Gitmo poetry contest
Jules Crittenden points to this blood-boiler in the WSJ about the coming publication of a poetry anthology by detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Not. A. Joke:
An 84-page anthology titled “Poems From Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak” will be published in August by the University of Iowa Press, giving readers an unusual glimpse into the emotional lives of the largely nameless and faceless prisoners there.
“When I heard pigeons cooing in the trees/Hot tears covered my face,” Sami al Haj wrote in one poem. The al-Jazeera cameraman has been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002 on suspicion of aiding Islamic militants. “When the lark chirped, my thoughts composed/A message for my son,” he went on.
The collection, translated from Arabic, was compiled by Marc Falkoff, a defense lawyer with a literary bent. Mr. Falkoff, who got a Ph.D. in English before he went to law school, represents 17 Yemeni prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and he dedicated the book to his clients, describing them in the inscription as “my friends inside the wire.”
The approximately 380 prisoners at Guantanamo are being held indefinitely; just two have been charged with crimes. Military officials are dismissive of the inmates’ poetry, which they say is aimed at garnering public sympathy.
How about a poetry anthology from the families of the victims of many of those Gitmo jihadists?
***
Crittenden is soliciting entries for his own Gitmo poetry contest. Here’s his own contribution:
Rose are Red
Violets are Blue
In the Hated Crusader Gulag at Guantanamo
It must suck to be you
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Bill's Bites
- The Thomas Chronicles » From Gitmo: Roses are red, violence is blue…
- JammieWearingFool
- Michelle Malkin » 80 anti-Gitmo protesters arrested at Supreme Court
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Gitmo
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
NewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristGay Patriot
» The O So Hip ObamaLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?Weekly Standard
» DVR Alert: Oprah, Obama, Primetime, ChristmasJustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The Turkey
I cannot believe that the taxpayers in the great state of IOWA would actually pay for this book of poetry to be published if they knew. This is more of a vanity press matter. According to the UI Press, poetry books do not usually pay for themselves in sales and I took that to mean that the citizens of Iowa are going to pay for this. For me, I have a nephew and a brother-in-law currently serving in Iraq and to have these poems written by our sworn enemies, published at my expense, is nothing short of sheer lunacy and a big slap in the face of the victims of some of these animals.
What rhymes with despicable? How about liberal?
What’s the difference? We taxpayers are forced to pay for the destruction of our own country, and no one – I mean NO ONE (well, maybe a few) in DC pays any attention to our protests. Is it time to take to the streets? YES.
Maybe they can put this haiku in:
Just let me go free
I would not hurt a fruit fly
without a fatwa.
A Gitmo Haiku
Water pouring down
On my dirty, nasty mug
I sing like a bird.
380 held; only 2 actually charged….
I hate to get all habeas corpus and stuff, but since these people are such deplorable criminals, shouldn’t they actually be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced for their crimes [or released if found innocent], rather than being held in indefinite limbo without charge?
What we’re doing right now in Guantanamo is in complete defiance of what this country was founded upon – the very ideals we’re supposedly trying to spread in Iraq and throughout the world right now. How do we expect to do that when Guantanamo [not to mention Abu Ghraib] is currently the most visible example of “American Justice” to the rest of the world?
I’m not “unlawful”,
Just “enemy combatant”:
You must let me go!
That’s what the judge says,
Who are you to disagree?
You’re not a lawyer!
How wonderful that terrorists at Gitmo write poetry. Hitler painted landscapes. Maybe he wasn’t so bad either.
Millions of dollars are being paid by parties unknown in the Gulf States to lawyers and public relations firms in the US to spring the terrorists in Gitmo. Part of that campaign is to soften US public opinion by humanizing the terrorists. This publication of poetry from the guilty-as-hell prisoners in Gitmo serves that rotten and wrong agenda.
The scam is laid out by Debra Burlingame in the Wall Street Journal in “Gitmo’s Guerrilla Lawyers: How an unscrupulous legal and PR campaign changed the way the world looks at Guantanamo” in the March 8, 2007 online edition. Ms. Burlingame is the sister of the pilot of AA Flight 77, which was skyjacked by five Saudis on Sep 11 and flown into the Pentagon.
