Cat Stevens can't set foot in the United States, but Yanni is allowed to walk around free?
Man, talk about the terrorists winning...
PAD
Posted by Peter David at September 23, 2004 10:29 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingLOL!!!!!!!!
Okay, seriously, I think it's such a bunch of shit that people are still allowed to bring matchbooks on board, but not peace activists.
Also--
Am I the only one who thought that Jay Leno's joke last night about this matter was just flat-out racist? His joke was an allusion to the notion that Yusef Islam's (ne' Cat Stevens) prohibition from flying was somehow obvious, becuase his last name was Islam. What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Because someone is a Muslim with the last name of "Islam" means that it's somehow "obvious" that they shouldn't be flying on planes? Where does he get this idea from?
Okay, it was just reported on the 11pm NBC news that he made donations to the terror group Hamas through Muslim charities.
Okay, it was just reported on the 11pm NBC news that he made donations to the terror group Hamas through Muslim charities.
So much for the Peace Train...
I was puzzled about them denying Cat Stevens entry, until one of the networks showed footage of him calling for the death of Salman Rushdie.
I don't think he was actually on a no fly list. I think they just decided to land the plane at the closest airport and kick him off when he starting singing "Morning Has Broken."
I just thought he was hacking hairballs and talking like Snagglepuss. "Meow..."
Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam in his own words about:
the Salman Rushdie affair, and the accusation he supported Hamas
He insists his words were taken out of context regarding Rushdie. (As a beginning student of Islam, he was explaining the Fatwah's justification, based on the Quran's teachings. He wasn't proclaiming his support. admittedly a very fine line to draw.) He denies ever giving money to Hamas or any other terrorist organization.
Luigi Novi: Am I the only one who thought that Jay Leno's joke last night about this matter was just flat-out racist?
Let me explain by transforming Leno's joke into the old "Match Game format":
"The Bush administration is so stupid..."
"How stupid are they?"
"They are so stupid, they think someone named Islam is automatically a terrorist."
Leno isn't being racist. He's accusing the Bush administration of being racist.
If Leno actually thought Islam had to be a terrorist, he wouldn't have considered the line funny. And he wouldn't have used it in his monologue. For it to be funny, it has to be wrong.
There are some Muslim charities that claim to solely fund humanitarian causes, that have been accused of funnelling money to Hamas and other terrorists. There is some debate over whether they do or not.
So Yusuf Islam could easily have given money to charity A. The Bush Administration might believe Charity A financially supported Hamas. Therefore they say, Yusuf Islam supported Hamas. Even though Yusuf Islam has no knowledge of ever doing so.
No one has accused Islam, to my knowledge, of giving money directly to Hamas or any other terrorist group.
I remember a few years ago several large American corporations were accused of funding some of these charities. These corporations are still in existence. They pleaded ignorance. The CEOs of these corporations aren't on the watch list.
John wrote:"So Yusuf Islam could easily have given money to charity A. The Bush Administration might believe Charity A financially supported Hamas. Therefore they say, Yusuf Islam supported Hamas. Even though Yusuf Islam has no knowledge of ever doing so."
Wrong. He delivered funds directly to Hamas during a trip to Israel.
This guy is high profile. I hope they're as vigilant with some shmuck no one's ever heard of....oops, touchy subject there!
Wrong. He delivered funds directly to Hamas during a trip to Israel.
Is there any evidence for this? It's been alledged, but repeatedly denied.
The risk anyone runs in donating to a Gazan charity is of course that the charity is quite likely in some way associated with Hamas. Does that mean though that (for example) one should not support a hospital beacause the hospital treats and received funds from the local militia? Would leaving it to be only supported by the militia improve the lives of the other people it treats?
givin' money to any charity that has any association with a political cause always carries a risk of the money being spent on less than nobel causes pratically every terrorist/freedom fighter struggle everywhere in the world use this technique to raise money from irish republicans in new york pubs "for the families of the hereos of the revolution" to the anc led by Nelson Mandella reguarded as a terrorist organisation back in the 80'S now the current south african govennment
people have a tendencey not to ask to many question and trust in these organisations to be just & nobel well needless to say thier this is not always the case
so dose yusef islam support terrorism absolutly not has he given money to people who do possibly
but can you account for the money you gave to...
anti animal rights organisations
pro enviroment groups
liberation of tibit
anti abortionist
all these oraganisations have extreamist fringes can anybody whos contributed to these say with certainty that none of their money ended up in radical hands?
i though not
Okay, he made donations to a charity that may have terrorists ties.Do we have any proof that he is actually a threat to anyone ?I dont think so.
