What a travesty of justice it has been for six plus long years.
Certain parties in the U.S. had it in for the news service known as Al Jazeera. Those parties attempted to paint Al Jazeera as something it didn't appear to be at the time and has proven not to be.
Considering that Al Jazeera is in the heart of Muslim territory, it does an excellent job of reporting the news as truthfully as it can see it. It appears to work hard to avoid being a witting or unwitting propaganda tool of any sub government or for Islam (religion), not an easy task for any news source.
Being completely within Islam, it does respect the sensibilities of Muslims as much as possible while still reporting as accurately as it is able (given U.S. restrictions). That is a balancing act for which it is negatively criticized from all angles. It does report from a generally Islamic perspective but is negatively criticized by those considered in the West to be Islamic Fundamentalists. Those Fundamentalists do not like it that Al Jazeera also gives non Fundamentalist positions. That applies with all Fundamentalists regardless of religion.
Of course, there is something to be said for not putting (introducing) immoral ideas into the heads of children or other more innocent adults. Even when those ideas are qualified by strong warnings, children do test once they've been told about that (testing). Temptation is a difficult thing to avoid when simultaneously trying to prepare youth to face the temptations of the wider worldly world. It isn't made any easier when those responsible for preparation are themselves unaware or unenlightened about the pitfalls of excess self licensing that comes masked as vaunted liberty.
So, the neocons had it in for Al Jazeera. They wanted to silence Al Jazeera, because Al Jazeera was exposing the bad behavior of the side of the U.S. most Americans back home don't usually see (e.g., the illegal use of White phosphorus (WP; modern napalm) as a direct weapon on non combatants, women, and children). Al Jazeera also had deep pockets and afforded global reach nearly instantly.
George W. Bush discussed ways of destroying Al Jazeera very early on. Al Jazeera was seen by military neocons as a voice in direct opposition to U.S. military's psyops. In fact, Al Jazeera's cameraman Tarek Ayoub was killed in a deliberate US bombing of Al Jazeera's TV station in Iraq.
Now, Sami al Hajj was a cameraman for Al Jazeera acting as any news cameraman. He was doing his job video recording what was happening concerning Afghanistan for his boss, Al Jazeera. He was on the Afghan border in December 2001 when the Pakistani army took him. Then he was turned over to the U.S. and ended up at the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
For six years plus, he was held for being a legitimate cameraman for the legitimate news service, Al Jazeera. Now, I use the term legitimate here in the mundane sense. Ultimately, Al Jazeera isn't telling the whole truth (neither are FOX News or CNN or the WSJ or New York Times, etc.), because it is not promoting exactly what Jesus advocated when he was here walking the Earth. What I mean is that Al Jazeera meets and often exceeds all the qualifications of all the other typical news services of the mainstream West (U.S. and E.U.).
At the top, I said that holding Sami has been a travesty of justice. The U.S. held him to make an example of him, to put the fear of the Empire into reporters around the globe and not because Sami had done anything beyond the usual and customary news camera work, at least not that the U.S. could ever prove. His supposed sin lies in being anti Empire.
This is not to say that Sami's ultimate position would be beneficial for all. It wouldn't be. Neither would the neocons' position be beneficial for all, quite the contrary. The point is that it is completely immoral to fight immorality with immorality. Unless and until humanity (as a whole) rises above using immorality (ultimately self centered where self is apart from God), we will always live on this plane of existence in a level of Hell. Also, unless humanity rises above immorality, it will become extinct on this plane.
It was the mentality of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney who align themselves with extremely hawkish Likudniks and consider the rules as something to be broken for the sake of some warped vision they have of Empire that caused Sami willfully and wrongfully to be incarcerated at all and for six years.
It is up to the people to stop choosing to follow evil leaders. Rumsfeld and Cheney their ilk are all evil men. We don't want them to be evil of course. I'm not out to hurt them but rather to penetrate their thick skulls. They need to soul search. They need to develop working consciences. They need to think about peace rather then being hostile and harmful. What they have done has not improved the world at all. Only those who peacefully have stood firmly against them in the real spirit of consistency (non hypocrisy) have serve humanity as mitigators and atoners in the eyes of the Lord and LORD (that's Jesus and God the Holy Spirit; Yahoshua and Yah in transliterated Hebrew; God Saves and God).
Yahoshua is the anointed one: The messiah or savior. He came into the world to speak of how things ought to be and will be for those who heed. Rumsfeld and Cheney and both Bush's are diametrically opposed to everything Jesus teaches.
Jesus would never have taken or held Sami. He would have talked to Sami and with Al Jazeera. He would have and does tell them the way things ought to be and are. If they ignore him, he does not coerce them. They determine their own worth by virtue of their own choices, as does each family, nation, the whole of humanity, the Earth, and Heaven (as perceived).
The only way is Christlikeness that is so much like Christ as to become one with Christ and God since Christ was Godlike on Earth so much so that he was and became one with God. He did ascend as the miracle has been proclaimed.
It is a matter of faith in the consistency of truth. The liars (who are the selfish hearted) do try their best to trick you as they trick themselves (rationalize). Don't fall for it.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)