Abdul Latif’s story is a heart-breaking one. And one that raises so many questions,starting with: Why is Abdul Latif still locked away when six US intelligence agencies agreed he should be released from Guantánamo four years ago? That question and more is why the popular podcast Radiolab is running its first serialised story about him.You can listen to the first of six The Other Latif episodes by clicking the following link: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/other-latif-episode-1 Isn't it time Guantanamo Bay was forced to release or charge and try those held there, against United States Law. Why does the US need a jail in Cuba? Because what they do there would be illegal in the USA? .
Are you attempting to politicize this forum? We should all pray that God's will be done in this man's life. Little else, realistically speaking, can be done right now.
Should we not be concerned that the man may be innocent of the crimes he is accused of? Christ was falsely accused. If we are seen as 'politicising' when we show concern that injustice is committed, then we care nothing for Christ's suffering, surely. Matt.25:31-46. James 2:11-20. Particularly James 2:14-17. What can be done is for voters to insist that it be ascertained whether or not this man is actually innocent and wrongly incarcerated. To just pray God's belessings upon him and then say nothing else can be done is 'false faith, with no works resulting from it'. .
The reason it is best to pray that Gods' will be done in the man's life is because only God knows exactly what the man has done, how dangerous or or how risk-free he may be, and what (if anything) will lead him to living faith in Christ. You and I do not know these things. What is best for the man is for him to become a child of God through Jesus Christ. If adversity, even wrongful detention (if such it is), will bring a man to faith then who are we to gainsay? If indeed it is God's will for this man to be released, then how can any of us call it "false faith" to pray that God's will be done? How many of us would have risen up against the Roman authorities to demand that Paul be released from prison, and thus perhaps have acted against God's will? Much good came of the time Paul spent in chains for the faith. Besides, the world is filled with injustices being visited upon human beings. From a practical standpoint, the possibility of stirring up the citizenry on behalf of a person who was presumably locked up for aiding and abetting terrorist activities is a non-starter. Are we really supposed to get all worked up and emotional about a man who, it is said, was an active member of the Taliban? A man who taught bomb-making skills? Is this more important than getting worked up about the starving Venezuelans, the oppression of Christians in Nigeria, the imprisonment of Christian pastors in China, and on and on and on? The idea that we voters must insist that Abdul Latif Nasir's case be taken up is simply impracticable and unrealistic in a society jaded by bad news. This is why prayer truly is the best (and practically speaking the only) thing we can do; and in no way should prayer be considered 'false faith' in such a situation.
So what is the point of a court of law, defence lawyers, trials and the rule of law in your land. Do you all think the United States law system must be infallible? If this man was officially deemed suitable for release 4 years ago, why is he still in jail and why has there been no further enquiry into his case? Is it a case of mistaken identity? Are the authorities unwilling to release him because to do so would cause them embarrassment? Is he proven guilty? Then by what court and on what evidence? Are you no longer encouraged to ask such questions in "The land of the Free and Home of The Brave"? There can be no harm in praying for his enlightenment, but that falls far short of visiting his need at the moment for justice. What he really needs is a Nation which is interested in SEEING justice done, not just trusting that it is, without further enquiry and without concern for those imprisoned without trial on secret 'evidence'. I hope you are not trying to suggest that the Legal System of the USA infallibly dispenses "God's Will". German Soldiers had the words "Got Mit Uns" on their belt buckles but I don't think many of them dispensed God's will, do you? Paul had complaints to make against those who deliberately made his incarceration more extended, through their misguided methods and motives for 'evangelism.' Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defence of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Phil.1:15-18 Who are we to 'presume' that, when no trial has taken place and no evidence ever challenged in court. Has his actual identity even been irrefutably established? You immediately followed a sentence saying "it is said" by another saying, "who taught", as if because he was accused, he therefore must be guilty. If he is not even the same person as the one believed to have committed the crimes then he has not necessarily done what you have just accused him of doing. That may be a false accusation. Exactly what Christ faced. But of course we do not yet know if it is a false accusation because there has been no public trial or official release of the evidence supporting the charges made against him. Can you not see that this is an embarrasment to a Nation which prides itself on the quality of its System of Justice. Jesus Christ was accused of blasphemy and other offences. The accusation did not make him guilty though. Had his trial not been illegal and 'rigged' his innocence too would have been established, but it was not so he was charged and sentenced merely on the supposition that he was said to be guilty. The mere fact that this man has been accused does not entitle anyone to assume his guilt, until proven in a court of law. (unless of course the USA no longer finds that convenient and now prefers to imprison without trial or appeal). Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab States do the same, why not the United States of America? Do you have a vote in Venezuela, Nigeria or China? Can you lobby their Governments when they are unjust? If you do not do what you can do, then you will be even less effective at changing anything you have no control over. Even with prayer. Abdul Latif Nasir's case is being taken up by his legal representative and advocate. That should be supported as an essential necessity in determining his guilt or innocence, as the case may be. If we want Jesus Christ to be our advocate and mediator, we should be concerned enough to see that justice is seen to be done on earth as it is our hope it will be done in heaven. Else we are likely going to hear the words "I never knew you" from our council for the defence at the great assize. It is of course a helpful thing to do. Peter's release was accompanied by prayer. Acts.12:5. A further practical thing to do might be to regularly donate to Reprieve or Amnesty International. Organisations which actually do visit the wrongly imprisoned and actually work for their acquittal and release. .
