Yusuf Islam won't be scheduling any US tours....

[Timber Loftis]

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]

[Cerek]

Well, to turn this thing around a bit, if you look at it from the authorities POV, their actions are more understandable.

According to Morgeraut's article, authorities thought they may have "Youssouf" Islam instead of "Yusuf" Islam. I searched the web but couldn't find any info on the activities or suspicions surrounding Youssouf, but let's assume (for the moment) that his ties to terrorist groups is more direct than Yusuf/Cat's.

Cat Stevens has been out of the public spotlight for several years now. I doubt I would have recognized him anyway, but the full beard he was wearing - he really looks much different than he did before.

So the authorities know they have a Muslim on a plane with a name that corresponds closely to one of the names on the "No Fly" list. Again, I have no idea what Youssouf is accused of doing, but let's consider that their IS a legit reason for his name being on the list.

If the authorities felt they had Youssouf (instead of Yusuf), it certainly is logical for them to disbelieve the story they are being given. Youssouf would presumably have a good reason to lie about his real name and identity and to pretend to be an innocent victim of mistaken identity. It also makes sense for the authorities to separate "Youssouf" from his traveling companion and to question her separately (although there is no mention of Cat's daughter being questioned by the authorities).

This still may not justify keeping the two of them apart for 33 hours and doesn't explain WHY it took so long to establish Cat's true identity. It also doesn't explain why he was sent back out of the country this time when he had been allowed in the country just a few months ago (other than the fact that the authorities didn't want to admit that they just made a mistake).

In short, there may have been a perfectly good reason to keep "Youssouf" out of the country, and this certainly explains the actions taken by the authorities. It also does justify (to a degree) the interrogation and scrutiny that Cat Stevens had to endure (although not completely). I will agree that it should have been easy enough to determine his true identity and actual threat level in less than 33 hours, but from the authorities POV, "Youssouf" Islam would have very legit reasons for lying about his identity and trying to stonewall any interrogations.

What the authorities should have done once they figured out they had captured Cat Stevens is to issue a brief, public apology to Yusuf for the mistake made and the inconvenience it caused him, but they should then have allowed him to continue on his trip to Nashville with his daughter. If they really did feel he was still a possible threat, it would have been easy enough to follow him and monitor his movements.

As for Cat Steven's himself, there certainly does seem to be enough evidence that he supported the fatwa against Rushdie and that he at least passively supports the Hamas group. Either that, or he has been incredibly naive' about where his donations were really going and what they were being used for.

[Morgan_Corbesant]

LOL. America recieves terrorist threats on a routine basis. That is why nobody thought September 11th would actually happen. Then people get bent out of shape when it does happen. So then we raise/lower terror alerts afterwards and people complain. If we shut down our country because of every terrorist threat, then we would just cease to function. That is how terrorists would beat us...just threaten us to death. This guy is KNOWN to have done this, but his denials are expected. He was probably trying to come to America in order to fund a sleeper cell or deliver a message to them or something. I think its good that they didn't allow him in. Its easy for him to say that he wasn't coming for bad reasons, but what do you expect him to say? " Yeah, I'm here to give orders and money to a sleeper cell that plans on blowing up the Empire State Building". America has gotten too soft and it will be our downfall. We have liberals bitching about the living conditions of POW's in Cuba when they are eating and living better than they were before. They complain that the prisoners aren't being allowed constitutional rights, when they aren't American thus don't rate our rights. It's truly baffleing.

[Stratos]

The complain about the prisoners at Guantanamo has more to do with the Geneva Convention than the Constitution.

[Morgan_Corbesant]

Yeah, but they said their constitutional rights were being violated. Most of those complaining don't even know what they are talking about. We give them food, water, shelter, medicine, gas-masks, blankets, excercise, they write letters, etc. All the things they are supposed to have according to the Geneva Convention they have. That was my point, sorry I was being to obscure with what I wrote. These issues anger me and cloud my judgement and writing.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Ooooh, big latin words. Listen, there's a point to what I just said and you know it. There really is truth to the saying that you can't please everybody. Had they done nothing, you know there really would be a news story on how another threat slipped through. It would at least get a mention in a stump speech. Tell me it wouldn't. And, I think our long discussion before was about terrorist supporters, and I think if finally gave up and dropped it as well. It's not like I accused anyone here of having the courage, audacity, conviction, or stupidity to strap on a bomb and actually be a terrorist. It was about supporting a side -- and I really don't want to get into it again, cause we beat it to death. I think you just got so incensed I called you a hippie. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] It was just a rant, man. I once had Jerry Bears on my bumper sticker, too. I'm just words you read online, you shouldn't get so offended. And, I'm really sad if I lost your respect. No... really. Damn, where's that sincerity smiley? I know it's in here somewhere...

Calling me a hippie is calling a fish a fish. Really, don't make me show you the framed picture of Bob Marley hanging on my wall.

I apologize. Your right, it is just the freaking interent and I know better than to take hyperbole seriously. It got under my skin implying that that, as a hippie, I would take a grave criminal act and a national tragedy as an excuse for a hand-out when in fact I have worked hard for everything I have and declined hand-outs even when I qualified. So what! I see now it wasn't directed towards me. I fully believe some of the families of those lost in the world trade center attacks probably need(ed) help, financial and otherwise and applaude the efforts of those like Mr. Islam who contributed their talent and fame to help them.

This case has grown cold and still no hard proof of Mr. Islam's alledged terror support has surfaced. In fact the hard proof of recent times suggests otherwise. That indeed, Islam has turned away from the fundamentalism that drives terrorism.

I'm all for innocent til proven guilty because it works and sets the standard of a fair process. In this case no proof of guilt has been offered and I think banning Islam form the U.S. was a mistake. IF he is guilty of knowingly, actively supporting terrorists, this needs to be established so he can be deserving of the scorn the he has recieved. Otherwise the appearance of mis-justice becomes more than just that.

Respect,

[Timber Loftis]

This case has grown cold and still no hard proof of Mr. Islam's alledged terror support has surfaced. In fact the hard proof of recent times suggests otherwise.

I wonder if you've read the other posts in this thread. I do note that a mere suspicion -- not absolute proof -- is enough to exclude a foreign national on the "better safe than sorry" principle.

I'm all for innocent til proven guilty because it works and sets the standard of a fair process. In this case no proof of guilt has been offered and I think banning Islam form the U.S. was a mistake. IF he is guilty of knowingly, actively supporting terrorists, this needs to be established so he can be deserving of the scorn the he has recieved.

Again, those are standards for proving someone guilty and incarcerating them. The standards for denying entry are lower, and IMO rightfully so.

... for now.