U.S. military accused of atrocities against Iraqi gays

[Pint0 Xtreme]

LINK

U.S. military accused of atrocities against Iraqi gays
Refugee tells stunned audience that soldiers detained, executed gay civilians

A fundraising event to benefit an LGBT community center in Lebanon last week took a surprise turn when stunned audience members were shown graphic photographs of beheaded corpses and images purportedly depicting U.S. soldiers preparing to execute gay Iraqis.

Two gay Iraqi refugees, who declined to use their real names, delivered a presentation at the Human Rights Campaign headquarters July 24 in which they detailed alleged abuses of fellow gay Iraqis while calling on their audience to donate funds to Helem, a Lebanon-based center that works to address the plight of LGBT people in the Middle East.

One of the Iraqis, who goes by the name “Hussam,” showed the audience of about 80 people gruesome images, including shots allegedly of a beheaded man who was gay and another of the victim’s twin brother grieving over the severed head.

While asserting that anti-gay violence in Iraq is often committed by Iraqis, Hussam also said U.S. service members were involved in anti-gay hostility.

For example, he said service members displayed signs in front of their barracks with the words “Fuck Off Fags.”

But the reaction from the audience turned from anger to shock when Hussam said U.S. service members had detained Iraqi civilians perceived to be gay and executed them.

He then showed an image of what appeared to be an American soldier standing in front of a small group of four or five kneeling naked men who were chained together. Hussam claimed the men were gay Iraqis and that he possessed images of their execution, which he did not show the audience.

Dana Beyer, a transgender activist and Chevy Chase, Md., resident who attended the event, said she was “appalled” by the images of the atrocities, but especially by the allegation that U.S. service members were murdering gay Iraqis.

“When it comes down to our armed services … who potentially have contributed to atrocities like that, I’m just appalled,” she said. “And I hope that we will pursue this through the government, through the State Department and through the Department of Defense because this just can’t be left standing.”

Chris Farris, a gay D.C. resident who also attended the event, said he thought the photo was “disturbing and upsetting,” but voiced skepticism about the veracity of Hussam’s claim.

“It’s very difficult for me to believe that my country would allow its military to engage in the conduct that has been apparently documented,” Farris said. “I would urge the U.S. government to react.”

When confronted by a Blade reporter after the presentation, Hussam said he feared public disclosure of the photos would incite further violence in Iraq and refused to turn over copies of the images.

If U.S. service members executed the Iraqis as alleged, it would constitute a violation of international law under the Geneva Convention or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, depending on the circumstances.

Defense officials couldn’t immediately confirm whether allegations made at the presentation regarding U.S. service members were legitimate.

Air Force Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesperson, said he isn’t aware of any cases that match the allegations made by Hussam and deferred to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command for further comment.

Army CID spokesperson Jeffrey Castro also said he wasn’t aware of cases of U.S. service members executing Iraqis perceived to be gay, but said he’d investigate the matter.

Christopher Nugent, a D.C. attorney who specializes in U.S. political asylum cases, including cases involving gay Iraqis applying for U.S. asylum, said he, too, was unaware of reports of anti-gay actions by U.S. military forces in Iraq.

Nugent said he is frequently in touch with non-profit organizations and legal groups that provide pro-bono legal services to Iraqi refugees, including gay refugees.

“The anti-gay persecution is greatest among Sunni and Shia militias,” Nugent said, citing reports from non-profit groups operating in Iraq. No reports have come in indicating U.S. troops are responsible for anti-gay killings, he said.

Numerous sources have reported that Iraqis have allegedly committed human rights abuses against LGBT people in the country.

In April, the New York Times reported that a democratic Iraq coupled with an increase in security allowed an LGBT subculture to emerge, but the response to the new visibility has been “swift and deadly” and multiple victims of violence had been found, mostly men and boys suspected of being gay.

In a congressional fact-finding trip to Iraq at around the same time, gay Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) started calling for greater U.S. action in addressing these issues after he learned Iraqi government officials were allegedly involved in human rights abuses against LGBT people.

Sponsors ‘shocked’ by report

The July 24 event was co-sponsored by HRC, Human Rights Watch, and the National LGBT Bar Association, according to a posting on HRC’s blog.

HRC also listed the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission as a co-sponsor, but Sarah Tobias, an IGLHRC spokesperson, said her organization wasn’t involved.

Brad Luna, spokesperson for HRC, attended the event and said his organization was “shocked and disturbed” by the report of U.S. military involvement in the persecution of gays in Iraq.

“We've been working since then to verify and corroborate the claim, but have not thus far been able to do so,” Luna said. “We take this sort of allegation very seriously and will continue to monitor the situation.”

Scott Long, director of the LGBT Rights Program for Human Rights Watch, an international watchdog group, said he had just returned from a fact-finding trip to the Middle East on behalf of his group’s LGBT rights monitoring efforts.

“I have seen no indication in our research of any involvement of U.S. military personnel in targeted killings of gay Iraqis,” he said. “I have seen no evidence of these allegations.”

Long said he was in Lebanon two weeks ago and met with gay refugees from Iraq.

“I can certainly vouch for the work that is being done for Iraqi refugees in Lebanon,” he said.

D’Arcy Kemnitz, executive director of the National LGBT Bar Association, attended the event and said she didn’t know about Hussam’s photos before he showed them. She also said that she didn’t hear Hussam’s allegation that the U.S. military was involved in atrocities and has no copies of the photos he showed.

Still, she vouched for Hussam’s credibility.

“Based upon everything that I know, having worked with him in this kind of volunteer capacity, his credibility is beyond reproach,” she said. “He’s worked with international human rights groups since the time I’ve known him and before that.”

She said she couldn’t speak to whether the allegations warrant an investigation because, without having heard the remarks herself, she would be basing a decision on “hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay.”

Kemnitz emphasized that the “whole purpose” of the event last week was to “focus on providing some sort of support for the very few individuals who have been able to get out of Iraq.”

“Individuals getting out of Iraq are incredibly vulnerable and they face extreme hardship as they’re trying to get their refugee [status] processed, so that’s why everybody came together in a volunteer capacity to help those guys out,” she said.

She said she’d “just be absolutely heartbroken” if there were any negative consequences for the gay Iraqis seeking asylum.

Eric Wingerter, a public relations consultant working with the National LGBT Bar Association, said he initiated fundraising events in D.C. last weekend on behalf of gay Iraqi refugees. Wingerter said he learned about the plight of gay Iraqis through the association’s efforts to provide them with free legal assistance.