Our government has far more information on this man than you, I, or anyone else has. My nation is interested in seeing justice done, but we have people in elected and appointed offices who oversee this for us. Micromanagement rarely helps. You and I cannot be sure that injustice is occurring with this prisoner. You think there is injustice, yet you do not have all the information; you only know what the media has told you, and the media these days has agendas. Our legal system is not infallible (but I suspect it's better than yours). Yet God might use it, just as He uses fallible human beings in unfathomable ways every day. Did I really need to repeat "it is said" so you wouldn't jump to the wrong conclusion? Okay, here you go: It is said that he taught bomb making skills; this was reported by the media a decade ago (they also said he'd studied chemistry and physics at university) and the government most certainly has the most complete information about this. Not me. Not you. So who is jumping to conclusions without all the information? You. Before I make a big noise about this with any of my congressmen or by writing to the White House, I would want to have far more info and be far more certain about this guy's innocence. Until then, I will trust those in government who possess the most knowledge and info to do what's best. Perhaps it would be beneficial to review some facts. 1. Our legal assumption of innocence until proven guilty applies to legal residents of the US. 2. This man was not and is not a legal resident of the US. 3. This man was seized as an enemy combatant and is subject to military rules and procedures of justice, not our civil or criminal judicial system. Well, that's that. The man has a legal advocate working for him. He doesn't need me or the rest of us flailing uselessly. The legal advocate will do all that can be done under the law, and whatever happens, happens. Good enough for me. Since you feel so strongly about this, how much did you donate, Tiffy? Have you made a monthly commitment to either of them?
But you are content to not see it done, in this and many other cases, because your Government witholds the necessary information from your electorate and operates in secret, without a public trial. Exactly my point though. The media want to know what the evidence actually is and how convincing it may be. This usually happens in a court of law, but in this and many other cases there is no trial, no presentation of evidence. Imprisonment without trial is more common under Islamic 'law'. Christian law is supposed to be more just. To incarcerate people without trial? Then refuse to allow re-examination of the 'evidence'? Not anybody who might want to know for sure whether THIS Abdul Latif is actually the one that committed the crimes. It is your own Government which won't allow the evidence to be examined. There is a veil of secrecy around it, but for what reason nobody knows. That is what happens when Governments take upon themselves the right to imprison people without trial, in what is effectively a foreign land. On the contrary, evidence upon which any conclusions might be drawn is witheld by your Government. Therefore no conclusion can be sensibly reached. Until a trial is held and evidence examined there can only be conjecture. Perhaps that is what your Government wants, and you tacitly support them in it. Little better justice than any Islamic State on the planet. A classic Catch 22 answer. It is your Government, the people you 'trust' who are witholding the info from everybody, so they can't examine it for themselves to decide guilt or innocence. So he just stays in jail, untried, unsentenced, no date of release, and no chance of reprieve. That is not justice. So American justice is reserved only for US citizens, not for strangers then? For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Matt 25:35-36. Also see Ex.12:50-51, Lev.19:33-34, Lev.24:22. Not a jot or tittle shall pass from the law until all is accomplished. Since you feel so strongly about this, how much did you donate, Tiffy? Have you made a monthly commitment to either of them?[/QUOTE] £5.00 a month. Not enough I know, but at least something. Widows mites and all that. .