Ms. Burlingame describes how friendly news stories are written by the PR firms hired by hostile Muslim governments and disseminated to credulous US media to soften public opinion against the Gitmo prisoners who, in their more candid moments, tell their interrogators “We will look you up on the Internet. We will find you and slaughter you and your family in your homes at night. We will cut your throats like sheep. We will drink the blood of the infidel.”
Somehow, I don’t think the many threats made by the sensistive souls at Gitmo will be published as widely as their poetry will be.
Would the media have supported an effort to soften the negative image of Nazi war criminals after WWII by featuring their poetry? Maybe we would have thought better of Adolf Eichmann had we read a poem or two of his yearning to tend sheep in the Bavarian alps. Gitmo includes terrorists such as Mohamed Mani Ahmad al-Kahtani, an Al Qaeda operative who was to be the 20th skyjacker but was stopped at the Miami airport while Mohammed Atta waited to pick him up. What lovely sonnets might we expect from him? Is this one of the gentle souls that lawyer Marc Falkoff claims only wants to be back home tending sheep?
Huggybear, they’re not “deplorable criminals.” They’re enemy soldiers, but they don’t belong to an organized army of a foreign nation with which we can exchange prisoners. As non-uniformed combatants, we would be within our rights under the laws of war to just kill them on the battlefield as partisans. The fact that they are living in comparative luxury at Gitmo is actually an act of mercy on our part. And in most wars, the prisoners are not released and repatriated until the war ends. This one doesn’t show any sign of ending any time soon. If we release them, we’ll just face them on the battlefield again.
huggybear: “I hate to get all habeas corpus and stuff, but since these people are such deplorable criminals, shouldn’t they actually be charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced for their crimes [or released if found innocent], rather than being held in indefinite limbo without charge?”
I hate to get all Geneva Convention on you, Huggy Bear, but we could have legally shot these guys as spies upon capture. It is completely legal to hold them until hostilities end, just we did with enemy captives from other wars. It’s their bad luck that their side declares eternal war on the non-Muslim world. Jihad can be a bitch that way.
However, let’s apply your faulty logic to other wars. Should we have tried the German and Japanese prisoners we captured in WWII and, if we couldn’t prove they had shot at anyone, free them to fight again? That would seem pretty stupid, wouldn’t it? Why do you maintain that terrorists should be given more rights than legal combatants?
This is not a crime wave we’re fighting. It’s a war. Wake up and smell the burning jet fuel.
Stupid terrorists
Who do you think you’re kidding?
I wish you were dead
Your poetry sucks
Jihadist garbage, moron
the West is the best
Huggybear,
Do yourself a favor: look at the Geneva Convention and tell me how it applies to these animals. Answer: it doesn’t. Yet, we go above and beyond to take care of these guys in a respectful manner, despite the fact that they would like nothing more than to kill their captors, slaughter their families, and bath in their blood all in the name of Allah. We are KIND enough to give them enemy combatant status, despite the fact that they don’t deserve it. Ask yourself if they have extended such courtesy to our soldiers who DO follow the rules of war and the Geneva Convention. Ask yourself if they do the same for the American media. Answer: NO. They behead them on Al-Jazeera and dump their bodies in the Euphrates River.
Get a clue, pal.
I cried on September 11. I called for blood in Afghanistan. I still want to see bin Laden’s head on a stick. Heck, I even named my pet tarantula Daisycutter. I’m just as angry as the rest of you. However I don’t think it’s wise to let that anger get the best of us. Completely subverting the principles of democracy is not going to help win the muslim world over to our cause.
As an American, I feel it is always best to err on the side of decency when it comes to matters of war, no matter how deplorable an enemy we face. The Japanese in WWII are a perfect analogy of the enemies we face today. The Japanese committed unspeakable atrocities during that war, and we still afforded their POWs the right to a fair trial, detaining only those who were actually guilty of war crimes. The rest were freed at the end of the war. I suspect had we treated the Japanese then as we are presently treating our Muslim detainees, we would not be on nearly as gracious of terms with Japan as we are today.