He said the National LGBT Bar Association is part of a network of legal groups helping gay Iraqis and others through the complex process of applying for U.S. political asylum.

Wingerter said weekend events raised about $8,000, which he would turn over to the Fund For Global Human Rights, a D.C. foundation that has worked in the past with Helem, which is to be the recipient of the funds. The event at HRC brought in about $6,000, he said, with another $1,000 raised at a subsequent event at Nellie’s bar on Sunday. Wingerter said he expected a further direct contribution from Nellie’s based on bar receipts.

According to Wingerter, Helem is playing a key role in helping LGBT Iraqis resettle in Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries after they flee Iraq due to anti-gay persecution.

Wingerter said the Fund For Global Human Rights, which helps non-profit groups providing refugee relief services, has a relationship with Helem and will deliver the funds raised in D.C. directly to Helem’s headquarters in Beirut.


‘There is no law and order’

Hussam discussed his personal experiences as a gay man living in Iraq with the Blade before the start of the Nellie’s fundraiser Sunday.

“I was involved with the LGBT community in Iraq before and after the war,” he said, in referring to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of the regime of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

He said gays were far better off under Saddam’s regime, even though, like all other groups, they had to obey the rules and restrictions of his dictatorial, one-party government.

“We had men’s clubs and men’s parties, which were gay events,” he said. “The government gave us a blind eye. They knew we existed.”

As a secular government that repressed Islamic forces opposed to his rule, Saddam cracked down on violence against various groups, including gays, Hussam said.

Saddam left most of the various religious and ethnic factions, including gays, alone in the country “as long as you stayed out of his way politically,” Hussam said.

But after the U.S. invasion ended Saddam’s rule, the U.S. and allied forces failed to establish a workable replacement, leading to a breakdown of the governmental institutions needed to protect the safety of citizens.

He said the power vacuum was quickly filled by warring ethnic and religious factions, many of which began persecuting gays.

“There is no law and order,” he said, even under the current Iraqi government that is quickly taking over full control of the country from the U.S. military.

Asked which groups are most responsible for anti-gay persecution and killings, Hussam said, “You can’t easily point a finger. We have militias, religious groups, criminal groups, hate groups,” he said. Members of each of these groups have targeted gay Iraqis, according to Hussam.

“All minorities in Iraq are targeted,” he said. “But some have stood up and denounced it when the Kurds were killed, when the Christians were killed. No one stands up for the gays when they are killed.”

“I lost eight of my gay friends” to anti-gay killings, he said. There are now “hundreds of gays” whose identities are known to anti-gay forces and who are in serious danger, he said. “Every day that passes, someone is lost.”

He said gays in the U.S. can help by putting pressure on the U.S. government and on the United Nations to, in turn, put pressure on the government of Iraq to put a stop to the violence against gays and other minorities.

Jesus fucking christ, I hope the allegations are not true but that may be wishful thinking.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We issue the Iraqi army uniforms which I believe are identical to our own, so it's more likely that it's Iraqi regulars doing this (which is, bluntly, eminently plausible) and they're just being mistaken for the US Army. Of course this implies that at the very least some US units have been turning the other way when the Iraqis they're working with are doing this.

[Big Phil]

Given that this thread is based on "hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay,” I'm not sure it's any more credible than if I were to announce that a friend of a friend of a friend, whose credibility is unimpeachable, spent all day yesterday buttfucking Tom Cruise and that therefore he must be gay.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Given that this thread is based on "hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay,” I'm not sure it's any more credible than if I were to announce that a friend of a friend of a friend, whose credibility is unimpeachable, spent all day yesterday buttfucking Tom Cruise and that therefore he must be gay.

It's a very good point that the source itself is highly questionable, to put it mildly. It just seems odd that anyone would make these claims simply because most of the people in Arabia opposing the US occupation of Iraq are the same ones who chop the heads off of gays, push walls down on them, shoot them, torture them, etc, which are common features of the security services of even nominally secular Arab countries. Nonetheless I suspect that most of the pictures are actually of random people killed by the insurgency with the militsa and army collecting their body parts afterwards. The Iraqi forces loyal to us... Will also doubtless kill homosexuals when they find them, though. On the other hand the same is, as noted, true of every country in Arabia.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

We issue the Iraqi army uniforms which I believe are identical to our own, so it's more likely that it's Iraqi regulars doing this (which is, bluntly, eminently plausible) and they're just being mistaken for the US Army. Of course this implies that at the very least some US units have been turning the other way when the Iraqis they're working with are doing this.

That seems like a much more believable explanation. It's certainly well known that many Iraqi police and military units can commit atrocities on their own without strict oversight.

[General Zod]

We issue the Iraqi army uniforms which I believe are identical to our own, so it's more likely that it's Iraqi regulars doing this (which is, bluntly, eminently plausible) and they're just being mistaken for the US Army. Of course this implies that at the very least some US units have been turning the other way when the Iraqis they're working with are doing this.

That seems like a much more believable explanation. It's certainly well known that many Iraqi police and military units can commit atrocities on their own without strict oversight.

My gut reaction is that it was propaganda being thrown about by Iraqi groups to smear US soldiers. I can see US troops doing a lot of stupid shit, but wanton murder against a minority group that's not so easily identified if they're trying to hide it, without somebody leaking something?

[Sea Skimmer]

We issue the Iraqi army uniforms which I believe are identical to our own, so it's more likely that it's Iraqi regulars doing this (which is, bluntly, eminently plausible) and they're just being mistaken for the US Army. Of course this implies that at the very least some US units have been turning the other way when the Iraqis they're working with are doing this.

Many Iraqi units have the older chocolate chip desert uniforms the US phased out about ten years ago, others have different camo patterns, but I’ve never seen Iraqi troops with the current US desert uniform or the new forest/desert multipurpose uniform. However you also can buy all of those uniforms, as well as all the tactical web gear right off the internet in any case. Insurgents did so on a massive scale, as well as simply bribing officials or stealing the stuff and reselling it in public markets. So basically, uniforms mean utterly nothing in Iraq, especially at any time other then the last 18 months.

[Duckie]

We issue the Iraqi army uniforms which I believe are identical to our own, so it's more likely that it's Iraqi regulars doing this (which is, bluntly, eminently plausible) and they're just being mistaken for the US Army. Of course this implies that at the very least some US units have been turning the other way when the Iraqis they're working with are doing this.

That seems like a much more believable explanation. It's certainly well known that many Iraqi police and military units can commit atrocities on their own without strict oversight.