£5.00 a month. Not enough I know, but at least something. Widows mites and all that. .[/QUOTE] Yes, I am content with the situation because I am nowhere near convinced that it should be different. In the first place, the man was an enemy combatant taken prisoner; hostilities have not fully ceased (Muslim radicals still continue to attack and kill our people), therefore the man remains as such. In the second place, the "government secrecy" argument is a straw man; even if he were subject to the legal processes and protections afforded a US resident charged with a crime, the government never makes a practice of releasing all its information to the public! If someone is charged with a crime, the prosecutors have the information on him, and it is not shared for the sake of a 'public decision' as to guilt or innocence. It is none of my business, actually, to know all the information on a charged individual or to involve myself in the case. Ann Landers used to have a common response to people who wrote in to her advice column asking what they should do about some situation that didn't really involve them. Her response was, "You should MYOB" (mind your own business). I try to abide by this.
Okay Tiffy, I don't think I've ever gone in on you before but you are starting to annoy me with this thread. I served 5 years in the US Navy, which happens to run Guantanamo Bay. I know something about what goes on there. Those guys are given access to better health care than they've ever had in their lives. Their response? Spit on, urinate on, or throw feces at anyone trying to work with them. And if they are within sight of a female they will pull their male appendage out. Stay in your (wrong) lane Tiffy.
5 years! Well done, you salty deep sea dog you. I served 10 years in the RN. I know what discipline is all about. I also know that being banged up without charge, trial or possible reprieve is not compensated for by free health care while you are being held captive and perhaps even worse. Has it ever occurred to you that even you might behave the same way you claim some of them are behaving, if you were utterly convinced you have been indefinately, wrongly detained against your will, by a hostile foreign power? Innocent detainees may even feel a greater sense of greivance than the guilty and so be less inclined to be cooperative with their captors. Not many Yanks liked their Japanese, North Korean or North Vietnamese guards and prison officers. I don't suppose they cooperated with them much except under duress. Even the average chimpanzee will get pretty riled up if you bung him in a cage and poke him with a stick till he tries to piss on you. I'm not suggesting they are all innocent. I am suggesting only that this particular man may be, but the USA will not let his guilt or innocence be tested by a court of law and the actual evidence examined to ascertain the truth of his identity and possible culpability or not as the case may be. I don't think he has any reason, under the circumstances, to be especially grateful for the free medical care, (if that indeed is not just a euphemism). .
And how many devout religious people did exactly what you have suggested, and MTOB, (minded their own business), as Jesus Christ hung on a torture stake after being condemned by popular vote? This is exactly what is wrong with the human race. It doesn't give a shit unless it thinks it is actually affected itself. .
To carry this logic to its conclusion, the devout followers of Jesus should have rushed the soldiers and rescued Jesus from death. And if they had done so, Jesus would not have died for our sins on that day. Would that have been God's will? As one can readily see, not every seemingly-charitable act is in God's will. I had no idea until now that you might secretly be a Jehovah's Witness. But there it is, for all of us to see. Other than the JWs, I know of no other pseudo-Christian (let alone orthodox Christian) group that says Jesus hung on a stake!
You're absolutely right Rexlion he was of course hanged on a tree. Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Acts 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Acts 13:29 And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
You are profoundly wrong in both of your unwarranted an impertinent assumptions then. (1) Rushing the soldiers and trying to rescue Jesus from death would not be a logical conclusion to arrive at from the suggestion I had made. It is merely an example of your logical method. Not mine, nor logic itself. There were other ways in which informed but caring people could have responded to the situation of an innocent person being wrongly accused and executed by corrupt religious and political authorities. One obvious one would have been for the crowd to have insisted the innocent Jesus be released rather than the popular terrorist Barabbas. Given the obvious opportunity to both comply with the ruling authority AND demonstrate their support for justice and compassion, as God demands of us, Zech.7:9, they instead were unanimous in their preference for a violent nationalist hero rather than The Word of God. They were totally uninterested in 'justice being seen to be done', even when given the opportunity by an authority they despised, because they feared or despised the authority more than they loved justice or the Word of God. Just as many human beings do today, even those supposedly of 'faith'. (2) Your suspicion that I might be a closet JW based solely on my use of a term which they also use in their version of the scriptures is an unwarranted and irrational assumption. They also use the term Savior, in common with myself and that does not, by similar faulty logic, 'logically' render them 'Anglicans'. Your logical method, in this instance, is defective, so unsurprisingly reached an illogical conclusion. Christ was crucified on a cross. The word used in scripture does not specifically describe what we would geometrically call 'a cross', i.e. two pieces of wood at right angles to each other, one being upright in the ground, the other being approximately two thirds up its length and the crosspiece being approximately one third of the length of the upright and symetrically of similar length either side of the verticle piece. There are 28 references in the KJV, to the cross on which Christ died. Also there are also at least 4 references to it as a tree. Which, unless it was metal, would have necessarily, have to have been a tree. g4716. σταυρός stauros; from the base of 2476; a stake or post (as set upright), i.e. (specially), a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment); figuratively, exposure to death, i.e. self-denial; by implication, the atonement of Christ: — cross. AV (28) - cross 28; an upright stake, esp. a pointed one a cross a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves; the crucifixion which Christ underwent. (Strongs, σταυρός stauros) I don't think Strong was a JW either, do you? In fact I'd 'STAKE' my reputation as an Anglican on it. I refered to it as a torture stake because that was exactly what its purpose was. I was not interested in its geometrical constuction or in any of the pious associations which have later been symbolically heaped upon it, sanitising it and even venerating it. I was viewing it simply as an epitome of torture and injustice. The only thing we know for certain about the geometrical construction of that execution stake was that it was upright and Christ was suspended upon it just as was Nehushtan on it's pole, Numbers 21:9, 2 Kings 18:4, John 3:14. .