We cannot win this “Long War” without winning over the hearts and minds of the Muslim people. However misguided, even moderate Muslims already distrust us and question our motives in the region; the legal minefield Bush has set up in Guantanamo – declaring them “unlawful enemy combatants” in order to deny them coverage by Geneva and therefore the right to a fair trial – isn’t helping that, and if the Khadr case is any indication, may ironically be the ultimate undoing of this whole system of “justice”.
If anything, what we’re doing in Guantanamo is further fomenting the anger, rage, and distrust that have helped fuel radical Islam over the years. The question is – do you want this war to go on forever and ever, or would you like to see a resolution, where the Muslim world collectively grasps the principles we hold so dear and converts to democracy? It may be a pipe dream, but it’s the one that was used to sell the war in Iraq, and it would be much more realistic if we actually uphold those principles to show our enemies how the Good Side really works. Isn’t that what we’re supposedly after here – or is it just revenge?
On June 21st, 2007 at 4:11 pm, huggybear said:
Insert world’s smallest violin HERE.
Or as the host of this site would say … Boo Freakin’ Hoo.
Morning sun on Muslim face
my scope zero’d in
BANG, you’re-dead
Terrorists
Taken by the USA
in Gitmo
Say Goodbye
One between the eyes
Stupid terrorist
Laughing
Too much fun
Gitmo Forever
Incarceration at Gitmo
Jihad in an orange jumpsuit
boo freakin hoo
Huggybear, you said that “Completely subverting the principles of democracy is not going to help win the muslim world over to our cause.”
What principles are we compromising? Are we at war? (check) Are they enemy forces? (check) Is there some type of due process I’m missing, other than that they should’ve been shot?
Subverting principles
gathering terrorist scum
I’m ok with it
I signed up for 72 virgins and all I got was this crappy room in Cuba?
Huggybear: “Completely subverting the principles of democracy is not going to help win the muslim world over to our cause.”
Nothing is going to win the Muslim world over to the infidel cause. They are indoctrinated to hate us because we are non-Muslim. It’s in the Koran and hadith. Your error is to assume America is to blame instead of the head-cutters.
Huggybear: “As an American, I feel it is always best to err on the side of decency when it comes to matters of war, no matter how deplorable an enemy we face.”
We have done nothing indecent at Gitmo, as you erroneously imply. The prisoners there are being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention instead of being shot for not complying with GC themselves, which is awfully darned decent of us.
Huggybear: “The Japanese in WWII are a perfect analogy of the enemies we face today. The Japanese committed unspeakable atrocities during that war, and we still afforded their POWs the right to a fair trial, detaining only those who were actually guilty of war crimes. The rest were freed at the end of the war.”
We are detaining the terrorists at Gitmo until the end of hostilities, just like we did the Japanese. Why do you want to release them while they are still making war against us? Why do you want to release them SOONER than legitimate combatants?
Huggybear: “I suspect had we treated the Japanese then as we are presently treating our Muslim detainees, we would not be on nearly as gracious of terms with Japan as we are today.”
The Muslim terrorists at Gitmo are getting far better treatment than the Japanese prisoners of WWII, mainly because we are a richer country. You make a false assumption that it is American behavior which drives Muslim determination to make religious war not only on America, but around the world. It is Muslim doctrine to make war on non-Muslims until all the world submits to Allah.
Huggybear: “We cannot win this “Long War” without winning over the hearts and minds of the Muslim people. However misguided, even moderate Muslims already distrust us and question our motives in the region; the legal minefield Bush has set up in Guantanamo – declaring them “unlawful enemy combatants” in order to deny them coverage by Geneva and therefore the right to a fair trial – isn’t helping that, and if the Khadr case is any indication, may ironically be the ultimate undoing of this whole system of “justice”.”
