Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's a very disturbing story:
More than 100 prisoners in Iraq are facing execution - and many of them are believed to have been convicted of the 'crime' of being gay, the UK-based Iraqi-LGBT group revealed this afternoon.According to Ali Hili of Iraqi-LGBT, the Iraqi authorities plan to start executing them in batches of 20 from this week. There is, said Mr. Hili, at least one member of Iraqi-LGBT who are among those to be put to death.
And the London-based group, which believes that a total of 128 executions are imminent, is calling on the UK Government, international human rights groups and the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva to intervene "with due speed" to prevent "this tragic miscarriage of justice" from going ahead.
It gets worse:
"Iraqi-LGBT has been a banned from running activities on Iraqi soil," he revealed."Raids by the Iraqi police and Ministry of Interior forces cost our group [to the extent of] disappearing and killing of 17 members working for Iraqi-LGBT since 2005.
"The death penalty has been increasing at an alarming rate in Iraq since the new Iraqi regime reintroduced it in August 2004.
"In 2008, at least 285 people were sentenced to death, and at least 34 executed. In 2007 at least 199 people were sentenced to death and 33 were executed, while in 2006 at least 65 people were put to death.
"The actual figures," Mr. Hili suggested, "could be much higher as there are no official statistics for the number of prisoners facing execution."
I'm sure glad we gave Iraqis the freedom to live in a brutal theocracy.
Politics
Comments
This is democracy in action. Thank you Mr. Bush.
Posted by: democommie | April 3, 2009 9:29 AM
[sarcasm]Yay, witness the wonders of a free society installed by the Conservative Compassionate Christian Party! What was that Bush said about, "They hate our freedom"? Obviously, since Americans treat LGBT as second-class citizens at home, it's alright for other free societies created by the US to distill this message to its logical outcome.[/sarcasm]
Posted by: mercurianferret | April 3, 2009 9:38 AM
I think that American conservatives see this as a win, and wish they could do the same thing here. It looks like they got exactly what they wanted from the Iraq war.
Posted by: catgirl | April 3, 2009 9:46 AM
It's cool, we'll just "liberate" them harder in another few years.
Posted by: Dunc | April 3, 2009 10:03 AM
Now Ed, these laws were instituted by a free and democratic society according to their laws. Just because that's not how we do things here doesn't give us a right to dictate how Iraqis should run their society. They have chosen to institute this law, and we have to respect their right and ability to self-govern. After all, it's not like the USA is perfect, so who are you to criticize, anyway?
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Shygetz | April 3, 2009 10:11 AM
So we fought a war to free Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam so they can go and commit genocide. That's what this is: they aim to kill every single homosexual they can get their hands on.
Posted by: Dave C | April 3, 2009 10:13 AM
This may well be democracy in action. But as Tim Sandefur and I discussed on my radio show last night, democracy and liberty not only are not the same thing, they are often in conflict. Democracy can lead to deprivations of liberty just as easily as monarchy or dictatorship can.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 3, 2009 10:17 AM
I'm sure Bush and his cronies are proud as hell that they've created this horrific mess of a government. Isn't there something that the Obama Administration could do to stop this insanity?
Posted by: JED | April 3, 2009 10:18 AM
JED:
One word, "Regime change".
Ed:
I don't have a "snark button", but I think you know me better than that.
Posted by: democommie | April 3, 2009 10:24 AM
Meanwhile Afghan's democratic process has reinstituted a law that allows Shiite Afghan men to rape their wives every fourth night (some exceptions included): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090402/ap_on_re_as/as_afghan_women
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 3, 2009 10:30 AM
Does this mean that Iraq will declare war against Iowa now that Iowa's courts have upheld same sex marriage?
Posted by: Umlud | April 3, 2009 10:40 AM
I am so glad we brought these people freedom, and then there is this:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/1/headlines
Afghan Law Legalizes Rape Within Marriage
The Afghan government, meanwhile, is coming under international pressure to drop a law that effectively legalizes rape within marriage and further restricts women’s rights. According to The Guardian of London, the law bans women from refusing to have sex with their husbands and says they can only seek work, education or medical care with their husbands’ permission. Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed the measure into law last month.
Posted by: Sheldon | April 3, 2009 11:57 AM
To be fair about this, Hamid Karzai is really between Iraq and a hard place*. -DJ
*Well come on, someone had to say it! And, in all seriousness, it's kinda true. He has to woo the hardliners while keeping his western backers on side. Not a balancing act I'd like to try. Can the west force him to do this without him saying "If not me, then who?" Can Karsai survive without the backing of "the infidel"? The Middle-East is never easy or straightforward is it?