Now you are moving the goalposts. Earlier you wrote: Now you want to walk that back and make it, "before Jesus was hung." And what is your aversion to the word "crucified," anyway? https://www.bethinking.org/jehovahs-witnesses/did-christ-die-on-a-cross-or-a-stake Is the New World Translation the only one that got it right?
I wrote: I appreciate for a Yank that English is your second language but surely my statement is not so ambiguous as to suggest to you that I was implying Jesus was 'hung' rather than crucified. The physical truth about crucifixion is that the victim is hung by their outstreached arms, (or sometimes with their arms above their head). Their feet are pinned or supported in such a way that some small relief from suffocation due to pressure on the chest cavity, may be obtained by pushing up, but this causes excruciating pain and slowly weakens the victim until they eventually die, either of asphxiation or heart failure. In any case Christ HUNG on a cross to die. Breaking the legs of the victims prevents them from pushing up when becoming asphyxiated, thus hastening their death. This is what happened to the miscreants crucified on either side of The Christ, in order that they die before the Sabbath commenced. My use of the word 'as' did perhaps misleadingly suggest to you that I was referring exclusively to the time of his death, (which you rightly point out would be far too late for anyone to actually do anything about), but that would still be no excuse for them wanting to mind their own business about it. It being the actual crux point of the history of creation. I can think of no crucial event less appropriate for anyone to Mind Their Own Business about. Can you? I had intended to imply that the whole Holy Week debacle ending in His death was a testament in part to people who were Minding Their Own Business, but should not have been. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for God's people to Mind Their Own Business and do nothing. Which was basically exactly what everbody did do, from sleeping disciples in his hour of need, to betrayal through the kiss of a friend. The human race did not come out of it all with any credit much, apart from the women. Matt 27:55, Mark 15:40. Your faulty logic 'slip' is showing again Rexlion. Just because I did not choose to use the word 'crucifixion' in that sentence does not in any logical way imply that I have any aversion to it, either as a word or a description of Christ's death. Christ was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate. It says so in the creeds. As to the JW's obsession with terminology I frankly think it quite ludicrous. They are simply praying on the ignorance of the average church attender who probably knows nothing about the Greek words of the New Testament, (particularly: σταυρός stauros), the Roman methods of inflicting the death penalty, or (a few of them) even the crucial importance of the crucifixion to world history. By apearing to be authoratively correct about terminology they fool fools into thinking they may also be authoritatively correct about Theology. We both know they are not at all the same thing. The New World Translation got a lot of very important theological translational, interpretational, things wrong (Not least John 1:1), but as far as the mechanics and terminology of the crucifixion are concerned they are less wrong than the rest of their defective doctrins and dogmas can be proven to be. .
Jesus 'hung' on a cross. He was not 'hanged' on a cross. You are only 'hanged' if you have a noose round your neck and are supended until dead. Jesus was 'raised up' but not suspended by the neck. Suspended by the arms, therefore not 'hanged'. .
Yes it could possibly seem that you are right, but if you "biblegateway" the word hung ( KJV of course) you only get hunger as a result for the new testement. Whereas hang will give references to Jesus's crucifiction. But it's not a big deal it's not a hunging offence.