Singer Cat Stevens not allowed in US.

[BobbieDog]

[/color][/size]

The fact that you haven't seen it does not mean it doesn't exist.
.. ... ..
On this thread, you made numerous, frequent demands to see "the evidence." In sensitive cases such as this, U.S. authorities are not required to disclose everything they have to the public, and this was already pointed out to you numerous times. All we presently know is that Cat Stevens made contributions to Hamas and was banned from Israel (and now the U.S.) for so doing.

Which process(es) of law have been abandoned? Again, you have not proven that racial profiling, prejudice or "culturally sustained paranoia" was the immediate cause for Cat Stevens' deportation back to the UK. Saying such things serves only to propagate anti-American sentiments and propaganda.

If I have not seen evidence: or some trusted authority has not quaranteed the existence of such evidence; then, in practical and legal terms, it as if it does not exist. I am aware of no such quarantee.
You say "All we presently know is that Cat Stevens made contributions to Hamas and was banned from Israel (and now the U.S.) for so doing." I do not know that. On what basis do you know that. This precisely the current problem. Things are said which do not amount ot evidence, or even claim to it: and subsequently it is traded as knowledge; and further structures are built upon that knowledge as foundation.
There is global concern, shared by many in the USA, about what is being done under aegis and pretext of "security". This is inevitably a holitsic topic, as it involves whole society, and even whole globe extension. That you come to describe these concerns, and the perspective of their raising as anti-American propaganda, has to be extremely concerning: and part and parcel of a general unwillingness to just nod through what purports to be justified by security considerations.

 

[Paula]

You say "All we presently know is that Cat Stevens made contributions to Hamas and was banned from Israel (and now the U.S.) for so doing." I do not know that. On what basis do you know that.

The links to articles that were posted by many people on this thread appear to be self-explanatory, and are the sources of information to which I'm referring.

This precisely the current problem. Things are said which do not amount ot evidence, or even claim to it: and subsequently it is traded as knowledge; and further structures are built upon that knowledge as foundation.

Again, specific background and evidence is not presented to the media. However, it will be presented at trial. In sensitive cases such as this, U.S. authorities are not required to disclose everything they have to the public.

There is global concern, shared by many in the USA, about what is being done under aegis and pretext of "security". This is inevitably a holitsic topic, as it involves whole society, and even whole globe extension. That you come to describe these concerns, and the perspective of their raising as anti-American propaganda, has to be extremely concerning: and part and parcel of a general unwillingness to just nod through what purports to be justified by security considerations.

You still haven't answered my question: "Which processes of law have been abandoned?"


Nor have you proven that racial profiling, prejudice or "culturally sustained paranoia" was the immediate cause for Cat Stevens' deportation back to the UK.

 

[BobbieDog]

[/size]The links to articles that were posted by many people on this thread appear to be self-explanatory, and are the sources of information to which I'm referring.





Again, specific background and evidence is not presented to the media. However, it will be presented at trial. In sensitive cases such as this, U.S. authorities are not required to disclose everything they have to the public.



You still haven't answered my question: "Which processes of law have been abandoned?"


Nor have you proven that racial profiling, prejudice or "culturally sustained paranoia" was the immediate cause for Cat Stevens' deportation back to the UK.

I read every linked article in this thread, and no evidence whatsoever was presented or indicated, nor even claimed.
You answer yourself as to what has been abandoned in law: namely that under security pretext, no evidence need be presented; not only to the media, but to anybody.
Clearly the holding of subjects without access to legal process, as at Quantanamo: is the flagship of this abandonment; but it hold also, in various forms and degrees, right back through the social process.
Wherever evidentiality and due process are diluted, then we have abandonment of legal process: even of the deferment of such conditions, amounts to an abandonment of law; as it being expeditious, is intrinsic to legal practice.
I'm not sure what you mean by immediate cause. What is of concern is the relation between an overall and large scale state of affairs, and a particular outcome. These are clearly matters of my own judgement and prejudice: and as such, not amenable to ready proof; they are more matters of faith, an empirical faith; matters of politics, rather than science.

 

[Paula]

I read every linked article in this thread, and no evidence whatsoever was presented or indicated, nor even claimed.
You answer yourself as to what has been abandoned in law: namely that under security pretext, no evidence need be presented; not only to the media, but to anybody.

Even in the most routine criminal case, investigative leads and evidence are usually not presented to the public, except when disclosed during or after trial, the reason being it would jeopardize the case. However, a reasonable assumption would be that there is some sharing of intel going on between Israel and the U.S. for them to have made such a decision.

I'm not sure what you mean by immediate cause.

