Would Jesus Now Be Prosecuted by US?


Anthony Judge – TRANSCEND Media Service

As a Law-Breaker — Like Manning, Assange and Snowden — Yes We Can!


The USA proudly defends many disputed official initiatives as being lawful. These include extraordinary rendition, imprisonment without trial, enhanced interrogation, targetted assassination, and invasive surveillance of privacy. They are all framed as legitimate measures of self-defence. Their legitimacy has been questioned from a wider perspective, notably by Larry Siems (The Torture Report: what the documents say about America’s post-9/11 torture program, 2012) and by Philippe Sands (Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules, 2005; Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values, 2008).

The matter has been considered before the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, based on the Nuremberg Charter (Deborah Dupre, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld war criminals verdict Enforcement Phase begins US War Crimes, Examiner.com, 15 May 2012; Yvonne Ridley, Bush Convicted of War Crimes in Absentia, Foreign Policy Journal, 12 May 2012).

Actions publicizing such dubious US initiatives with hard evidence, such as to call their legitimacy into question, are challenged by the US. Having informed the UN Secretary General that it no longer intends to become party to the statutes governing the International Criminal Court, and therefore having no legal obligations in consequence, the USA effectively positions itself as above the international law to which the majority of states subscribe. The challenge of current disclosures regarding invasive surveillance of many states by the USA is however framed both as a breach of legal provisions regarding property and as potentially aiding those seeking to harm the US.

Those providing such information may then be readily considered as “terrorists” — unquestionably meriting the most extreme forms of punishment. The pattern follows from that of proceedings instigated in the USA by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) — a pattern subsequently described as McCarthyism. This is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It is also held to mean “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.”

From an historical perspective, it is appropriate to note how many presidents of countries were originally named as “terrorists”. Some were subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. These notably include Nelson Mandela — a personal hero of Barack Obama — and Yasser Arafat. Others labelled terrorists include: Jomo Kenyatta and Robert Mugabe. Presumably all would be subject to prosecution at this time within the USA. To be recognized as irony of the highest order, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize soon after taking office. He is unique in being labelled “terrorist” by some — subsequent to being so honoured (Lupe Fiasco calls President Obama a terrorist, Los Angeles Times. 8 June 2011; Noam Chomsky: Obama is ‘Running Biggest Terrorist Operation that Exists’, Information Clearing House, 21 June 2013).

For Patrick J. Tyson (George Washington was a Terrorist! 2010), and as variously noted by others:

According to the definition of terrorism adopted by the FBI, George Washington was a terrorist. Indeed, so were Jefferson, Franklin, Adams and all the signatories to the Declaration of Independence. Moreover, all Confederate soldiers, statesmen, and sympathizers were terrorists.

It is also appropriate to note that considerable legitimacy was claimed by their respective governments for the legal proceedings of the apartheid regime of South Africa, the Nazi court system, and that of the Soviet Union.

Given the fundamental importance of Jesus to the faith-based governance of the USA, it is therefore appropriate to ask whether he would be subject to prosecution according to current legal provisions there — given some of the evidence presented against him at the time of his trial. Is there any way his innocence would now be recognized in a modern trial in the USA?

Without claiming any corresponding status or merit for Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, the question can then be raised as to whether the property-related offences with which they are being charged in the USA can be compared with the property offences which resulted in the arrest and trial of Jesus.

Whilst any implication that current cases are comparable to historical cases is highly controversial, consideration of such comparison enables issues of truth and justice to be discussed in relation to vested interests.


Legality of the trial of Jesus
Controversial interpretations of justice
Precedence of property protection over emergence of truth
Embodiment of transcendental truth
Achieving simplicity in a world of complexity
Disclosure of truth as endangering lives
Recognizing the unknown and the unimaginable
Whistleblowers: responsibilities and persecution
Historical legacy of Barack Obama: Pontius Pilatus XXI?
Extraterrestrial and extratemporal challenges of the future?



This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 15 Jul 2013.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Would Jesus Now Be Prosecuted by US?, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article:

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

Comments are closed.