My gut reaction is that it was propaganda being thrown about by Iraqi groups to smear US soldiers. I can see US troops doing a lot of stupid shit, but wanton murder against a minority group that's not so easily identified if they're trying to hide it, without somebody leaking something?

On the other hand, why would Iraqi groups smear soldiers with this? This would win the US soldiers points with much of Iraq. It can't even be used to make Americans feel their occupation is unjust and thus attempt to drive a wedge between public sentiment and military like most accounts of massacres or abuse (such as My Lai) because most people in the US would have absolutely no care about what happens to gays, especially foreign ones.

[General Zod]

On the other hand, why would Iraqi groups smear soldiers with this? This would win the US soldiers points with much of Iraq. It can't even be used to make Americans feel their occupation is unjust and thus attempt to drive a wedge between public sentiment and military like most accounts of massacres or abuse (such as My Lai) because most people in the US would have absolutely no care about what happens to gays, especially foreign ones.

Maybe not locally but this kind of scandal would harm America's credibility with other foreign powers even more, I would think. Or maybe someone just really doesn't like Americans. Then again anything we can come up with is just pure speculation until we can get some kind of reputable confirmation on this.

[Big Phil]

On the other hand, why would Iraqi groups smear soldiers with this? This would win the US soldiers points with much of Iraq. It can't even be used to make Americans feel their occupation is unjust and thus attempt to drive a wedge between public sentiment and military like most accounts of massacres or abuse (such as My Lai) because most people in the US would have absolutely no care about what happens to gays, especially foreign ones.

Why would American soldiers do this? I know gay groups loooooooove to rip the military for its homophobia and young masculine over-aggressive tendencies, but I have a hard time believing entire squads, platoons, or companies of American soldiers would go "fag hunting" in Iraq... just for the hell of it.

And that's a pretty impressive red herring you threw out there "most people in the US would have absolutely no care about what happens to gays, especially foreign ones." Americans don't generally go for wholesale slaughter of anyone, gay or otherwise, so unless you can prove that Americans are all for the murder of gays in Iraq or other countries, please quietly shut the fuck up.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I know gay groups loooooooove to rip the military for its homophobia and young masculine over-aggressive tendencies...

Really? On what basis do you make that assertion?

[Duckie]

On the other hand, why would Iraqi groups smear soldiers with this? This would win the US soldiers points with much of Iraq. It can't even be used to make Americans feel their occupation is unjust and thus attempt to drive a wedge between public sentiment and military like most accounts of massacres or abuse (such as My Lai) because most people in the US would have absolutely no care about what happens to gays, especially foreign ones.

Why would American soldiers do this? I know gay groups loooooooove to rip the military for its homophobia and young masculine over-aggressive tendencies, but I have a hard time believing entire squads, platoons, or companies of American soldiers would go "fag hunting" in Iraq... just for the hell of it.

Certainly it's very difficult to believe, because of the physical and mental impossibility of any wartime atrocities being done by the perfect, pearly white American occupation forces. When America's around, I guess bad things don't happen in wars? America is different and doesn't do things that occupying powers have done in countries since the 14th century BC and earlier!

Your belief in OH GOD AMERICA FUCK YES or not has nothing to do with whether or not it happened. Whether it did or not is under investigation but 'oh noes those good old boys from america wouldn't do nothing like that' isn't an excuse especially in a setting (wars) which are known to have these things occur in just about every single conflict. The burden of proof is on you to prove that somehow America is immune to wartime atrocity potential, otherwise there is in fact a potential of wartime atrocities.

And that's a pretty impressive red herring you threw out there "most people in the US would have absolutely no care about what happens to gays, especially foreign ones." Americans don't generally go for wholesale slaughter of anyone, gay or otherwise, so unless you can prove that Americans are all for the murder of gays in Iraq or other countries, please quietly shut the fuck up.

I'd love to see evidence of the American public reacting en masse, violently towards anti-gay persecution and demanding something be done to stop this.

Now, let's see exactly where you built a strawman (one of them, anyhow):
A: Zod proposes Iraqi resistance groups fabricated this and are claiming it to make the US look bad.
B: I pointed out that Iraqi resistance groups have nothing to gain because Iraqi citizens won't be outraged since it's what's traditional for their culture anyhow, and the US doesn't care about Iraqi gays either.
C: You demand I prove that America is lining up for tickets to the Gay Holocaust and cheering on people killing homosexuals.

Hint: It's C. You incorrectly merged the two different statements of 'Iraqi citizens don't care about what happens to their gays and would applaud this' and 'American citizens just plain don't care' perhaps because my post left you breathlessly offended due to 'OH NO SHE SAID SOMETHING VAGUELY WRONG ABOUT AMERICA GET HER' so you didn't bother to remember what I said in detail.

I never claimed America is all for a giant gayocaust (although a small but significant minority probably is or wouldn't care if there was). Rather, like with most atrocities like Darfur, I simply believe America is massively apathetic and couldn't care about this. Especially in the case of gays where the civil rights such as job nondiscrimination for gays in their own country can barely muster a meh, let alone foreign gays whom they've never heard of?

Do we hear any American outrage over stoning of gays in Saudi Arabia or the like? I certainly haven't. Prove to me America isn't apathetic about anti-gay repression and I'll admit that the Iraqi rebels of all sorts have something to gain by faking oppression of gays. Nothing more, nothing less. Naturally, the proofs you use must be at least 2 in number (so as not to be a one-off coincidence) and from foreign soil (or else by nature they're not anti-gay repression on foreign soil and thus irrelevant to the conversation.). For half credit I'll accept just one anyhow because I'm interested.

I await your reply.

[Big Phil]

On the other hand, why would Iraqi groups smear soldiers with this? This would win the US soldiers points with much of Iraq. It can't even be used to make Americans feel their occupation is unjust and thus attempt to drive a wedge between public sentiment and military like most accounts of massacres or abuse (such as My Lai) because most people in the US would have absolutely no care about what happens to gays, especially foreign ones.

Why would American soldiers do this? I know gay groups loooooooove to rip the military for its homophobia and young masculine over-aggressive tendencies, but I have a hard time believing entire squads, platoons, or companies of American soldiers would go "fag hunting" in Iraq... just for the hell of it.

Certainly it's very difficult to believe, because of the physical and mental impossibility of any wartime atrocities being done by the perfect, pearly white American occupation forces. When America's around, I guess bad things don't happen in wars? America is different and doesn't do things that occupying powers have done in countries since the 14th century BC and earlier!

Yippee! Another red herring.

