Singer Cat Stevens not allowed in US.

hyperborean · Sep 26, 2004

It appears that Cat Stevens is innocent. Just a casualty of the United States misguided efforts to defeat terrorism. When this type of method is followed, it becomes a war on a certain religion. We should think like terrorist right? What we have so far is that have he may have given money to a CHARITY that may have had connections years ago to Hamas? Nevermind the fact that the UNITED States has given money to dictatorships and thugs in the past. I brought this topic up mainly because it exposes the deep rooted flaw in how the current administration deals with this new threat. And maybe old administrations.

Entertaining_Angels · Sep 26, 2004

Personally I would rather they err on the side of caution. Mistakes of this nature tell me our government is taking the threat VERY seriously and I see that as a positive thing.

(( OreGal gives rep points to United States Government ))

Voter · Sep 26, 2004

OreGal said:
Personally I would rather they err on the side of caution. Mistakes of this nature tell me our government is taking the threat VERY seriously and I see that as a positive thing.

(( OreGal gives rep points to United States Government ))

I wish they'd erred on the side of caution back when the FBI agent learned that some Saudi Arabians around the Phoenix area were taking flying lessons, but that they weren't interested in learning how to take off and land. And that the requested FISA warrant had been approved.

Now, keeping a guy out of the country who was allowed in without problems 4 months ago, who has spoken against terrorist acts, and who only appears to be a wonderful conduit between the non-Muslim Americans and Muslims (Americans and otherwise) is just short-sighted.

BobbieDog · Sep 27, 2004

OreGal said:
Personally I would rather they err on the side of caution. Mistakes of this nature tell me our government is taking the threat VERY seriously and I see that as a positive thing.

OreGal said:
(( OreGal gives rep points to United States Government ))

I accept the rule of thumb which OreGal is applying, as well intended, and generally a wise one to apply.

But I then must also endorse most of what Voter then says in reply.

All of this is occurring in a very tight nexus. Any necessary response must articulate with all else that is to be preserved. We don't have any slack in the system: overreact in what is a necessary response; and you can, and probably will damage something else.

So, err on the side of caution in this, and you can be: eroding essential liberties at home; fatally damaging good will and trust abroad; generally alienating constituencies at home and abroad; engendering instruments of social regulation which will become perverted in their usage: and as Voter flags up, degrading what could in fact be bent to resolving the basic problems.

Yes there is a need for the USA to achieve security: but not at the cost of others; and not at the cost of the American way of life itself.

So do it, do security, but do it right and no more: this is a high-wire act of balances, a boot-strapping operation with no reserves; more like surgery in its required focus and precision, than it is like chemotherapy or irradiation.

Rochir · Sep 27, 2004

I guess even the intervention of the British government didn't bring any solution, eh?

rahma · Sep 27, 2004

It would be nice if the US government made public the charity or group that cuased them to question Br. Yusuf's integrity. As Ramadan approaches, Muslims are deciding which charity to give our zakat to, and this year, I had planned on giving it to one of Br. Yusuf's.

Such an important thing as giving charity should not have to be so difficult, but now adays, Muslims must make sure we're not giving to charities under investiagation, or we too might be shipped off. Bah.

oldrooster · Sep 27, 2004

This whole thing is so rediculous, I cannot imagine Cat Stevens being a threat to anyone. Is it just a slow day on the old homeland security front that they have to make up something to keep themselves busy ?

rahma · Sep 27, 2004

oldrooster said:
This whole thing is so rediculous, I cannot imagine Cat Stevens being a threat to anyone. Is it just a slow day on the old homeland security front that they have to make up something to keep themselves busy ?

I read an article detailing what he was planning on doing in America. He was going to meet with his record producer, about his next album of Islamic songs. Then he was going to meet with Dolly Parton to plan a big peace concert or event. Maybe a Dolly/Cat colaboration was something too horrible for the american public to behold, and it had to be stopped.

oldrooster · Sep 27, 2004

rahma said:
I read an article detailing what he was planning on doing in America. He was going to meet with his record producer, about his next album of Islamic songs. Then he was going to meet with Dolly Parton to plan a big peace concert or event. Maybe a Dolly/Cat colaboration was something too horrible for the american public to behold, and it had to be stopped.

The Dolly Parton part I could understand....I haven't seen him in concert for quite a few years, that would have been nice....and happy birthday to you.....

burrow_owl · Sep 27, 2004

from crooked timber:

Sorry to keep posting about the Cat Stevens brouhaha, but it really is revealing about the world we are now living in. The latest reports suggest that what happened was basically a mistake a spelling mistake , in fact. I dont know it thats true, but if it were, what would that say about the bloggers who rushed to construct justifications for the action and the experts who went into print in the Weekly Standard and elsewhere to explain why deporting Stevens was the right thing to do? It raises the possibility of an interesting exercise:

You are a right-wing blogger or a writer for TechCentralStation or FrontPage Magazine. Famous non-American person X is detained and deported from the US. Construct a rationalization for the decision based only on material you can find using Google.

oldrooster · Sep 27, 2004

burrow_owl said:
from crooked timber:

Sorry to keep posting about the Cat Stevens brouhaha, but it really is revealing about the world we are now living in. The latest reports suggest that what happened was basically a mistake a spelling mistake , in fact. I dont know it thats true, but if it were, what would that say about the bloggers who rushed to construct justifications for the action and the experts who went into print in the Weekly Standard and elsewhere to explain why deporting Stevens was the right thing to do? It raises the possibility of an interesting exercise:

You are a right-wing blogger or a writer for TechCentralStation or FrontPage Magazine. Famous non-American person X is detained and deported from the US. Construct a rationalization for the decision based only on material you can find using Google.

