insistent that their particular interpretation of their particular religious book should become state law.”
San Francisco Supervisor, Bevan Dufty called the violence and torture perpetrated against gay Iraqis “unspeakable,” adding, “to have ridicule place upon dead bodies, and left in shallow graves, to have families that disown their own, and subject them to torture and murder is absolutely unspeakable.”
San Francisco Police Commission President, Theresa Sparks, whose son is a marine serving in Iraq, Karen Koi of the Rainbow Fund, Reverends Don Fox and Lea Brown of the Metropolitan Community Church, and Deborah Walker from the Harvey Milk Democratic Club spoke out forcefully against the violence and torture of Iraqis based upon who they are or who they choose to love.
San Francisco Supervisor, Ross Mirkirami, an Iranian, denounced the atrocities, stating, “San Francisco stands tall with the people of Iraq in this case that is not okay to watch people be publicly executed, allow them to be persecuted for any reason whatsoever, but because they are singling out people for being LGBT, and allowing this to happen at U.S expense, is why there should be a complete outcry from Americans.”
Michael Petrelis, the renowned activist and organizer of this event used the old Act Up call to action, reminding the audience: “We say no to homophobia. Gays and lesbians under attack, what do we do, Act Up, fight back.”
The final speaker, Gary Virginia from Gays Without Borders, voiced his disgust at Speaker of the House and San Francisco representative, Nancy Pelosi, who recently visited Iraq and said absolutely nothing, despite the fact that these reports have been out there for quite some time now. Years from now, there will be ample evidence of what she knew about this torture, and when she knew it. Yet as mind-boggling as Pelosi’s silence may be, the fact that none of the national gay organizations have uttered a word about this either shrieks volumes.
As one of the speakers, my focus was on the quandary America finds itself when it comes to this issue.
It is astounding that in 2009, we find ourselves, as Americans, in an awkward situation where we are not able to exercise the moral authority to speak out forcefully against Iraq’s treatment of homosexuals. Our military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, which treats gays and lesbians as second class citizens, coupled with our refusal to acknowledge, investigate or prosecute our use of torture, in violation of our international obligations, renders any criticism of Iraq hypocritical at best.
Former Vice President, Dick Cheney's recent assertion that the Bush Administration was "committed to using every asset to take down [al Qada] networks," is laughable, but unfortunately, President Obama cannot make such a claim either.
As long as America continues to implement the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy against gay servicemembers, discharging highly skilled, valuable assets at a huge cost -- both financially and tactically -- such highfalutin claims have no merit and cannot be taken seriously.
President Obama punts to congress, who in turn punts to the Pentagon (who says they have no plans to do anything about it), requiring Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to contradict the Pentagon, despite no evidence to suggest that anyone is actually doing anything about it.
Political stalling and hedging on this issue, (when fired translators could potentially be intercepting communications to prevent a terrorist attack), demonstrates that fear and prejudice trump a genuine commitment to national security.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was a terrible compromise from day one, but fourteen years later, under a Democratic congress and President, its continued implementation is inexcusable, bordering on treason.
Gay marriage may be the civil rights focus right now, and recent successes lessen the disappointments of the dismally fought opposition to Proposition 8, (which did little more than squander upwards of 40 million dollars), and the cowardly decision to uphold it by the California Supreme Court.
National gay rights organizations are nothing more than over-bloated, self-obsessed, self-congratulatory embarrassments, more adept at tackling dinner menu items than serious agenda items, and with more to say about Miss California runner-up, Carrie Prejean’s, breast implants than they do about gays and lesbians being slaughtered in Iraq.
And while gay marriage is worth of demanding as an equal right under the law and guaranteed by the constitution and despite its ultimate federal recognition being all but inevitable, the prejudices against it do not threaten national security. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, on the other hand, remains a dangerous policy in urgent need of the attention of thinking Americans, regardless of one’s sexual orientation.
It’s time to place your elected representatives on notice regarding their attention to a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and demand that either Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton – or both -- speak out decisively against the torture of gay Iraqis.
About Clinton
Causes Clinton Fein Supports
First Amendment Project
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).
Visual Aid
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network






Dont ask Dont tell makes sense
IT is a terrible thing for people to be persecuted and tortured for their beliefs or choices and I totally agree that protections should be inplace where that happens to protect those being persecuted, however, I think that is a bit of an EXTREME comparison to the dont say dont ask policy or the chosen definition of marriage in this and most western countries. Before you say I am a homophobe, I am a believer that all behavior, including sexual is a choice. I do not think there is a reason in the world for anyone at my job or in the military to know what I chose to do in my bedroom nor any reason to disclose this at work. It must be very stressful to be in the military and share your life so CLOSELY with others and the complications of potential attraction, harassment, and intimate relationships in quarters would be an unnecessary risk to take. I suppose this is the reason that military quarters are not co-ed, the last time I heard. If the policy was strictly dont tell, I could argue that it was discriminatory, but people always forget the dont ASK part. Your, my, or anyone elses sex life is really noones business, particularly at work. As far as gay marriage, I think marriage has dissolved far enough with all the free casual sex in our culture without a further broadening of its definition. I see no reason to change the singular attention and support of the male female relationship because it is the singular type of relationship from which each of us come and the foundation of a family, community, city, state, country,,etc. There are many ways to fight the civil rights issues that homosexuals face without messing with such a significant institution. Civil unions, would be an excellent response as they would not include in their definition, 'consummation' of the relationship. Civil rights for all,,, YES. Torture of ANY,,, NO. But lets not overlap the issues.