Your belief in OH GOD AMERICA FUCK YES or not has nothing to do with whether or not it happened. Whether it did or not is under investigation but 'oh noes those good old boys from america wouldn't do nothing like that' isn't an excuse especially in a setting (wars) which are known to have these things occur in just about every single conflict. The burden of proof is on you to prove that somehow America is immune to wartime atrocity potential, otherwise there is in fact a potential of wartime atrocities.

Oooooh... insisting that I prove that this DIDN'T happen, otherwise it must have. That's a new one. All wrapped up in a combination of red herring and strawman... how lovely

And that's a pretty impressive red herring you threw out there "most people in the US would have absolutely no care about what happens to gays, especially foreign ones." Americans don't generally go for wholesale slaughter of anyone, gay or otherwise, so unless you can prove that Americans are all for the murder of gays in Iraq or other countries, please quietly shut the fuck up.

I'd love to see evidence of the American public reacting en masse, violently towards anti-gay persecution and demanding something be done to stop this.

Now, let's see exactly where you built a strawman (one of them, anyhow):
A: Zod proposes Iraqi resistance groups fabricated this and are claiming it to make the US look bad.
B: I pointed out that Iraqi resistance groups have nothing to gain because Iraqi citizens won't be outraged since it's what's traditional for their culture anyhow, and the US doesn't care about Iraqi gays either.
C: You demand I prove that America is lining up for tickets to the Gay Holocaust and cheering on people killing homosexuals.

Hint: It's C. You incorrectly merged the two different statements of 'Iraqi citizens don't care about what happens to their gays and would applaud this' and 'American citizens just plain don't care' perhaps because my post left you breathlessly offended due to 'OH NO SHE SAID SOMETHING VAGUELY WRONG ABOUT AMERICA GET HER' so you didn't bother to remember what I said in detail.

Oh please, grow the fuck up. You claimed that American troops might be willing to engage in anti-gay atrocities because it would "win the US soldiers points with much of Iraq." You made a claim... support it. Stop trying to insist that I disprove your wild and unsupported allegations, because that's not how things work here.

I never claimed America is all for a giant gayocaust (although a small but significant minority probably is or wouldn't care if there was). Rather, like with most atrocities like Darfur, I simply believe America is massively apathetic and couldn't care about this. Especially in the case of gays where the civil rights such as job nondiscrimination for gays in their own country can barely muster a meh, let alone foreign gays whom they've never heard of?

Your entire paragraph (to which I responded) says three things:

1. Iraqi groups have no reason to frame American soldiers
2. American soldiers would win the hearts and minds of Iraqis by slaughtering gays
3. The American public doesn't give a shit about gays, "especially foreign ones"

While #2 and #3 might be true enough, #1 is a stretch. There isn't even proof that all of the dead people are gay; you're simply blindly accepting the assertion that they were. And gay or not, Iraqi resistance groups have been busy fighting and killing each other as much as the American military.

Do we hear any American outrage over stoning of gays in Saudi Arabia or the like? I certainly haven't. Prove to me America isn't apathetic about anti-gay repression and I'll admit that the Iraqi rebels of all sorts have something to gain by faking oppression of gays. Nothing more, nothing less. Naturally, the proofs you use must be at least 2 in number (so as not to be a one-off coincidence) and from foreign soil (or else by nature they're not anti-gay repression on foreign soil and thus irrelevant to the conversation.). For half credit I'll accept just one anyhow because I'm interested.

I await your reply.

Yippee, another red herring. How wonderful... as if I have nothing better to do with my time than rebut these wild and off-topic arguments you've been making.

There is a difference between Americans not giving a shit what foreign people do to each other (i.e., the apathy that you are identifying) and Americans not giving a shit that their soldiers might be engaging in the wholesale slaughter of foreign (gay) people (i.e., the tacit approval of anti-gay violence by Americans that you hinted at). If you don't comprehend the difference, I'm not sure what I can do to help you.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oooooh... insisting that I prove that this DIDN'T happen, otherwise it must have. That's a new one. All wrapped up in a combination of red herring and strawman... how lovely

Actually proving that America is immune (or even resistant to) to wartime atrocities is a positive burden of proof.

There is a difference between Americans not giving a shit what foreign people do to each other (i.e., the apathy that you are identifying) and Americans not giving a shit that their soldiers might be engaging in the wholesale slaughter of foreign (gay) people (i.e., the tacit approval of anti-gay violence by Americans that you hinted at). If you don't comprehend the difference, I'm not sure what I can do to help you.

Oh please. Our nation is divided over the issue of torturing foreigners, and putting away semi-random ones without trial. Oh, and lets not forget about how Abu Girab just sort of blew over... Come the fuck on. American soldiers are no different than any other. They are kids told they are superior to those they are surrounded by and bluntly, not accountable to anyone other than those who have a vested interest in making sure that war crimes never see the light of day. Just like in the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgrim study they will commit atrocities. However the American people A) dont actively give a shit about foreigners B) Dont give a shit about domestic let alone foreign gays and C) Felate soldiers every chance they get (literally and figuratively. I will admit the uniform turns me on). This translates to a systemic apathy/apologism whenever a war crime, let alone an anti-gay war crime occurs in any but the most liberal americans. Never are the war crimes the result of a systemic accountability problem, or the stress involved in an occupation... or anything else that can be considered a slight upon our military organizational structure, military/civilian oversight, or foreign policy. It will always be "a few bad apples" when in reality war crimes are basically par for the course in any occupation. The US moves on, no one but the infantryman who is victim to his own humanity will ever be punished, the entire incident gets spin doctored by Fox News.

[fgalkin]

Oooooh... insisting that I prove that this DIDN'T happen, otherwise it must have. That's a new one. All wrapped up in a combination of red herring and strawman... how lovely

Actually proving that America is immune (or even resistant to) to wartime atrocities is a positive burden of proof.

The question is not whether America commits atrocities in general, but whether it has committed this specific one. The fact that American forces have committed atrocities in the past does not automatically prove these allegations.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Duckie]

Why would American soldiers do this? I know gay groups loooooooove to rip the military for its homophobia and young masculine over-aggressive tendencies, but I have a hard time believing entire squads, platoons, or companies of American soldiers would go "fag hunting" in Iraq... just for the hell of it.

Certainly it's very difficult to believe, because of the physical and mental impossibility of any wartime atrocities being done by the perfect, pearly white American occupation forces. When America's around, I guess bad things don't happen in wars? America is different and doesn't do things that occupying powers have done in countries since the 14th century BC and earlier!