That would not suprise me, most of those govt. types could not find their behind with both hands...

BobbieDog · Sep 27, 2004

The spelling mix up that I saw referred to, was: that he was on a "do not let onboard a flight to the USA" list; but that on that list his name or whatever was misspelt.
So really, so goes this report, he should never have been allowed to board the plane in first instance.

rahma · Sep 27, 2004

BobbieDog said:
The spelling mix up that I saw referred to, was: that he was on a "do not let onboard a flight to the USA" list; but that on that list his name or whatever was misspelt.
So really, so goes this report, he should never have been allowed to board the plane in first instance.

It's rather silly that they mispelled his name. Every Muslim child can tell you how to spell Yusuf Islam's name. His website is yusufislam.org.uk for heavens sakes, and it's on all his recent cds. As if my opinion of US intelligence could get any lower, it's now about to scrape rock bottom.

tulc · Sep 27, 2004

Happy Birthday rahma!!
tulc(hope you have a blessed day!!)

Entertaining_Angels · Sep 27, 2004

And, yet if a terrorist enters the country and, for whatever reason, his name was mispelled on the list (although very apparent that it COULD be the same name) and said terrorist blows up one of our buildings, I'm thinking the same people condemning our screeners would be having a hissy fit about how inept our screeners are. (how's that for a run-on sentence!)

I have children and tend to be fiercely protective of them. I do not mind for a moment when our government errs on the side of caution. 'Youssouff Islam' or 'Yusef Islam', oh yes, those are glaringly different names....not!

News Report:

Joe Terrorist bombed the Sears Tower today. He arrived in the United States last weekend. Screeners carefully examined the passengers' names but because there was no 'Joe Terrorist' on the 'No Fly List' nobody took notice of him. They however did notice a 'Joe Terrorest' on the list but decided the names were spelled differently so they must be two different people and did not detain him.

edited to correct my own mispelled words.

Dogman · Sep 27, 2004

newlamb said:
BobbieDog - you're just going to have to let this go. Let the USA decide the criteria for denying somebody entrance and we won't object to Great Britain doing the same thing. Due process has NOTHING to do with allowing admittance and never did with the exception perhaps of political asylum seekers.

Are you then, not concerned with shining a light on the process so there won't be abuses?

Entertaining_Angels · Sep 27, 2004

Dogman said:
Are you then, not concerned with shining a light on the process so there won't be abuses?

Definitely shine that light on abuses but you'll need to find some abuses first. Erring on the side of caution and not letting somebody in the country because their name appears to show up on a terrorist list, even if that name might be mispelled, is not abuse.

Brad'sDad · Sep 27, 2004

burrow_owl said:
The rest was irrelevant.

Not really. I guess you didn't like this part:

Hamas openly seeks Israels destruction and engages in terrorism and is therefore opposed by Israel. Hamass supporters remain a significant but minority element among Palestinian Arabs.

Partly funded by its members, most funds come from sympathizers abroad. Because the European Union (EU) and the United States have labeled Hamas a terrorist organization, its funds have been seized and its fundraising ability has been curtailed

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia...mas.html#endads

I also don't doubt the US and Israel both have a dossier on Stevens a mile long.

So Stevens gave the money in 1988, right? Do we know if the group was illegal at this point (on the list, if you will)?

Since you and Aeschylus both seem to feel that Hamas was not illegal in 1988, would either one of you happen to have a link proving your theory (preferably not from a left wing website) ?

Stevens was just denied entrance.

Eventually, they did say it was not deportation, but FoxNews sources indicate that Stevens was deported from Israel in 2000.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133095,00.html

Early news reports from AP and Reuters also referred to Stevens' "deportation" from the US:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-21-jet-diverted_x.htm

So it's easy to see where the confusion came from.

MarkAnthony · Sep 27, 2004

BobbieDog said:
Documenting and link please: which attributed officials said this?

Then look at the logic of deniability and claim: "said", "believe", "may", "helped".

How many diminution qualifiers are you allowed in one sentence?

So, nothing beyond someone said that maybe: innuendo smear without testable data; how classic is that?

What it comes down to is whether or not you believe a US or Israeli social system can fairly exercise such unaccountable and opaque power.

My vote says that neither Israel or the USA could so do.

After the scandal where an Israeli agent is found in a policy unit preparing position papers for the White House: you have to be alert to the possibility that all we are seeing in these events, is pro-Israeli perspective.

Both the UK government and the British Muslim Council have voiced concern and indeed anger over this matter.

This would seem an opportunity for the UK to put some water of constitutional and legal process between themselves and the American project of GWB.

The BBC news.......Cat Stevens abandoned his music career to invest in Islamic extremeist and terrorism....just my op after reading his bio,

BobbieDog · Sep 27, 2004

MarkAnthony said:
The BBC news.......Cat Stevens abandoned his music career to invest in Islamic extremeist and terrorism....just my op after reading his bio,

There must be perspective which could begin to deal with the degree of inversion of apparent fact and truth, in which you indulge: but, for the moment, I think I'm just gob smacked into a meditation upon the enormity of what you do in this inversion.

Just how easy is it for the members of an ethnic collectivity to abandon standards of evidence and process: to begin to build a damning and denigrative vision of another; on foundation, and from substance, that will never be any more that suggestion, epistemological skid marks.

Singer Cat Stevens not allowed in US.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

By Grabthar's hammer ... YES.WEEK.END!

FUNdamentalist

Thank You Jerry

FUNdamentalist

Thank You Jerry

Senior Contributor

Thank You Jerry

Well-Known Member

FUNdamentalist

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency