home

Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantanamo

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 11:43:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A Guantanamo detainee is suing to be allowed to have a copy of the bible. The prison only allows inmates to have the Koran.

Saifullah Paracha has been held at Guanatanamo the past three years. He is a 58 year old Pakistani businessman. At his request, his lawyer sent him a bible, which is an accepted holy text in Islamic teachings, and two Shakespeare plays, Hamlet and Julius Casear. The prison blocked delivery of the books.

After review, prison officials relented on Shakespeare but not the bible.

Government lawyers said Paracha had not shown that the practice of his religion had been "substantially burdened" because he did not have a copy of the Bible.

< Murray Waas: An Early Bush Briefing Shows Lack of Iraq-al Qaida Connection | John Murtha Blogs >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantanamo | 27 comments (27 topical)
    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    I guess the guards don't want to flush down a Bible. No use letting him have one, then. Hamlet and Julius Caesar are excellent choices under the circumstances, though.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#2)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Baka. Tres tres baka. Not you Mar, but the decision. If someone wants to study Sacred texts, of any religion, let them. What's the harm? They may decide violence isn't the answer?

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#3)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Torturing prisoners, including shackling one detainee in a "crucifixion-like pose" and then aphyxiating him by putting a plastic bag over their head. Ripping pages of the Koran out and flushing them down the toilet. Now banning Bibles. But Bush is an honorable man. So are they all honorable men. As Pogo once said, "we have met the enemy and he is us."

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#4)
    by kipling on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Weeellll, you can understand their dilemma. I mean, if he wants a Bible, either he wants to read it, or piss on it. If he wants to read it, it must mean he's not a Moslem, which means he's not a terrorist. But. He's in Guantanamo, so he MUST be a terrorist. It's all so confusing! Better to just say no.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    clearly, these are attorneys who got a B.A. in polysci, as opposed to english literature. otherwise, they'd have known better than to allow any of shakespeare's tragedies into gitmo. all of the tragedies share a common element: pretty much everyone dies at the end!

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Maybe if we sent the books of the Bible one by one and told the guards they were written by Shakespeare, they'd be OK. After all, they seem to believe that Shakespeare is a religious necessity for Muslims. After all, Shakespeare did write at least one play with a Moor in it.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    After all, Shakespeare did write at least one play with a Moor in it.
    yep, and what happened at the end? i rest my case! lol

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Saifullah Paracha has been held at Guanatanamo the past three years. He is a 58 year old Pakistani businessman. That's an interestingly sympathetic way to view a enemy terrorist that would like to cut your head off.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Kipling writes:
    If he wants to read it, it must mean he's not a Moslem, which means he's not a terrorist.
    Perhaps you didn't read the post before commenting.
    which is an accepted holy text in Islamic teachings,
    Now if he has been in prison for three years, he has had a tribunal hearing and has been found to be an illegal combatant/errorist. And your point is?

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#10)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Banning a Bible? Never good PR.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    That's an interestingly sympathetic way to view a enemy terrorist that would like to cut your head off.
    As I have never met this man, and know nothing about him, I can't say with any certainty that he wants to cut my head off. Variable must have a crystal ball to read people's minds and intentions. Residence at Guantanamo alone is not proof of attempted decapitation.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#12)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Plays like comedy first,then it goes tragic. Quite a bit more on this with link to motion and background on Parachas at Bad Books

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    So long as we're rehashing the old book-flushing meme... Maybe they didn't want the Bible desecrated by prisoners, which would fit the trend better.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    The United States holds about 500 prisoners at Guantanamo, with only nine charged. ppj, do you ever read the links you post? They rarely support your postion, e.g. "228 determined have been enemy combatants.  And so there's still, out of the 507, there's still a number in process" IOW, no, they haven't all been thru the 1st tribunal, much less the second and only 5 so far are charged with crimes, even in this ridiculous kangaroo court (sorry, skippy;-)

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#15)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    Can you imagine the fortune one of these fellows could make on the talk show/inspirational message circuit if they claimed to have been converted by their exposure to the Word?

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    Sailor boy - From my link to Special Defense Department Briefing on Status of Military Tribunals:
    Again, for explanation/clarification, CSRTs, Combatant Status Review Tribunals, that is the determination if someone is or is not an enemy combatant...... So as of this morning, we have conducted 507 CSRT tribunals. So we've had hearings for 507 tribunals or for 507 detainees as of this morning. There's always interest how many detainees appear at these tribunals. Two hundred and ninety-two of the 507 detainees have participated in the hearings. Now we still have about 50 hearings to be conducted and we hope to have them wrapped up next month.
    The date of the above was 12/20/04. Now since he has been there for three years, I would say he has had a tribunal, and the tribunal has determined that he is an EC.
    Now as you'll recall also, after the tribunal the results from the CSRTs to go the convening authority for review. And we have an administrative review to make sure that they have been conducted properly, all data considered, and they go to Admiral McGarrah, and he has concurred with 228 that these detainees should continue to be classified as enemy combatants. Now you'll recall earlier we had one detainee that the tribunal determined not to be an enemy combatant or no longer considered to be an enemy combatant, and that detainee was released last September. So there's now a second detainee that a CSRT has determined should no longer be classified as an enemy combatant, and Admiral McGarrah has concurred with that finding. So we now have two detainees at Guantanamo out of 230 that we have determined no longer to be an enemy combatant and 228 determined have been enemy combatants. And so there's still, out of the 507, there's still a number in process; that is, in process from the time of the tribunal through the determination by Admiral McGarrah.
    Link Looks pretty simple to me. BTW - Look at all the reviews that are in place to insure proper action.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    jim, instead of insulting me, try dealing with the fact that the link you provided originally completely contradicted your POV. And the next link you provided was just a link to a link of an admin press conference. And I would suggest, in the future, NEVER call me, or anyone you don't know, 'boy'. This isn't about me, or you, and your insults only demean the discourse.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#18)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    PPJ, Since you know that these detainees are "guilty" of being "enemy combatants", perhaps you could provide the evidence against them. How about even a list of names of the detainees? You say that this detainee was "probably" given a tribunal but you have no idea if he was, do you? Did they use the same rules of evidence? Was hearsay evidence admissable? How about evidence as a result of torture? Did they just get a hearing or did they get a fair hearing? Does that matter to you? By the way, I also agree with Sailor's comments about demmeaning the discourse (and I've even taken some commenters to task for remarks that were made about you).

