Singer Cat Stevens not allowed in US.

[Brad'sDad]

Please back up every one of these claims. Don't just repeat innuendos, suggestions, and third party claims.
This is what happens through profiling. Things are not thought through, not proved, nor documented. The process of profiling is what generates all the evidence there is: where the stench of its unfounded suggestions are what remains and hangs in the air.

From what I read so far, there was a whole lot more than profiling going on. Cat Stevens' name was on a list which linked him to Hamas through some contributions he made to a charity. It's possible he didn't know what that charity really was, but still, I don't understand how you can say there was no documentation or proof. It does sound like they had something to be concerned about if they followed the money trail to Hamas.

 

[BobbieDog]

"known associations and financial support to organisations believed to be aiding terrorism".

Thia kind of concept has to be fought in detail. Much of the world opposes the USA. Some of that opposition takes irregular military form. That is just a fact of politics. The USA is striving to cleanse the world of opposition to America. Operationally that becomes fascism: taking action such that effective political opposition is suppressed. Whenever the USA comes up with genralisations like this, then they must be forced into the detail of what they mean. If we accept the generality of what America says, the terms in which they wish to proceed: then the game is already lost; American hegemony is achieved. We always ahve to press America to detail, to the point which Ghandi would recognise as effective civil dosobedience: where one part in that is intellectual; whatever terms America chooses to come forward in, you challenge these terms to thier destruction.

 

[burrow_owl]

From what I read so far, there was a whole lot more than profiling going on.

Certainly true. The question is whether our laws and regs are overly restrictive. The question ought to be: did Yusef know that his money was ending up in nefarious hands? And should he have known?

I mean, I'd bet it'd be pretty easy to trace Bush's money from Harkin (assuming he made any) to terrorist operations, but that shouldn't be the standard we apply. We should look at intent and reasonable foresight.

 

[BobbieDog]

From what I read so far, there was a whole lot more than profiling going on. Cat Stevens' name was on a list which linked him to Hamas through some contributions he made to a charity. It's possible he didn't know what that charity really was, but still, I don't understand how you can say there was no documentation or proof. It does sound like they had something to be concerned about if they followed the money trail to Hamas.

That's just the point. When you say "they followed the money trail to Hamas". Now that's a nice innuendo line, trips of the tounge very easily. Okay document that: prove that; even show where one attributable government source says that is the case.

 

[BobbieDog]

Certainly true. The question is whether our laws and regs are overly restrictive. The question ought to be: did Yusef know that his money was ending up in nefarious hands? And should he have known?

I mean, I'd bet it'd be pretty easy to trace Bush's money from Harkin (assuming he made any) to terrorist operations, but that shouldn't be the standard we apply. We should look at intent and reasonable foresight.
[/size][/color][/font]

More innuendo in the air. Document where such charity to which Cat had given, did fund terrorism. That has to come before any question of intention.

 

[hyperborean]

"Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle would only say that the intelligence community has recently obtained information that "further heightens concern" about Islam.

These people are brillant. At this point they almost need to say something like this to show they are not incompetent racists. Why is he not under arrest in England, his home? This is a no brainer; if the guy is connected to terrorist groups then shame on him. He should be deported to the middle east since he likes it so much.

 

[Brad'sDad]

That's just the point. When you say "they followed the money trail to Hamas". Now that's a nice innuendo line, trips of the tounge very easily. Okay document that: prove that; even show where one attributable government source says that is the case.

There's more info coming out on this all the time. Here's something from Reuters:

Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle said Islam's Washington D.C.-bound plane was diverted on Tuesday to Bangor, Maine, after his name turned up on U.S. lists of suspected terrorists. He was questioned by officials and then taken to Boston to catch a connecting flight in Washington for London.
"Why is he on the watch lists? Because of his activities that could be potentially linked to terrorism. The intelligence community has come into possession of additional information that further raises our concern," Doyle said.

A law enforcement official who asked not to be identified said the United States had information that Islam, who visited the United States in May, had donated money to the militant Islamic group Hamas.


BobbieDog, you really should read this article.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=peopleNews&storyID=6309756&pageNumber=1

 

[BarbB]

Try this site, bbc, for info on his being refused entry to Israel in 2000. Also, his approval of the order to kill Rushdie - he's not so moderate as he seems to be. The more I look into this, the sadder it is that he has been so deceived.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/832796.stm

 

[burrow_owl]

More innuendo in the air. Document where such charity to which Cat had given, did fund terrorism.