The whole thing is BS on many levels ,we can catch Cat Stevens but Bin Laden and Zawahri(spelling)are still out there.Nice Job!!
The whole system is flawed in that if he was ona "watch list" how did he get on a plane anyway?MSNBC reported that the list has only people that are considered threats to civilian aviation not all known terrorists on the FBI's list.Since when is Cat Stevens known to attack airplanes and more to the point is a terrorist all of a sudden not decide to blow up an aircraft just cause they have not in the past?
Finally if we are gonna arrest him for donations to charities with terror ties than we have to arrest Pam Anderson for donation to animal rights groups,as an example.By the way if anyone is needed to personally frisk,search or watch Pam on a daily basis im volunteering :)
John Stewart is right there with ya, PAD. Yesterday on the Today Show, Stewart praised the U.S.'s turning away of Stevens and said that now we can turn our real attention on the real threat..... Gordan Lightfoot. :)
Fred
Gee PAD, I'd have thought you'd be leading the charge to keep him out. I mean, you get ticked when people write to your bosses and editors saying that you should be fired for some of the stuff you write.
Cat Stevens thinks some people should be put to death.
I'm trying to figure out the best blog headline I've read dealing with this incident. So far it's a cross between "I'm Being Followed By a Goon Shadow" and "Putting the Cat Out."
The real question is, which is the greater crime: Supporting terrorism or writing "Morning Has Broken?"
Personally, I'd rather have been on the plane with the shoe bomber.
A few sanity points:
1. He's also been banned from entering Israel for the same thing (allegedly donating money to Hamas).
2. When asked about the death sentence Iran imposed on Salman Rushdie (around the publication of the Satanic Verses), he quoted a passage from the Koran stating that those who commit blasphemy should be put to death.
3. When asked to clarify the above remarks, he said that no one should take it upon themselves to kill Rushdie, because he didn't live in a predominantly Muslin country. He also said that he answered the question as any bible student would have done (something I question, as I doubt most bible students would consider killing someone for blaspheming against God).
4. There are some rumors that he helped to finance the fatwa (death sentence) on Rushdie.
I know, it's Cat Stevens. He sings quaint pop songs. But there's a lot of strange stuff here, and one has to wonder if the US really did the wrong thing here. Imagine if the US is right- would you grant a supporter of Hamas access to the country?
I'm hoping all of this is wrong; that Stevens didn't donate funds for terror, and this is all a big mistake, and we can go back to laughing at the rest of Bush's mistakes. But on this one, I think that Homeland Security could be proven right on the deportation decision.
Posted by Den W.
The real question is, which is the greater crime: Supporting terrorism or writing "Morning Has Broken?"
Except that he didn't.
The lyric is by Eleanor Farjean, to the Celtic melody "Bunessan", and it's found (among other places) in the Episcopal Hymnal.
The earliest publication of the tune i've found reference to so far of is in "Songs and Hymns of the Scottish Highlands", published in 1888.
You know, with all the jokes about Cat Stevens and his songs, we're all forgetting the scariest aspect of this incident, which is the fact that he was allowed on the plane in the first place. If this was in fact a real terrorist, he would have more than enough time to perform whatever deed he had intended, long before the plane was diverted to Maine. According to today's newspapers, information from the watch list isn't transmitted to the appropriate parties until 15 minutes after a plane has taken off. Pretty much all the time a terrorist needs to complete his work. To me, that's scarier than anything else about this story.
Even if he didn't write it, recording it was still a crime against humanity.
Joe, you are right that there was a serious breach in the security here. Of course, the usual finger pointing between the airline and Homeland Security has already begun.
we're all forgetting the scariest aspect of this incident, which is the fact that he was allowed on the plane in the first place
Maybe I'm a little daft but... WHY is that scary? There's so much chatter about watch lists and no fly lists but so far the demonstrated result is that Ted Kennedy gets stopped at the door. I don't think he's going to be storming any cockpits as long as there's no twinkies hidden in there.
Every bit of theoretical and practical evidence we have so far is that identity monitoring is ineffective when compared to making sure people are not carrying weapons and examining checked luggage. If CS/YI does indeed donate his lunch money to Hammas how does that make the other people on the flight with him any less safe? It doesn't, unless he has a weapon or the means to engage in violent activity once there - something that should be checked at the metal detector.
Identity proofing is effective as a method of social engineering by jerking around people who are associated with groups that are not in favor by preventing their movement without actually requiring the standard of proof required to arrest and charge someone. It's slimy and unAmerican.