Yippee! Another red herring.

Hey asshole, you can't just call something a red herring without explaining why it is one. I will outline in a detailed, easy to comprehend outline format for you what just happened to prove it isn't a red herring:
A. Duckie: "It might have happened, although it isn't proven. I can't see a reason for iraqi groups to fake this, since they don't like gays either. [...]" SEE BELOW ['socratic dialogue'] FOR WHAT THIS SENTENCE MEANS
B. Dumbass: "I don't believe American soldiers would do this."
C. Duckie: "Your belief has nothing to do with whether or not American soldiers can commit atrocities, as is evidenced by the fact that every single army occupying a country has done these things since the dawn of time. Whether or not this time it happened is irrelevant to the fact that atrocities can and have occurred in Iraq. Your belief in the moral superiority of the American infantryman does not mean massacres are physically impossible, and the article cannot be immediately dismissed for being obviously untrue without any evidence against it."
D. Dumbass: "This is a red herring."

Explain how my point is a red herring.

Your belief in OH GOD AMERICA FUCK YES or not has nothing to do with whether or not it happened. Whether it did or not is under investigation but 'oh noes those good old boys from america wouldn't do nothing like that' isn't an excuse especially in a setting (wars) which are known to have these things occur in just about every single conflict. The burden of proof is on you to prove that somehow America is immune to wartime atrocity potential, otherwise there is in fact a potential of wartime atrocities.

Oooooh... insisting that I prove that this DIDN'T happen, otherwise it must have. That's a new one. All wrapped up in a combination of red herring and strawman... how lovely

Are you blind and without a speak and spell utility? I will immediately stop arguing against you and understand if you admit physical or mental disability to explain why you fail to read what I say instead of what you want to rebut.

A. Duckie: "Just because you believe American soldiers are moral people doesn't prove this couldn't have happened. Prove to me it's impossible, otherwise I'll continue to maintain that it is a possibility that this allegation occured as is the sensible thing.
B: Moron: "I can't prove a negative."

PROHINT: I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked you to prove that there is a valid reason this massacre could not have happened as you seemed to have intimated by saying "I can't see Americans doing this" without any further elaboration as to why not. If you can successfully prove it couldn't have happened (and "I don't believe American soldiers would kill gays" is not a proof), obviously I must concede. If you can't, you don't know shit about this case and neither do I, so the best either of us could say is "It might be true" and talk about motives for someone to fake this (confirmation of which would be a good hint towards 'isn't true') and harder evidence, the former of which I've been talking about this whole time on the Iraqi side. You know, probabilities, possibilities, and such? The things scientific theories and forensics are made of?

And that's a pretty impressive red herring you threw out there "most people in the US would have absolutely no care about what happens to gays, especially foreign ones." Americans don't generally go for wholesale slaughter of anyone, gay or otherwise, so unless you can prove that Americans are all for the murder of gays in Iraq or other countries, please quietly shut the fuck up.

I'd love to see evidence of the American public reacting en masse, violently towards anti-gay persecution and demanding something be done to stop this.

Now, let's see exactly where you built a strawman (one of them, anyhow):
A: Zod proposes Iraqi resistance groups fabricated this and are claiming it to make the US look bad.
B: I pointed out that Iraqi resistance groups have nothing to gain because Iraqi citizens won't be outraged since it's what's traditional for their culture anyhow, and the US doesn't care about Iraqi gays either.
C: You demand I prove that America is lining up for tickets to the Gay Holocaust and cheering on people killing homosexuals.

Hint: It's C. You incorrectly merged the two different statements of 'Iraqi citizens don't care about what happens to their gays and would applaud this' and 'American citizens just plain don't care' perhaps because my post left you breathlessly offended due to 'OH NO SHE SAID SOMETHING VAGUELY WRONG ABOUT AMERICA GET HER' so you didn't bother to remember what I said in detail.

Oh please, grow the fuck up. You claimed that American troops might be willing to engage in anti-gay atrocities because it would "win the US soldiers points with much of Iraq." You made a claim... support it. Stop trying to insist that I disprove your wild and unsupported allegations, because that's not how things work here.

Please, keep reading. It's important for children to learn to read right. You completely ignored my alphabetically listed paragraph which simply explaining my previous statement to instead tilt at a windmill you constructed out of what must be someone else's words, because I never said these things. I can't be ordered to support a strawman you constructed. I will repeat my original statement's meaning in Socratic Dialogue, this time to perhaps convince you I never said "AMERICA KILLS TEH GAYS I HAS PROOF".

I do not believe Iraqi groups would frame Americans for the murder of gays because it would be futile.
Why do you believe that, Duckie?
Well, for one, Iraqi groups wouldn't win points among Iraqis, because Iraqis don't like gays. Fundamentalist Muslims want to kill gays anyhow, so it's not like 'Oh no America kills gays' would win points with Iraqi citizens, because Iraqi citizens want to kill gays too so I doubt they'd be too outraged.
I see! Well, could the Iraqi groups have framed Americans for the murder of gays in order to cause controversy in America?
Ah, but would it even cause controversy? America has very little care for murders of gays in its own country except when jammed in their face by the media. Would they care about a bunch of foreign gays murdered, especially without hard evidence? Even if they did, wouldn't it be more effective for the group framing them to murder some women and children and frame that on Americans instead, since people would care more? So maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. I can't say, but it doesn't seem too implausible to me to have happened as stated by 'Hussam' since I can't find an plausible and competant ulterior motive to attribute to him.

Now, what you apparantly heard, which is perhaps my fault since I didn't idiot-proof my post.

I do not believe Iraqi groups would frame Americans for the murder of gays because it would be futile.
Why do you believe that, Duckie?
Because Americans love killing gays! I'm certain the soldiers did it!

Which of these do you actually think I said? Now, I might have blacked out and had some missing time where my evil twin sister wrote the latter, but I doubt it.

I never claimed America is all for a giant gayocaust (although a small but significant minority probably is or wouldn't care if there was). Rather, like with most atrocities like Darfur, I simply believe America is massively apathetic and couldn't care about this. Especially in the case of gays where the civil rights such as job nondiscrimination for gays in their own country can barely muster a meh, let alone foreign gays whom they've never heard of?

Your entire paragraph (to which I responded) says three things:

1. Iraqi groups have no reason to frame American soldiers
2. American soldiers would win the hearts and minds of Iraqis by slaughtering gays
3. The American public doesn't give a shit about gays, "especially foreign ones"

While #2 and #3 might be true enough, #1 is a stretch. There isn't even proof that all of the dead people are gay; you're simply blindly accepting the assertion that they were. And gay or not, Iraqi resistance groups have been busy fighting and killing each other as much as the American military.