Unions vs Marriage
Melita, the push for gay marriage can be explained in one simple word: equality.
Those who say that civil unions should be enough are missing a fundamental point. Words mean something. In this instance, calling gay partnerships "unions" instead of "marriages" perpetuates the view that gay partnerships are not as valid as heterosexual ones. By reserving the word "marriage" for male-female partnerships, it maintains the cultural perception that these unions are more important than any other kind. This is wrong.
Imagine for a moment that during the Civil Rights movement someone had suggested, as a compromise, that African-Americans be given most of the rights enjoyed by white Americans but that in referring to the status of blacks they be called "conditional citizens." Black Americans would have the same rights as white Americans, but how do you think they would be perceived culturally? Many white Americans would secretly (or not so secretly) continue to believe that black Americans were not equal to them. Most important, young people raised using these different terms would continue to accept the notion that people are--despite appearances--unequal.
Now apply that to the "civil unions" vs "marriage" debate. If you're a young gay person looking at those terms, you're going to wonder why your relationship can't be called the same thing that a non-gay relationship is called. And if you're a non-gay young person--particularly one inclined to see gay people in an unfavorable light--it would be easy for you to use the inequality in terminology as an argument for your belief that gay people are not equal to you.
The simple fact is that a majority group does not want a minority group to be able to use the same name for their partnerships as the majority uses. Why? Because they don't want to accept that the minority is equal to them. They want to feel special, and one of the ways they maintain this feeling of superiority is by saying, "This is our word, and you can't use it."
Personally, I would abolish the term "marriage" altogether and call every legal partnership a civil union. But that isn't going to happen. The term "marriage" to refer to the union of two people is too entrenched in society. And as long as it's used as the default definition for the recognition of a partnership, it needs to be applied to all legal partnerships.
Semantics of union vs marriage
You make good points. For the sake of argument, perhaps we should call them marital unions and civil unions. I do feel equal to a man and I feel equal to a white person, yet I am a black person and a female. A same sex relationship is different than a opposite sex relationship in as much that one is Same sex and one is Opposite sex. Observing the difference, I dont believe lessens or betters one over the other. I believe marital unions are significantly unique in their ability to creat life. AS benign as some seem to believe that is, I believe it is an important outcome to focus on when highlighting different relationship choices. For the same reason that there are common law marriages versus marriages. differences dont equal superior or inferior, just different. I think that is an important message to be reinforcing in our childrens minds so they will not feel the need to be Exactly the same as others. WE are all different and unique and that should be embraced and not feared or ignored.
In addition...
Melita - First, I disagree that homosexuality is a choice (do you remember when you *chose* to be heterosexual?). There are too many children who have committed suicide over harassment for being gay for that to make any sense. They would just choose not to be gay, wouldn't they? But even if you were right, and it is a choice, it's nonetheless a perfectly legitimate social choice anyway.
You claim to "not think there is a reason in the world for anyone at my job or in the military to know what I chose to do in my bedroom nor any reason to disclose this at work."
Being gay -- or straight -- is not only about what you do in your bedroom. If you wear a wedding ring to work, in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage, are you not "telling" everyone that you are straight? When you refer to your wife/husband/spoouse are you not "telling" everyone you are straight?
As far as the notion that everyone forgets about the "Don't Ask" part of the equation, you are again, misinformed. That part of the policy is constantly violated. What you are suggesting is that people lie rather than tell the truth when asked the most innocuous of questions.
"You married?"..."Do you have girlfriend?"..."what did you do this weekend?"..."We're having a family function, want to bring your wife/husband?"
The point is that even if you lie as you're supposed to, or answer without saying you're gay, the semantic leapfrogging is in and of itself enough to trigger suspicion, which in turn, is enough to trigger an investigation, and ultimate discharge.
You state: "...complications of potential attraction, harassment, and intimate relationships in quarters would be an unnecessary risk to take." Really? Gays are already serving in the military, so any of those "risks" are already there. Sexual conduct governs all servicemembers, gay or straight.
I have one question for you though. Which do you think is a bigger risk? A big strapping guy being protected from the oh-so-dangerous knowledge that the guy in the next bunk is gay? Or that the gay guy being discharged, despite his knowledge of Farsi, and whose skills are enough to intercept and translate a terrorist threat, could prevent another 911 from occurring?
Bigger risk, gay bunkmate vs fellow soldier
Hi Clinton,
I think the debate of sexual choice is one that could go on far too long because I actually have a very outside the box way of looking at it, so I will skip the topic although you make valid points. On your point about not asking and not telling, I do not think it is legal anywhere for an employer or coworker to demand personal information about ones sexual preferences. In those situations, because I truly dont believe its anyones business, I would simply state that Id rather not discuss it rather than lie about it. I dont know when our culture started mandating the workplace as a socializing zone. Regarding your question, I am absolutely in agreement that a good soldier has nothing to do with ones sexual preference, so of course a soldier with the knowledge and skills you mention would be an asset. I only disagree when it comes to something called morale. I think soldiers are under enough stress without worrying that their bunkmate may be attracted to them. And no, not all gay people are attracted to everyone of the same sex anymore than all straight people are attracted to everyone of the opposite sex, but in a situation where my life is on the line, as a straight woman, I would feel much less doubt if my bunkmate were another female (that i would assume straight, even if i may be wrong) than if it were a straight male who were possibly attracted to me and possibly distracted because of. Sexual attraction is a fact of life and a potential distraction that is not needed in such close confines. It is a question of the morale of the soldiers and their faith that there are as few distractions to the objective as possible.