The compelling reason for the deportation.

 

[BobbieDog]

[/size]Even in the most routine criminal case, investigative leads and evidence are usually not presented to the public, except when disclosed during or after trial, the reason being it would jeopardize the case. However, a reasonable assumption would be that there is for them to have made such a decision.

This matter of not immediately disclosing evidence, to the public as it were: works in parallel with there being a judicially trusted and accountable body, who will vouch that they have seen evidence, such as to justify the bringing of a subject to trial, on a charge which will be somewhat specific.

In this case we have no such body: neither as to their judicial appointment, their accountability, nor their being trusted. We have here no equivalence to routine criminal cases.

You suggest "some sharing of intel going on between Israel and the U.S." as some functional equivalent: but such intel sharing is black box determination; with non of the features associated with legal process under constitutional regulation.

 

[Brad'sDad]

This matter of not immediately disclosing evidence, to the public as it were: works in parallel with there being a judicially trusted and accountable body, who will vouch that they have seen evidence, such as to justify the bringing of a subject to trial, on a charge which will be somewhat specific.

I think what Miz Paula tried to tell you was that you can't always have things to your liking, and that there is protocol to be followed for deportation. I'm sure we'll all find out more in due time.

 

[ACougar]

Hamas is a broad organization that in addition to including a Military wing which unfortunately does include some terrorists, also builds and runs schools and hospitals. BTW, how many Americans supported the IRA and Sinn Fein?

I for one believe that the IDF is just as much a terrorist organization as Hammas and yet Billions of our tax dollars go into supporting them each year. There is a double standard out there and we need to do something about it.

...Or as they say in the airline industry, "buh bye!"

Kudos to Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigration Services for ferreting out this weasel. They've sent a strong message that terrorists (as well as their sympathizers) are not welcome here.

Also notice how CAIR issued a statement in support of Cat Stevens. That should let you know exactly where they stand on issues of national security.

==============================================

U.S. Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle said on Wednesday that Islam was deported after his name turned up on U.S. "no fly" lists. "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 said the United States had information that Islam, who last visited the United States in May, had donated money to the militant Islamic group Hamas.

A leading Arab-American group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has sent letters to President Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge asking them to explain why Islam was barred.

Inayat Bunglawala, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, the largest group lobbying for the country's 1.8 million Muslims, told Reuters: "This whole saga does not bode well for other Muslims. It will make them wonder who else, which other moderate educationalists or community leaders are on these U.S. watch lists," he told Reuters.

Islam was denied entry to Israel in 2000 after the authorities there accused him of supporting Hamas. He denied the charges then and said his charitable donations were for humanitarian causes.

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/428618|top|09-23-2004::06:08|reuters.html

 

[BobbieDog]

[/font][/size]

I think what Paula tried to tell you was that you can't always have things to your liking, and that there is protocol to be followed for deportation. I'm sure we'll all find out more in due time.
[/font]

Where objection is to the suspension of legal process, it is hardly fair to characterise the objector as merely and whimsically wishing to "have all things to [their] liking". Your reference to "due" time is also innapropriate, as under the security determined suspension of law, "due" qualities are absent. It is possible, indeed likely that we will not "find out" the grounds for deportation, any more substantively and concretely than at present: and that, if we do, it will be through litigation dragging it our of authorities.
The truth is that this an abitrary and unaccountable action, beyond the regulation of full and due legal process. You are happy with it, because it is line with your own prejudice.
Those who place store in law, must proceed to challenge all arbitrary and security cloaked decisions such as this deportation.

 

[BarbB]

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.

 

[Brad'sDad]

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.

Thanks, Miz Newlamb. You said that better than I could.

 

[burrow_owl]

It's a rather moot point as in 1988 when he supposedly gave the money to Hamas, they were not illegal group and they had not carried out any attacks. Infact the Israeli government in an attempt to destablize the PLO (which at the time they were under pressure to negoittae with) itself helped to fund Hamas' transition from an Islamic charity to a militant group and they were a regsitered charity in Israel (though i don't know when this staus ended, defintely some time before 1989 when they wre outlawed).

Interesting.

Also interesting is that conservatives, who usually deride the government for gross incompetence in so many other areas (regulation; education; capital allocation) all of a sudden claim that the government is incapable of erring and needs no oversight when it comes to these matters.

 

[BobbieDog]

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.