Posted by: DingoJack | April 3, 2009 12:32 PM
Sadly, the religious hardliners in the south of Iraq have much more political power than they did under Saddam. Hopefully the more progressive Sunni and Kurds will offset this, but it will likely take half a generation. There is hope though - I saw first hand the majority of the population wanting a more modern and progressive society that pays lip service to tradition but a powerful minority stuck in the Bronze Age.
Posted by: Brando | April 3, 2009 1:34 PM
Why is Obama spending billions of bucks to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq for umpteen years again? I can't seem to remember.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 3, 2009 2:06 PM
Radley Balko picked up this story from here, but also points out that this story is being refuted by the State Department (EDGE Boston).
There are plenty of bona fide examples of Iraqi and Afghani "allies" acting like savages (just like the enemies of the US). Don't spread false rumors. It weakens the impact of the truth.
Posted by: Elliot | April 3, 2009 2:39 PM
Gingerbaker stated:
1) To deny the Taliban the ability to control that ground and host al Qaeda from where al Qaeda could launch new attacks on America and our allies. A key ingredient to al Qaeda's previous success and presented compromised position was its relative freedom to operate within a failed state.
2) As a base from which to hunt down and destroy al Qaeda, currently based in Pakistan given Bush's cowardice to flank al Qaeda from the Pakistan border in Dec-01.
If memory serves, al Qaeda attacked America a few years back and killed a few of us. They also gravely damaged our economy, both tactically (Bush's war in Iraq, energy prices, stock crash) and long-term (excuse for the GOP to spend money on Iraq and its energy partners rather than on education, energy policy, and health care). [/snark]
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 3, 2009 3:00 PM
Michael, I take it your whole post is snark, not just the end bit?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 3, 2009 3:32 PM
Two comments:
>>This is democracy in action. Thank you Mr. Bush.
Being gay is a capital crime in many countries of the world. This was true in the previous Iraqi regime and it appears to be that way again. I find the policy repugnant in totalitarian regimes just as much as I do in Republic, Socialist, or Democratic regimes. The problem isn't confided to the type of government, the problem is found in the hearts and minds of humans. Bashing Bush is simply masturbation. While an enjoyable past time, it will not solve any real problems.
>>So we fought a war to free Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam so they can go and commit genocide.
Enough with throwing around the word genocide. It trivializes and devalues the meaning of the word and thereby the heinous activity. This is not genocide. Before I get reamed, I must add that rational modern-thinking people should be against criminalizing life-style choices between consenting adults; unfortunately, we do not live in such a world, yet.
Posted by: suscitatio | April 3, 2009 3:33 PM
suscitatio said:
"This is not genocide. Before I get reamed, I must add that rational modern-thinking people should be against criminalizing life-style choices between consenting adults; unfortunately, we do not live in such a world, yet."
The definition of genocide:
. . .Are you saying that the destruction of gays in Iraq is not genocide because homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a racial characteristic?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 3, 2009 3:58 PM
If Iraqi authorities are attempting to systematically purge their society of homosexuals by killing them off, then I would say that certainly counts as genocide.
Posted by: Gretchen | April 3, 2009 4:31 PM
suscitatio = epic fail.
Posted by: Doug Little | April 3, 2009 4:45 PM
If genocide only applies to racial characteristics then exterminating religious and political groups are not genocide. Most people define genocide as mass murder or human extermination. It works for me.
Posted by: Bill in NC | April 3, 2009 5:09 PM
Gingerbaker: My whole post was not snark, only the last paragraph sarcastically reminding us of 9/11.
I believe my numbered items are reasons for us to be in Afghanistan. I'm frustrated we didn't take the fight to al Qaeda in Dec-01 and leave. I was attempting to seriously rebut your rhetorical question with my entire post.
Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 3, 2009 5:22 PM
Hi Michael
OK, I thought you were joking, because my comment asked why we are still in Iraq, not Afghanistan. Wires crossed. :)
It would be nice to have a discussion about staying/leaving Iraq/Afghanistan. Perhaps Ed will have a suitable topic. (Me, I don't buy the 'Fight 'em over there, not here' idea, and I can't see anything but epic Russian-like failure in Afghanistan. I think you fight terrorism with operatives, not armies :)
Posted by: Gingerbaker | April 3, 2009 5:40 PM
Gingerbaker - I thought you asked a rhetorical question on why we were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Sorry about my poor reading comprehension.