While #2 is vaguely wrong and in this case due to poor wording for me (I intended it to mean more that of all iraqis to kill, Americans would piss Iraqi citizens off the least by killing people they hate, not that Iraqis would actually grow more friendly in the process. The Soldiers would still lose points for killing Iraqis, but people wouldn't be as vehement and outraged about it because they'd be members of a group that Iraqis too hate almost universally.)

In reply to your 1. however, I have this point:

They have no reason to frame Americans for killing gays in particular. Nobody would care, and even if they did it's not like it'd provoke outrage among Iraqi citizens and bolster recruiting. That's why my first thought if I were going to frame an enemy would be to pin the murder of children and women on them, not 'gays'. Gays have the advantage, true, of not having any evidence so you can use just any bodies, but on the other hand it's a worthless thing to pin on America for reasons I pointed out. It'd be idiotic to use gays as an exemplar of American atrocities to smear soldiers with for local recruitment or for demoralising the American public. On the other hand, it's possible this 'Hussam' is faking his evidence and it's all a set-up, but if so that means the Iraqi resistance is so stupid a teenage girl can poke a logical flaw in their plans after about 10 minutes of thought.

Do we hear any American outrage over stoning of gays in Saudi Arabia or the like? I certainly haven't. Prove to me America isn't apathetic about anti-gay repression and I'll admit that the Iraqi rebels of all sorts have something to gain by faking oppression of gays. Nothing more, nothing less. Naturally, the proofs you use must be at least 2 in number (so as not to be a one-off coincidence) and from foreign soil (or else by nature they're not anti-gay repression on foreign soil and thus irrelevant to the conversation.). For half credit I'll accept just one anyhow because I'm interested.

I await your reply.

Yippee, another red herring. How wonderful... as if I have nothing better to do with my time than rebut these wild and off-topic arguments you've been making.

There is a difference between Americans not giving a shit what foreign people do to each other (i.e., the apathy that you are identifying) and Americans not giving a shit that their soldiers might be engaging in the wholesale slaughter of foreign (gay) people (i.e., the tacit approval of anti-gay violence by Americans that you hinted at). If you don't comprehend the difference, I'm not sure what I can do to help you.

That is, I will admit, a good point- we don't know the difference in giving-a-shit-itude. Unfortunately, we don't have many recorded events of US slaughter of gays, so you'll excuse me if I asked you for something partially relevant that actually has a corpus of answers you could have given.

On the other hand, has the US reacted enormously towards any hints or proofs of massacres in Iraq against just regular Iraqis? Pacifists and leftists aside, I don't see much recoiling from kicking in doors and shooting a shitload of civilians in certain cities, cruise missiling weddings and dinner parties, et cetera. I can't prove the US would not care about gays, but the US doesn't seem to care about regular Iraqis either, and they don't care about lesser violence against domestic gays, so it seems to me like it adds up to 'US won't give a shit, or you might get a few days of news stories about it and then everyone forgets about it once a celebrity has a new baby' like everything else in Iraq does.

Now, maybe I just articulated myself wrong. My original message in this thread was rather terse, and perhaps I can't expect everyone to read my mind and understand my point. However, if beyond this you continue to misinterpret what I mean, then I'll know you're just purposefully misinterpreting my meaning for god knows what reason.

[Duckie]

Oooooh... insisting that I prove that this DIDN'T happen, otherwise it must have. That's a new one. All wrapped up in a combination of red herring and strawman... how lovely

Actually proving that America is immune (or even resistant to) to wartime atrocities is a positive burden of proof.

The question is not whether America commits atrocities in general, but whether it has committed this specific one. The fact that American forces have committed atrocities in the past does not automatically prove these allegations.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Nonsense. It doesn't need to prove it happened with 100% certainty, but showing 'massacres (of gays or of anybody really) in Iraq have a non-0 probability of occurance based upon past trends of armies+populace+occupation' combined with 'a massacre is alleged' means that you can't immediately dismiss the report as impossible, as one could if you got a report of a waterfall flowing upwards and turning everyone into gold when it touched them.

Once 'this could have happened' is established, the question becomes 'how likely is it to [have/not have] happened?'. 'Americans wouldn't do this' is an attempt to refute 'massacres of gays in Iraq have a non-0 possibility of happening' and not this alleged massacre's possibility itself, unless it's just a very poor way of expressing disbelief at this particular incident's testimony. However, to me the statement seemed more like "Americans wouldn't do this, because Americans aren't immoral enough to go 'fag hunting' " [despite that hate crimes against gays happen in America from the same populace that the military is recruited from, which is something I didn't even point out] rather than "This Hussam guy seems suspicious, I don't believe Americans did this"

I repeat again and will stress: Saying 'it could have happened' is not a statement of 'it did happen', which says a lot about how people interpret emotional issues like allegations of atrocities and crimes.

[General Zod]

Nonsense. It doesn't need to prove it happened with 100% certainty, but showing 'massacres (of gays or of anybody really) in Iraq have a non-0 probability of occurance based upon past trends of armies+populace+occupation' combined with 'a massacre is alleged' means that you can't immediately dismiss the report as impossible, as one could if you got a report of a waterfall flowing upwards and turning everyone into gold when it touched them.

Once 'this could have happened' is established, the question becomes 'how likely is it to [have/not have] happened?'. 'Americans wouldn't do this' is an attempt to refute 'massacres of gays in Iraq have a non-0 possibility of happening' and not this alleged massacre's possibility itself, unless it's just a very poor way of expressing disbelief at this particular incident's testimony. However, to me the statement seemed more like "Americans wouldn't do this, because Americans aren't immoral enough to go 'fag hunting' " [despite that hate crimes against gays happen in America from the same populace that the military is recruited from, which is something I didn't even point out] rather than "This Hussam guy seems suspicious, I don't believe Americans did this"

I repeat again and will stress: Saying 'it could have happened' is not a statement of 'it did happen', which says a lot about how people interpret emotional issues like allegations of atrocities and crimes.

My issue with the whole thing is, we're talking about a country where even admitting you're gay can get you killed, jailed or whatever, so I would think that homosexuals in their country were incredibly paranoid about showing any obvious signs of being such. Exactly how would a US military unit come across enough intel without specifically going out of their way to find it to identify which people to go after? To me it seems like an awful lot of work for a US unit to get that kind of information.