The only other group aided by these ID checks is the Airlines by providing a governmental enforcement of their economic model by helping to enforce the non-transferable clause in plane tickets, preventing individuals from bartering without paying their prohibitive fees. Perhaps not unAmerican but certainly not keeping with a perfectly free market.
The point Cat Stevens makes about "all bible students" is that the OT does declare blasphemy (and several other interesting crimes) a capital offense.
However, the only two nations I know of, which can be said to be anywhere near a theocracy based on either OT or NT doctrine -- are the Vatican and Israel. And The Vatican is opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and Israel only permits it for the crime of Genocide. Times have changed attitudes to a large extent in 2 out of the 3 Abrahamic religions.
"If CS/YI does indeed donate his lunch money to Hammas how does that make the other people on the flight with him any less safe?"
It probably doesn't affect the people on the flight. However, it certainly is a problem for people in the country. What if part of his stateside agenda was to aid and assist American-based terrorists? There isn't a fear of a shoe bomber incident; there's a fear of aiding and abetting terrorists here.
"The point Cat Stevens makes about 'all bible students' is that the OT does declare blasphemy (and several other interesting crimes) a capital offense."
It certainly does. But would a Judeo-Christian bible student necessarily bring that up if an analagous situation was brought up? If he did, I'd certainly wonder about his fanaticism.
Heck, I was a pretty serious bible student at one time, but I *never* would have responded with that quote. The two most important pieces of verse for a Christian is Jesus's ultimate commandment- "Love one another" and Romans 6:23 "For all has sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God". In other words, if you see someone sin, love that person, not only because Jesus told you to love that person, but also because you too are a sinner, only redeemed by Jesus's ultiamte sacrifice.
So if someone else commits the act of blasphemy, I'm not going to put that person to death- or even repeat that the scriptures recommend a death sentence. I'm going to love that person, and remember that his sin is no graver than any I've commited. While this wouldn't work in the case of murder (hey, I'm human), I'm not going to worry about speech.
Note- this interpretation of Christianity is my own, and I do not speak for anyone else. Feel free to disagree with me. I'm just clarifying why I think Cat Stevens was wrong in his response.
I'm surprised the-artist-formerly-known-as-Cat Stevens ever flies anyplace at all. From what I understood, he travels everywhere on a Peace Train.
How about Jimmy Swaggert's recent statement about killing gays? Or Pat Robertson's statement earlier this year about blowing up the state department building with a nuclear bomb? Did either of these clowns get placed on the no fly list?
Besides I don't think the no fly list does much good anyway. A terrorist would probably create a new identity in case any of his known identities are on the list. Also, the list is for commercial flight. What about chartered flights & private planes?
I for one would be all for deporting Pat Robertson.
I still don't know how the Leno joke would be racist.
Then again, I'ven accused of "racism" for commentary on a man's culture, nationality, and religion before. Which is really rather disturbing.... I've never made negative comments on anybody based on their race.
(and culture, nationality, and religion are all open to discussion... one still hopes).
Giving to a charity that supports Terrorist...especially in that part of the country could be a charity for Crippled Kids..but still supports Terrorism. I can't wait till a nice blonde hair blue eye girl gets kicked off the plane because her name or profile somehow gets picked up on the NO FLY LIST. Then there will be "our rights are violated" reported on every News station.
Did CS/YI ever commit an act of terrorism? Is he on the list only becuase he donated to a questionable charity?
Don't you love the way "Freedom of association" and the like have fallen on the way side?
"Don't worry americans," drones Bush, "We're only ignoring the constitution to help fight terroism." Bush smiles. "We'd never use our power to harass the innocent..."
The terrorists won on 09/11/01. They may not have won the "war" and completely destryoed america, but they scored a powerful blow and won that battle, scaring americans into allowing this stupidity...
Don, the reason this is scary is because the next person on a terrorist watch list to get on a plane might not be a singer with questionable charitable impulses. It could be bona fide 'bad guy' as Dubya would call them, and in the time it took for Homeland Security to figure out that person shouldn't be airborne is the time it would take to bring that plane down. Just remember the only reason that the so-called Shoe Bomber failed is because he was probably the most inept (not to mention unkempt) terrorist we've ever had. The next guy might be a bit better as his job, so perhaps it would be better to stop them on the ground rather than over the Atlantic. Does that make any sense to you now?
I think that you guys are diverting from the subject of this thread.
I think that we should work out a deal in which we deport John Tesh, Barry Mannilow and George W. Bush. Three big WMDs.
OK, so the man is on the watch list. He MAY be coming to the US to give money to people involved in anti-american activities.
Wouldn't a smart person, like, WATCH him? See who he meets with? Who he gives money to?