I agree wholeheartedly that pure military operations will not defeat terrorism, instead if done like Bush in Iraq, it becomes a game of whack a mole, where the number of moles increases.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 3, 2009 6:07 PM
suscitatio is correct btw, killing a sub-group of a society for any reason other then the stated four is not within the classic definition of genocide. Similar example, the Nazi euthanasia program doesn't fall under the genocide definition either.
Posted by: Mu | April 3, 2009 6:21 PM
Um, folks, do you think we could find out if this is actually true or not before we start ranting? It's unconfirmed. I haven't seen anything about it from an actual news channel. It's all blogs, except for one story in The Atlantic - by Andrew Sullivan (nuff said).
Posted by: Tualha | April 3, 2009 7:46 PM
Yep, that's our foreign policy legacy of the last 10 years, the creation of at least 3 new conservative Islamic republics.
Posted by: Jon Lester | April 3, 2009 7:57 PM
What are they, Jon Lester? I would not count Afghanistan; it already was.
Posted by: Tualha | April 3, 2009 8:05 PM
Where does the above definition of genocide come from? If it was written more than a decade or so ago without amendment, it came from a time when sexual minorities were ignored at best. Note that it also ignores other groups that are not based on nationality, skin color, ethnicity, or religion. For example, people with disabilities are not specifically included in the definition, but if a government tried to wipe out every citizen who used a wheelchair, what would you call it?
This is an atrocity no matter what you call it.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | April 3, 2009 9:37 PM
suscitatio:
"Bashing Bush is simply masturbation. While an enjoyable past time, it will not solve any real problems."
And you know that for a fact, I'm sure--I mean the masturbation part.
George W. Bush is a fuckwad who let his fantasy about showing up his old man substitute for using his fucking head. I have nothing but disdain for him.
BTW, I didn't think my statement indicated that I was trying to solve a problem. It would seem that you're saying that other peoples' are not doing any good and yours are?
Posted by: democommie | April 3, 2009 10:45 PM
Jake -
Note while the Latin 'genus' can mean 'tribe', it also can mean 'class, type, group or sex' depending on the context. See here -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 4, 2009 6:12 AM
Oops sorry. My last comment should have been addressed to Julie Stahlhut.
Epic multitasking failure. :( - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 4, 2009 6:18 AM
Ed you commented: ".. democracy and liberty not only are not the same thing, they are often in conflict.." and the full comment is so true and well said.
I have felt that for democracy to fulfill its advertised promise it needs these:
(1) a very articulate and comprehensive liberty and freedom people oriented constitution
(2) a judicial system designed and obligated in real sense to uphold it properly regardless of politics
(3) the method and means of judicial ruling enforcement
(4) an almost impossible hurdle to jump if freedoms (implicit as well explicit) are to removed from said constitution
(5) a reasonable and efficient means to install or strengthen freedoms in said constitution as progress occurs and things become relevant that may not even have existed before, or when things become blurred in meaning because of modernity
Without these things I think an enlightened benevolent dictator is better than the mob rule by the 30% RWA types who can easily gain control because the other 70% of us are just more laid back - and before we know it - bingo -- our no-vote becomes a vote for their insanity. Especially true when religious traditions are given undeserved power and honor in the society -- like in the USA .. eerrr I mean Iraq.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | April 4, 2009 7:02 AM
Tualha, the third Islamic republic we've helped create would be Kosovo.
Posted by: Jon Lester | April 4, 2009 8:46 AM
This obviously calls for more 1000lb gps guided freedom canisters!
Posted by: Ian | April 4, 2009 9:48 AM
Ed, Amnesty's original press release mentions 128 prisoners facing execution, but that's 128 prisoners in total, not 128 gay people:
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18108
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | April 4, 2009 10:46 AM
Jon Lester,
I disagree. Kosovo is not a conservative Islamic republic; though the people are 90% Muslim, the society and law are secular, sharia has no official power so far, and the current government is controlled by the leftist PDK.
So, Iraq, not Kosovo, and what's the third?
Posted by: Tualha | April 4, 2009 7:44 PM
I assume Afghanistan would be the third. One might also nominate the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 4, 2009 8:19 PM
The rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan was partly due to U.S. intervention. But that was not in the past ten years. Perhaps Jon Lester had another nation in mind.
Posted by: Tualha | April 5, 2009 11:30 AM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sarah
http://wordwhomp.net
Posted by: Sarah | April 6, 2009 1:16 AM
suscitatio - Bush was in a position to rewrite the laws in Iraq, instead he decided to institute a democracy without ensuring liberty and this is what happened, that makes it his fault.
Tualha - Afghanistan today is the third country, in case you missed the news of them legalizing rape executing people for blasphemy.
Posted by: Drekab | April 6, 2009 10:41 AM