[Duckie]

Nonsense. It doesn't need to prove it happened with 100% certainty, but showing 'massacres (of gays or of anybody really) in Iraq have a non-0 probability of occurance based upon past trends of armies+populace+occupation' combined with 'a massacre is alleged' means that you can't immediately dismiss the report as impossible, as one could if you got a report of a waterfall flowing upwards and turning everyone into gold when it touched them.

Once 'this could have happened' is established, the question becomes 'how likely is it to [have/not have] happened?'. 'Americans wouldn't do this' is an attempt to refute 'massacres of gays in Iraq have a non-0 possibility of happening' and not this alleged massacre's possibility itself, unless it's just a very poor way of expressing disbelief at this particular incident's testimony. However, to me the statement seemed more like "Americans wouldn't do this, because Americans aren't immoral enough to go 'fag hunting' " [despite that hate crimes against gays happen in America from the same populace that the military is recruited from, which is something I didn't even point out] rather than "This Hussam guy seems suspicious, I don't believe Americans did this"

I repeat again and will stress: Saying 'it could have happened' is not a statement of 'it did happen', which says a lot about how people interpret emotional issues like allegations of atrocities and crimes.

My issue with the whole thing is, we're talking about a country where even admitting you're gay can get you killed, jailed or whatever, so I would think that homosexuals in their country were incredibly paranoid about showing any obvious signs of being such. Exactly how would a US military unit come across enough intel without specifically going out of their way to find it to identify which people to go after? To me it seems like an awful lot of work for a US unit to get that kind of information.

That is a good and relevant point which I don't have an answer for (nor should I need to, since I'm not insisting it's certain it happened- for the record, I wouldn't bet on this accusation being entirely true either, but I think the possibility of it has to be defended as neither would I be surprised if it did happen)

On the other hand, it'd be easy to kill a shitload of gays just by raiding gay bars and other gay meeting spots every now and then, which Iraq according to this guy has. On the gripping hand, the fact that a bunch of theoretical gay bar patrons got killed, especially with islamic-style killings like beheadings doesn't really jump out immediately and say "Americans did this!" since "Islamic millitants who hate gays and are familiar with the local area's undercity did this" sounds more parsimonous.

The only bizarre part is if someone else killed some gay people and not the Americans or if it never happened at all, why would Hussam, either as a mistaken observer or as a deliberate falsehood-teller, frame the Americans for it anyhow? The whole 'blame America for this' thing has little tactical advantage I can see regardless of who did it or if it even happened at all. Maybe I'm just overanalysing for motive what is either the distraught and confused testimony of a knowledgeless person or a completely stupid Hail Mary pass from insurgents who don't understand american 24 hour news cycles and culture enough to realise why this won't work as a smear. I could see a planning meeting like:

'We need a way to get the military recalled from our land now. Any ideas on how to make Americans hate their infidel soldiers?'
'Well, let's blame America for killing some people. Americans hate massacres of women and kids right? Let's kill some [shi'ite/sunni] kids and blame it on them.'
'I like it, but it's too much effort, let's just pass off bodies as gay bodies. America's the decadent west and loves gays, right? I think I heard something about that.'
'Yeah, sounds good, let's do that.'

and maybe that's why the smear effort (if one it is) makes no sense.

[Big Phil]

Nonsense. It doesn't need to prove it happened with 100% certainty, but showing 'massacres (of gays or of anybody really) in Iraq have a non-0 probability of occurance based upon past trends of armies+populace+occupation' combined with 'a massacre is alleged' means that you can't immediately dismiss the report as impossible, as one could if you got a report of a waterfall flowing upwards and turning everyone into gold when it touched them.

I was going to rebut your previous post, but there's really no point because your standard for accepting evidence is so low (as in, you'll accept someone's unsupported and unproven allegation without any evidence) that we're not even arguing the same things.

[Duckie]

Nonsense. It doesn't need to prove it happened with 100% certainty, but showing 'massacres (of gays or of anybody really) in Iraq have a non-0 probability of occurance based upon past trends of armies+populace+occupation' combined with 'a massacre is alleged' means that you can't immediately dismiss the report as impossible, as one could if you got a report of a waterfall flowing upwards and turning everyone into gold when it touched them.

I was going to rebut your previous post, but there's really no point because your standard for accepting evidence is so low (as in, you'll accept someone's unsupported and unproven allegation without any evidence) that we're not even arguing the same things.

Well shit, man, what are we supposed to talk about? This is a thread about an unsupported and unproven allegation. Do we need to have [citation needed] at the end of the article title and every post to satisfy your need for explicit uncertainty in addition to the words 'accused' instead of 'convicted' being clearly used in the title?

If we have ironclad admissible-in-a-court-of-law evidence standards, nobody can reply to this thread with anything but 'awaiting updates' or 'F5' cause we don't have anything of that sort about thirdhand accusations of mass murder. Talking in hypotheticals and the like is the only thing one can do in this situation.

That said, you're welcome to not rebut me, which I won't crow idiotically about as a victory, because we are rather arguing different things as if they were the same. Rather than make you go through the trouble, I'll just concede anything short of 'it's impossible for this to have happened' and 'the US would riot if gays were killed in Iraq' which are both manifestly wrong to any point of view. I still maintain there's little tactical reason for this to be a purposeful fake rather than either true or a case of mistaken/unreliable witness, and that if it is a purposeful fake it's hillariously bad because it serves minimal purpose.

[Big Phil]

Perhaps "Hussam" wants attention, or fame, or money? People make shit up all the time - I was kidnapped and anally probed by aliens, the government faked the moon landings, JFK was murdered by the CIA/mafia/Cuba, Jesus appeared in my breakfast cereal, etc.

"Hussam" making shit up is just as likely as his claims being true, in fact more so at this point in time.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Well, we'll find out in time whether Hussam has any credibility or not.

U.S. military probes claims of anti-gay atrocities
Army, Rep. Frank investigating charge that soldiers killed gay Iraqis

The U.S. military is investigating claims that U.S. service members were involved in committing atrocities against gays in Iraq, although at least one activist is skeptical about the veracity of the allegations.

The U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command, the service’s primary criminal investigative organization, is looking into the allegations, which were first reported by the Blade last week. An investigator contacted the Blade seeking information on the story.

Army CID spokesperson Chris Grey said he couldn’t discuss details of the investigation at this point.

The longest-serving gay member of Congress also has pledged to investigate. Harry Gural, a spokesperson for Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), said the congressman is “concerned” about the allegations and “the charge is serious enough that he’s going to urge a full investigation.”