I don't know, but from the little I know about Islamic charities (and, again, Rahma, please correct anything), they're all pretty interwoven. Money goes from charity m to n to o to p.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if his money ended up in the hands of terrorist group x. I don't know, of course, but my position is that even if his money did end up with terrorists, it shouldn't matter.

 

[Brad'sDad]

Try this site, bbc, for info on his being refused entry to Israel in 2000. Also, his approval of the order to kill Rushdie - he's not so moderate as he seems to be. The more I look into this, the sadder it is that he has been so deceived.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/832796.stm

Wow! It's even worse than I thought. The government claims that during a trip to Israel in 1988, he delivered tens of thousands of dollars to Hamas, a militant Islamic group! Thanks for finding that, Miz Newlamb.

 

[hyperborean]

Brad's Dad; so, I read the aritcle, it says nothing. Like I mentioned before the Homeland Idiocy securities commission needs to make a statment like this to justify it. Meanwhile our borders are basically open, and there are terrorist in the country right now. Let's get this high profile muslim, sure that will work. True terrorist want NO profile whatso ever.

 

[BarbB]

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if his money ended up in the hands of terrorist group x. I don't know, of course, but my position is that even if his money did end up with terrorists, it shouldn't matter.

But it sounds as though he personally delivered money to charities while he was in Israel. Surely he has to know something about them. That's why Israel wouldn't let him in again in 2000.

Edited to add: And why should we reward him with entry to the USA if he has done so?

I'm thinking out loud here, OK?

 

[BobbieDog]

government claims

That don't cut nothing. Prove that he delivered these dollars. Show the attributable source who says that he has seen the evidence, and that this evidence could stand up in court.
We have a mill where nothing need be proved. It all has to do with security, so we can't show any evidence. It's simply prejudice which drives the profiling, which drives this mill.

 

[Entertaining_Angels]

Without reading the rest of this thread and knowing that I am a HUGE Cat Stevens fan, I have to ask, does the government really owe us an explanation?

I'm a former Army chick who held a clearance or two and, I can tell you, there is a lot of stuff the government 'knows' that you don't. Need to know, and all that...and I just don't think we need to know. Anyhow, I am playing my CS CD today in honor of his departure 'home'.

 

[BobbieDog]

But it sounds as though he personally delivered money to charities while he was in Israel. Surely he has to know something about them. That's why Israel wouldn't let him in again in 2000.

Edited to add: And why should we reward him with entry to the USA if he has done so?

I'm thinking out loud here, OK?

This is the cycle of unfounded logic. He can be banned from the USA because he has been banned from Israel. And the next time, there is even stronger "proof": because not only has he been banned from Israel, he has also been banned from the USA.
Anchor the first claims: document them, prove them. Lest anyhting built on them as foundations be merely castles of prejudice mythology in innuendo air.

 

[BobbieDog]

Without reading the rest of this thread and knowing that I am a HUGE Cat Stevens fan, I have to ask, does the government really owe us an explanation?

I'm a former Army chick who held a clearance or two and, I can tell you, there is a lot of stuff the government 'knows' that you don't. Need to know, and all that...and I just don't think we need to know. Anyhow, I am playing my CS CD today in honor of his departure 'home'.

Of course the government needs to explain. That is what distinguishes a democarcy. We hold the government to account for all it does: and to do that, we need to know. When once we start trusting governments in these regards, then freedom goes down the pan.

 

[burrow_owl]

But it sounds as though he personally delivered money to charities while he was in Israel. Surely he has to know something about them. That's why Israel wouldn't let him in again in 2000.

Yeah, I didn't see that, actually. If he did, in fact, directly give money to Hamas (which isn't clear - I'll trust an Israeli 'claim' about as far as I could throw Sharon), then that settles the matter for me.

 

[hyperborean]

I have to ask, does the government really owe us an explanation?

I'm a former Army chick who held a clearance or two and, I can tell you, there is a lot of stuff the government 'knows' that you don't. Need to know, and all that...and I just don't think we need to know. Anyhow, I am playing my CS CD today in honor of his departure 'home'.

What? Of course they are required to explain. They were elected by us, this is not a Fascist state, even though sometimes it feels like it's heading in that direction. We should always question and expect answers from those who were elected by the people.

 

[burrow_owl]

I'm a former Army chick who held a clearance or two

What Hyerborean said. The government exists to serve us, not the other way around.

 

[Entertaining_Angels]

Of course the government needs to explain. That is what distinguishes a democarcy. We hold the government to account for all it does: and to do that, we need to know. When once we start trusting governments in these regards, then freedom goes down the pan.

Sure would cut down costs on issuing those pesky security clearances.