Your argument is a pure expresson of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Bush did not place the terrorists outside the protection of the Geneva Convention. It is the behavior of the terrorists that placed themselves outside the protection of the Geneva Convention, specifically making war without identifying themselves with a uniform and targeting civilians.
Captured enemy combatants are not subject to a trial. We did not have thousands of trials for captured Germans and Japanese to see if they were guilty of being combatants. They were thrown in prison camps for the duration of the war. Your argument to give terrorists more rights than legal combatants is based on ignorance of law and is special pleading for terrorists to have more legal standing than legal combatants.
Huggybear: “If anything, what we’re doing in Guantanamo is further fomenting the anger, rage, and distrust that have helped fuel radical Islam over the years. The question is – do you want this war to go on forever and ever, or would you like to see a resolution, where the Muslim world collectively grasps the principles we hold so dear and converts to democracy? It may be a pipe dream, but it’s the one that was used to sell the war in Iraq, and it would be much more realistic if we actually uphold those principles to show our enemies how the Good Side really works. Isn’t that what we’re supposedly after here – or is it just revenge?”
Again, the profound error in your arguments is that America is to blame for Muslim hate. Huggybear, name a non-Muslim nation that Muslims do not hate. Everywhere Muslims go, they make war on their hosts. Islam has made war to expand since the days of Mohammed. Mohammed’s last words were to urge his followers to conquer the world.
Islam is all about rage, hatred, and distrust. All Islam is radical Islam. You are not going to get Muslims to convert to democracy without giving up Islam, which regards democracy as blasphemy because it places man-made law above Allah’s law as written in the Koran.
You can’t convince them of the benefits of democracy and Western values because Muslims do not think rationally. You have to crush them like bugs. When they knock down a couple skyscrapers of ours, you take down their country. That’s how to communicate with them.
For me it is simply a question of what *we* stand for. not them, *us*. Detaining people without charge – no matter how deplorable they may be, or how “guilty” they have been determined by the court of public opinion – is categorically undemocratic, and weakens our moral authority globally.
I find it peculiar that when someone voices an opinion in defense of democratic principles, they are immediately deemed a hater of America, or an apoligist for terrorists. But then these are peculiar times we’re living in.
Lastly, in some surprisingly prescient news, it looks like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and other “America haters” such as myself will have our wish come true – Gitmo *might* close soon.
Huggybear –
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution doesn’t stop at “We the People.” It says “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.”
The Constitution is not for people from other countries. It’s for us. They have ZERO rights under our constitution. Their only rights come from US, because international laws of war don’t apply to them because they broke the Geneva Convention’s basic provisions. ALL of their rights are GIFTS from our government, and they’ve been given too many gifts in my opinion.
Our government’s job, under the Constitution, is to “ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty” to “We the People of the United States,” not to savage killers from other parts of the world. The government’s job is to take care of US. And to hell with the terrorists.
There is no habeas corpus for prisoners of war. Never has been. Never will be. These jihadists in Gitmo are prisoners of war and under all the traditional laws of war they are to be imprisoned until the end of the conflict, or optionally until some kind of release or trade takes place.
Since they were non-uniformed enemies, under the traditional understanding of things they could be treated as spies, who have no rights at all, not even the rights afforded to prisoners of war. Spies were often summarily executed. At other times they were turned into double agents or subjected to intensive questioning, with no Miranda rights applying.
SORRY, MICHELLE, BUT AS THE TRUTH EMERGES: MOST PRISONERS AT GITMO ARE INNOCENT VICTIMS OF AN INCOMPETENT BUSH ADMINISTRATION. MAYBE YOU SHOULD GET YOUR FACTS CORRECT NEXT TIME.
Huggybear: “For me it is simply a question of what *we* stand for. not them, *us*.”
This is a rather smarmy way to excuse your total lack of criticism for the enemies of America.
Huggybear: “Detaining people without charge – no matter how deplorable they may be, or how “guilty” they have been determined by the court of public opinion – is categorically undemocratic, and weakens our moral authority globally.”