Gural said he didn’t immediately know what steps Frank would take in looking into the matter.

The charges surfaced when a gay Iraqi refugee, who uses the alias “Hussam,” made the claims July 24 at a fundraiser held at the Human Rights Campaign headquarters. The event was intended to raise money for Helem, a Lebanon-based center that works to address the plight of LGBT people in the Middle East.

Calling on his audience of about 80 people to donate to the organization, Hussam delivered a presentation that included gruesome photographs, including images purportedly showing a beheaded gay Iraqi lying in the street and the victim’s brother mourning over the severed head.

But Hussam’s audience became even more alarmed when he claimed that U.S. service members were involved in anti-gay attacks and had detained Iraqi civilians perceived to be gay and executed them.

He then showed an image that he claimed depicted an American soldier standing in front of a group of four or five kneeling naked men. Hussam said that the men were gay Iraqis and that he possessed an image of U.S. soldiers executing them, but didn’t show the picture to the audience.

Hussam hasn’t turned over the photos or made them public, despite multiple requests from the Blade.

If U.S. service members executed the Iraqis as alleged, it would constitute a violation of international law under the Geneva Convention or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, depending on the circumstances.

The event was co-sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission and the National LGBT Bar Association. HRC spokesperson Brad Luna said his organization is investigating the matter.

D’Arcy Kemnitz, executive director of the National LGBT Bar Association, attended the event, but later told the Blade she didn’t hear Hussam make the allegations regarding U.S. service members. Still, she vouched for him and said his “credibility is beyond reproach.”

She didn’t respond this week to the Blade’s request for additional comment.

Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, said his organization is concerned because Hussam raised “very serious allegations,” but Bromley noted he doesn’t think the allegations can be substantiated.

“We have not seen claims of U.S. government killings before, and so I really don’t think these can be substantiated, but obviously once they’re made, they need to be taken seriously,” he said.

Bromley said he’s working with HRC and Human Rights Watch to contact Hussam to see if he has evidence to back his allegations. Bromley also said he contacted the State Department about the issue.

“But at this point, I’d have to say we’re fairly skeptical,” he said. “I think everyone is appropriately concerned, but we find it too hard to believe that this can be substantiated because we haven’t seen anything in terms of evidence that would point to this sort of U.S. government involvement anywhere else.”

Bromley emphasized that the Council for Global Equality didn’t sponsor the event.

Sarah Tobias, an IGLHRC spokesperson, said her organization was “completely shocked” by the charges and has “every intention” of investigating by following up with Hussam and the U.S. government.

“These are the first allegations we’ve heard from any source about U.S. military involvement against LGBT people in Iraq,” she said. “In conflict, LGBT people and other marginalized people are always very vulnerable, so more investigation is definitely warranted.”

Other media sources have reported on allegations of human rights abuses against gay Iraqis, although the sources have posited that other Iraqis committed the acts.

USA Today reported July 28 that Iraqi gays are claiming Iraqi militias are targeting them for violence. The article quotes Ali Hili, founder of the London-based Iraqi LGBT, as saying that the Ministry of the Interior “is behind this campaign of terror” and that 82 gay men in Iraq have been killed since December.

In April, the New York Times reported that a democratic Iraq coupled with an increase in security allowed an LGBT subculture to emerge, but the response to the new visibility has been “swift and deadly” and multiple victims of violence had been found, mostly men and boys suspected of being gay.

After a congressional fact-finding trip to Iraq at around the same time, gay Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) called for greater U.S. action in addressing these issues when he learned Iraqi government officials were allegedly involved in human rights abuses against LGBT people.

Polis’ office didn’t respond to a request for comment on allegations that U.S. service members were involved in the violence.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Not to necro or anything but here's an update:

Army finds no evidence soldiers killed gay Iraqis
Refugee changes story after pressed by U.S. investigators

Army investigators have found no evidence to support allegations that U.S. service members were involved in committing atrocities against gays in Iraq, according to a military spokesperson.

Chris Grey, a U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command spokesperson, said in an e-mail Tuesday that special agents determined there was no “credible evidence” to support such claims after receiving a sworn statement from the gay Iraqi refugee who made the accusations.

Grey noted that the refugee, who went by the alias “Hussam” during the public presentation in which he made the allegations, said in the statement that “his words were taken out of context, he was misunderstood due to language barriers and he was misquoted.”

The Blade first reported Hussam’s allegations, and in subsequent correspondence with the Blade he never identified inaccuracies in previous articles.

The charges surfaced July 24 when Hussam spoke during a benefit held at the Human Rights Campaign headquarters intended to raise money for Helem, a Lebanon-based center that works to address the plight of LGBT people in the Middle East.

Calling on his audience of about 80 people to donate to the organization, Hussam delivered a presentation that included gruesome photographs of acts allegedly committed by Iraqis against gays in the country, including images purportedly showing a beheaded gay person lying in the street and the victim’s brother mourning over the severed head.

Hussam also claimed that U.S. service members were involved in other anti-gay attacks. He said U.S. personnel detained Iraqi civilians perceived to be gay and executed them.

Hussam then showed an image that he claimed depicted an American soldier standing before a group of four or five kneeling, naked men. Hussam said that the men were gay Iraqis and that he possessed an image of U.S. soldiers executing them, but he did not show that picture to the audience.

The event was co-sponsored by HRC, Human Rights Watch, the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission and the National LGBT Bar Association.

In the sworn statement provided to Army investigators, Hussam confirmed that he showed disturbing photographs, but noted the photos of sectarian violence weren’t linked to U.S. service members, Grey said.

“He also said he never witnessed any actions of U.S. soldiers that he would classify as criminal or any evidence of U.S. service members targeting Iraqi men or women because of their sexual orientation,” Grey said.

Regarding the photo of what appeared to be a U.S. soldier guarding several naked Iraqi men, Grey said it was determined that in 2004, when the picture was allegedly taken, removing detainees’ clothing was a protection measure authorized within the Rules of Engagement because insurgents often wore suicide vests.

HRC praised the Army investigators for quickly addressing the matter. In a response to the Army’s statement, HRC spokesperson Trevor Thomas said, “We applaud the U.S. Army for moving quickly and immediately launching an investigation.”

D’Arcy Kemnitz, executive director of the National LGBT Bar Association, could not immediately be reached for comment. Just last week, Kemnitz told the Blade she vouched for Hussam and that his credibility was “beyond reproach.”

So Hussam's credibility isn't look very hot anymore. I'm certainly glad that's the case.