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    So where's the outrage from the fundagelics? The Bible? What's there in the Bible that a Moslem can't read? What are they telling the captives about the Bible? What texts are they quoting? Is there a new Inquisition in the making , ( though I think it's been around a while)?

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#20)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    The "tribunals" you speak of, Jim, are of course secret ones, if they even exist at all. Which we have no proof that they do. Those facts alone make the process not only unAmerican, but a mockery of justice itself. To just sit back and say 'well, I'm sure they're doing what's best for us' is about as unintelligent as it gets.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    Sailor - First of all, I made the "Sailor boy" comment because I thought you had started the war by calling me "Skippy." Since Darkly and Edgey started the BS “Whizzy,” I have decided to take no sh*t. You got caught in the crossfire. So, as the expression went, “Sorry about that.” You wrote:
    ... even in this ridiculous kangaroo court (sorry, skippy;-)
    So perhaps as you complain about the discourse, you would consider this Link
    Posted by edger at October 10, 2005 10:33 AM Whizzy:….TTFN, Whizzy. BTW – You made the next comment after the 10:33AM comment, so your outrage seems a wee bit suspect, or at least one way. As for your complaints about the links, I just tried both, and both go to: “Special DefenDepartment Briefing on Status of Military Tribunals” so I have no idea what you are talking about. Again, let’s review what was said.
    So as of this morning, we have conducted 507 CSRT tribunals. So we've had hearings for 507 tribunals or for 507 detainees as of this morning.
    Now that pretty well dispels your:
    IOW, no, they haven't all been thru the 1st tribunal
    I will give you that 50 remained, but I would believe they have done those in a year.
    And we have an administrative review to make sure that they have been conducted properly, all data considered, and they go to Admiral McGarrah, and he has concurred with 228 that these detainees should continue to be classified as enemy combatants.
    And so there's still, out of the 507, there's still a number in process; that is, in process from the time of the tribunal through the determination by Admiral McGarrah.
    Again, with a year to work in, I would bet that the good Admiral has done his job. As for crimes, if they determined to be EC’s, they are being kept. That is the crime, although secondary charges for specific actions may be involved. So yes, I think the person in question is an EC. But, instead of executing him, a fate that such people met in the past, we listen to his lawyer complain. As the guy said: What a country.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    John H - I think fair, and reference the review. You disagree. Okay. evagrius - Denying prisoners books, magazines, etc., is hardly new. So I think you are safe from the rack for a few more days......

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    Once again jim, your links show the exact opposite of what you claim. quote from your link:
    So we now have two detainees at Guantanamo out of 230 that we have determined no longer to be an enemy combatant and 228 determined have been enemy combatants.
    BTW: I was aplogizing to skippy the bush kangaroo; what a bizarre mind you must have to think it was about you. But, once again, it isn't about you. On the post you mention I only attempted to get folks back on topic, a consistent, persisitent aim I have. So instead of this post being about you, why don't you tell us why bibles are banned to the gulagas cubanicus

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    sailor - Remind me to not apologize in the future. As to why Bibles aren't allowed, heaven knows. I know of no reason for them, or any other material to be allowed in our prison for enemy combatants. And please, quit being obtuse. The link shows 507 tribunals, although you claimed none. Two hundred and whatever have been reviewed as of 12/04, with the remainder to go. I think it reasonable that they have been in almost 12 months. That's all I have claimed. That the guy in the post has been id'd as an EC. Why do you have a problem understanding EC's? Is it because you don't believe them? Yes, sailor, there is EC's.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#25)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    PPJ, Under the military tribunal system set up by Bush, any President will have the unilateral power "to define offenses, pick prosecutors, select judges, authorize charges, select defendants, and then strip the civilian courts of all powers to review tribunal decisions." The rules of evidence at these trials are so lax that they allow evidence and confessions obtained by torture. Even some of the military prosecutors at Guantanamo have admitted that the system is rigged, that judges have been "handpicked" to ensure convictions. So why do you think these tribunals are fair? So far you haven't provided any evidence that these tribunals are fair. Heres your chance.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    John Horse - I have a better idea. Since you have the problem, you can tell us why they aren't fair.

    Re: Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantana (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    Either way, Shakespeare is about as close as the secular ever gets to the divine: "'Tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed. Things rank and gross in nature possess it merely." (Hamlet I.ii.) And who can forget: "This above all, to thine own self be true" (Hamlet I.iii.)? By all means, feed them Shakespeare.

    Shakespeare, But No Bibles Allowed at Guantanamo | 27 comments (27 topical)