|
Here's the problem. In 1998, there were a small number of detainees who had supported the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine ("PFLP") that lost a case at the US Supreme wherein they were seeking many of the "supposed freedoms" that are explicitly denied by the new Patriot Act -- including basic things such as the right to challenge the agency prior to final agency review (during which time -- 2+ years -- they were incarcerated).
The point? The point is that for several years now, waaay prior to 9/11, the government of this country has been seeking to stop people from donating to organizations supporting terror.
Now, Cat Stevens may have accidentally supported terror, but he's no dummy and during the time period he was speaking at these functions I think if he had half a brain he knew some money was going into Palestine to support Palestinian efforts. Palestinian efforts have been largely, yes, terrorist.
Some food for thought. He can sing and preach "peace train," but I think we should still suspect him. That doesn't mean he is guilty, nor a terrorist or terrorist supporter. What it means is that in the new "better safe than sorry" era, there are enough unanswered questions about his motives and past activities that it is not totally unreasonable to put him on the "uh... let's not let him in" list, should our gummint deem it appropriate.
Now, all this is assuming they had the right spelling of the name on the list. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]
__________________
 
|