Huggybear, the Gitmo prisoners are being held in accordance with all the law that applies to them, which is none. They made themselves outlaws by not complying with the Geneva Convention nor any of the international laws of war. You seek to excuse them from compliance with those laws, which places you on the side of anarchy.
The Gitmo prisoners are not held because they were found guilty in the court of public opinion, but because they were caught on the battlefield or fleeing the battlefield or engaged in terrorism.
I have explained to you why Gitmo prisoners are being held until the end of hostilities, just like prisoners of other wars. You avoid addressing this reality and simply repeat your talking points endlessly. This is because your position is intellectually bankrupt.
Huggybear: “I find it peculiar that when someone voices an opinion in defense of democratic principles, they are immediately deemed a hater of America, or an apoligist for terrorists. But then these are peculiar times we’re living in.”
Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels like you, Huggybear, who seek extraordinary privileges for terrorists in the name of democratic principles. Who do you think you’re fooling with this smarmy argument? When all your criticism falls on America and you specifically exclude the enemies of America from criticism, it’s pretty easy to figure out your agenda.
Huggybear: “Lastly, in some surprisingly prescient news, it looks like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and other “America haters” such as myself will have our wish come true – Gitmo *might* close soon.”
That would be your dream come true, wouldn’t it, Huggy Bear? Maybe we can make your home a halfway house for recovering terrorists. You can explain democratic principles to the Gitmo prisoner who told his interrogator he wants to drink infidel blood when he’s freed.
MikeB –
We aren’t rounding up Boy Scouts to fill the cells at Gitmo. We aren’t looking to follow due process. We’re looking for terrorists who want to kill Americans. We might grab a few unimportant minions who have been hyped as major players along the way, but when you associate with the scum of the earth, bad things happen. Tough.
Why do all of you liberal morons forget that we are fighting a war here and try to treat this as though we are prosecuting criminals? We aren’t trying to send these savages to prison! We are trying to capture and kill terrorists who want to kill us!
Virgina, Check your facts, my friend. As much as the Bush Administration has succeeded in making the world hate us, not every single Muslim in the world is a terrorist. The problem with you alleged “Conservatives” is you have no respect for the Constitution or rule of law or due process, the things Conservatives used to care about.
Unfortunately, the Hannitys-Malkins-Coulters have taken over. You favor domestic spying (contrary to the 4th Amendment), torturing suspects (contrary to the Geneva Conventions), and any other tactic against people who “want to kill us.” FDR warned against “fear” now “Conservatives” wallow in fear. Fear justifies trashing the Constitution. Sorry, we don’t fight “Islamic fascists” by becoming a fascist country ourselves.
MikeB…
Really…just love your use of “innuendo” and “facts.” Since you don’t know the meaning of respect, why is your liberal pen still writing on this site?
The world didn’t hate us after Pres. Bush took office. I think it’s more a case that YOU hate him. I also think it’s a case that you have no recognition of exactly what is going on in the world.
We will never be a fascist country….no matter how your shriveled, treasonous, and communist heart decries it for competing with your own false idols. Being a military spouse, I don’t fear anything except liberal folks like yourself thinking you have all the answers. You don’t.
Yes, let’s give the terrorists their rights. After all, they just killed innocent people (like some of our military) but that’s no matter. We don’t need to torture them for information to stop the next terrorist attack. Mike, you really make me sick.
Here’s a few questions for you, sweetheart: did you lose people you cared about during 9/11? Did you burn with rage (oh, I’m sorry the non-Bush kind that is)? Did you lose anybody in Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you really give a DAMN or are you just making contrived excuses?
No, Mike, your problem is that you really don’t take terrorism seriously. You want these thugs to be afforded everything under the sun but what will be the consequences? You know, I think you have it in reverse…you wallow in idiocy and arrogance.
Please stop kidding yourself that you’re a friend to anyone but the terrorists. This military spouse doesn’t believe it and no one on this site does either.
I’ve also decided to post a little poem of my own in response to the misguided intentions of people like huggybear and MikeB:
Gitmo
Here’s a place where a turbaned few go,
Detected, apprehended, given a cell.