So, if I understand what you here claim: the USA deports people without legal or constitutional regulation. I find that so hard to believe, that I must reject it as a claim. It is well nigh certain that all deportation form the USA is fully regulated by enacted statutes: and thus inescapably under the aegis of law. This is certainly the case in the UK: where every action of the state is subject to legal and statutory regulation.
As to your "let us do as we will" argument. That would have given no grounds for intervening in Iraq. For we should simply have left SH to do as he wished, by your line of reasoning.
Basing all state action on law: and judging the adequacy what others do, by law; leads to a more satisfactory regulation.

 

[Brad'sDad]

Interesting.

Also interesting is that conservatives, who usually deride the government for gross incompetence in so many other areas (regulation; education; capital allocation) all of a sudden claim that the government is incapable of erring and needs no oversight when it comes to these matters.

Hate to confuse you with the facts, but.....


Hamas, Palestinian group seeking to create a single, Islamic state in historic Palestine, which is now largely divided between Israel and the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hamas, meaning “zeal” or “fervor” in Arabic, is an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya, or Islamic Resistance Movement. The group was founded in 1988 as a militant segment of the Palestinian Arab national movement and was connected ideologically to the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in Egypt 60 years earlier. The Muslim Brotherhood rejected the influence of Western culture and called for the increased role of Islam in government and society. Hamas openly seeks Israel’s destruction and engages in terrorism and is therefore opposed by Israel. Hamas’s 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_761580639/Hamas.html#endads

 

[BarbB]

Did they "deport" Cat Stevens or deny him entrance?

 

[burrow_owl]

The group was founded in 1988

The rest was irrelevant. 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)? Do we know if Stevens should've known of their violent aims (it'd be easy to imagine them misrepresenting their aims and means)?

Stevens was just denied entrance.

 

[BarbB]

Stevens was just denied entrance.
[/size][/color][/font]

Thanks, burrow_owl.

BobbieDog - being denied entrance is a totally different legal animal from being deported. Deportation is a legal process through the court system. The USA has that just the way Britain does. Being denied entry is a procedure. It would have been more convenient for all if he had been denied boarding the plane, but he fell through the cracks! For that I will apologize.

 

[burrow_owl]

My concern is that the government is just as inept with the 'no-fly' lists as they are with anything - thus, I'd like to see as much released as possible so the public can keep the gvt. on its toes.

Certainly he didn't have some right to enter the country, but to me that's a secondary issue. I really don't care that he was denied entrance, but I do care about the prospect of me or someone I know being detained in error (hey, it happened to Ted Kennedy, so it could happen to me).

 

[Aeschylus]

The rest was irrelevant. 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)? Do we know if Stevens should've known of their violent aims (it'd be easy to imagine them misrepresenting their aims and means)?

Stevens was just denied entrance.
[/size][/color][/font]

As I siad above no it wasn't illegal in 1988, it was banned in 1989 after it carried out a series of shootings. Brad's dad hisotry slightly obscures the point that it was not just connected with the Muslim Brotherhood, it was entirely the product of the Muslim Brotherhood (and the takeover the Muslim Bortherhood by militant elemnts in about 1984) and started out as their militant wing.

 

[BarbB]

My concern is that the government is just as inept with the 'no-fly' lists as they are with anything - thus, I'd like to see as much released as possible so the public can keep the gvt. on its toes.

Certainly he didn't have some right to enter the country, but to me that's a secondary issue. I really don't care that he was denied entrance, but I do care about the prospect of me or someone I know being detained in error (hey, it happened to Ted Kennedy, so it could happen to me).

I do see your point, burrow_owl. My only comment is "DO YOU MEAN THAT WE COULD HAVE KEPT TEDDY OUT OF THE USA AND WE DIDN'T TAKE IT?????"

 

[BobbieDog]

Certainly he didn't have some right to enter the country, but to me that's a secondary issue. I really don't care that he was denied entrance, but I do care about the prospect of me or someone I know being detained in error (hey, it happened to Ted Kennedy, so it could happen to me).

The rest of the world cares about who is denied entrance to the USA. The USA is dragging the world into a "war on terror" that is largely of US making, and certainly of US definition. Who the US chooses to deny entrance to, is crucial indicator as to who the USA is defining as enemy. Just how widely the USA does set its definition of enemy, bears both on how the world might choose to relate to the USA, and on what is imposed on the rest of the world through that relation.
Here, in this instance of Stevens, and in the absence of any hard claim or evidence from hugely discredited US intelligence agencies: many in the UK, and including the UK government, and representative Muslim bodies; now voice the deepest of concerns about the emerging nature of both this relation to the USA, and the nature of the USA itself.
I must accept that you just don't care about things like this: as long as it doesn't affect you, your family, or your friends; then, what the hell does it matter, say you.
But I have to then ask whether you understand just why others cannot treat such matters with the same casualness.