They get prayer books, mats, recreation
Some would even say it’s a vacation.
People overlook their cruel intentions
Spark violence, brew death, make mayhem.
No, no, they’re not that bad
So just give them their rightful jihad.
Some will go on hunger strikes,
Some will hurt or kill themselves,
But if the victims had their say,
These scum will never know victory.
These martyrs will not get their reward
When they see American justified scorn.
If only a few other Americans could see
That it’s not worth setting killers free
Terrorists aren’t worthy of the freedoms
And rights they deny the entire world.
So the very idea that they’re victims
Made by sympathizers is at best absurd.
test
Emjem worte:
We will never be a fascist country….no matter how your shriveled, treasonous, and communist heart decries it for competing with your own false idols. Being a military spouse, I don’t fear anything except liberal folks like yourself thinking you have all the answers. You don’t.
Yes, let’s give the terrorists their rights. After all, they just killed innocent people (like some of our military) but that’s no matter. We don’t need to torture them for information to stop the next terrorist attack. Mike, you really make me sick.
Here’s a few questions for you, sweetheart: did you lose people you cared about during 9/11? Did you burn with rage (oh, I’m sorry the non-Bush kind that is)? Did you lose anybody in Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you really give a DAMN or are you just making contrived excuses?
No, Mike, your problem is that you really don’t take terrorism seriously. You want these thugs to be afforded everything under the sun but what will be the consequences? You know, I think you have it in reverse…you wallow in idiocy and arrogance.
Please stop kidding yourself that you’re a friend to anyone but the terrorists. This military spouse doesn’t believe it and no one on this site does either.
First, as a matter of fact, I did lose a friend in 9/11 (I live in NYC–I know you’re not surprised). Should we have invaded Iraq as a result? Absolutely not. As Richard Clarke said, “Invading Iraq after 9/11 is the equivalent of invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor.”
Second, don’t believe the hype. The U.S. has no standing to condemn mistreatment of prisioners of war if we mistreat them ourselves. John McCain is against torture and he may know a little bit more about it than chicken hawks like Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin, Coulter, Bush and Cheney.
Third, you are wrong about Bush. The US has never, ever been as hated in the world as it is now. Ask the Tillman family–oh yeah, Pat Tillman is not a hero because he’s an atheist, not a “good American.”
In conclusion, all those who want democracy in Iraq should want it in the United States, also. That means, no taping phones unless you have a court order to do so. No real conservative would be in favor of such fascist state power. But as I said, the Coulters/Malkins have taken over and real conservatives like say Justice John Harlan are turning in their graves.
virgins await those,
with bill mahers’ “courage” to kill,
women and children
to maher i’m aloft,
“cruddy U.S. rapes and kills”,
we love his shill skills
nice shoes, nice cover,
skin shows! arena for you,
death cheered, not soccer
hey, this aint couscous,
driving for bin-laden rates,
better than Subway
can’t wait for virgins,
i miss my sweet “solja goat”,
more margarine please
guard, know who i am?
news cameras aimed at yours,
while i took them down
obama for change!
McCainiacs for the same,
just uproot that bush
rosie adores me,
sean is on my Christmas list,
the left loves killers
nancy is a dream,
harry sends us sonnets too,
we’re glad they hate Bush
music will be banned,
kids and women beaten too,
our islam to you
amputation’s great!
sharia brings stonings too!
from allah,to you
honor killing good,
showing hair and tight jeans bad,
my child, i kill you
a salam i like,
a salam i like um, YEAH!
“who sang?, BANG! yer dead
they bomb the market,
blow up sweet tooth kids as well,
our fault? what the hell?
hollywood, devine?
moore, redford, clooney for you?
will God forgive us?
Terrorists as poets means they must be sensitive creatures. Boohoo…
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
be terrorist garbage
believe that God wants you
to strap bombs onto babies
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don’t kill terrorists
put them in cushy cells
and treat them like caged kings
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
feel sorry for terrorists
they’re just mommies and daddies
willing to kill their children
.
USpace
.