No, they divert the plane, slam him into a holding cell, then ship him back where he came from on the next plane. This isn't about protecting America from terrorism. This is about preventing someone coming into the country because they MIGHT have Un-American views. Because as a foreigner, he has no right to free speech. Because as a Muslim, he has no right to practice his faith.
Welcome to the Fascist States of America, Yusef Islam. I hope you had a pleasant stay.
From the album I Have No Cannons That Roar:
When the Muslims make their wish
To go and perform Jihad
When the Mujahids make their wish
To go and perform Jihad
Then they read the Book of God
Sending their Salawat [Blessings].
...
When the world blasts away
We will stand for Judgment Day
Paradise will open up
For those who came with Salawat [Blessings].
Everyone on board the Peace Train!
I have to admit that Cat is a guilty pleasure of mine...maybe it's from watching Harold & Maude so many times or it's because I can do a passable impersonation (it's also why I like Dylan).
I'm based in the UK, so I didn't see Leno. I did - in a moment of either boredom or possesion - flick to Fox News. So, there's some idiot called ManCow (never has so much been said in so few letters) saying that it's no real surprise that Cat Stevens got banned from entering the US yesterday... after all he changed his name to Yusuf Islam, so it's his own dang fault.
Fox and Friends co-anchors joke maybe he got in trouble drinking before the flight.
Okay.... now this is more than offensive. Actually, it's potentially libelous. It's not just bad reporting it vaults the line of pure racism.
It's one thing to report the actual incident happening. Fair enough. It's one thing to ask why the facts weren't checked before he boarded. It's another to revel in it like ManCow did and say that somebody changing their name to reflect an honest faith means that they should be treated as a bonafide terrorist threat. Heck, let's boot Mohammed Ali off the next plane he wants to fly on because he's got a funny-sounding foreign name. Heck, it's only been his name for four decades... still sounds mighty dubious to me, huh?
I understand ManCow is a shock-jock and - as much as anyone entitled to his opinion - but he's been given national air-time on a major show which elevates his racist rhetoric to a whole new level. Equally the crack about alcohol from the anchors shows either a woeful misunderstanding of his faith or outright contempt for it. The irony that they continued to play Cat Stevens music all morning while saying maybe he should probably be put on a boat (rather than a plane) back to England is rampant xenophobia.
I wonder if he'd been Jewish and someone at Fox News had said 'Well...maybe that Star of David got stuck in the revolving doors' if it would be shrugged off as easily?
Turning around a plane for this seems stupid. The reporting of it seems sloppy and racist.
But hey, gotta keep that whole 'fear' thing going, right?
John M
Over at This Modern World's site Bob Harris (who guest blogs) comments:
"...the following are all still walking our streets freely:
Carole King
Terry Jacks
David Soul
Phoebe Snow
Janis Ian
The Captain and Tenille
Donny Osmond
Seals & Crofts
Eric Carmen
The DeFranco Family"
That, added to Fred Chamberlain's mention of John Stewart's Gordon Lightfoot joke got me going.
Check out www.thismodernworld.com dated 9/22.
Den W.
I for one would be all for deporting Pat Robertson.
Yeah, well, I've sure Rev. Robertson would be happy to buy you a one way ticket on a slow boat to China as well.
NBC, ABC, and CNN all reported as part of their coverage of this incident that Yousuf Islam had acted as a direct courier delivering funds for Hamas on a previous trip to Israel.
That's not giving to charity. That's directly bringing funds to the organization and its officers.
They did not explain how Israeli Security failed to discover this aspect of his visit to the country or why they did not foil it. There was no explanation of where the funds originated. Only that he was the delivery boy.
In my humble opinion, that makes him more than just an idle observant of the situation.
I did not see the coverage afforded by Fox News or CBS. In the case of the former I'm sure they were anything but sympoathetic. In the case of the latter, I don't want to make any more cracks about Dan Rather.
Yusuf Islam speaks about his recent exclusion from the US
________________________________
First, I thank God for relieving me of my ordeal and delivering me home safe; also, thanks to all those who prayed for me and supported me through this whole dark episode, from eminent politicians, the press and religious leaders, to plain, everyday people. Never would I believe that such a thing could happen in the 'land of the free' - unfortunately, it did. But it's warming to have such a wave of sympathy from my friends and my worldwide well-wishers.
After the experience of my dramatic deportation from the U.S.A. it feels like I am on a different planet from the one I was on a couple of days ago; certainly the world has changed, not for the best. Two days beforehand, I had started a journey with my daughter to Nashville, intending to initiate work on a new recording project. Suddenly, our aeroplane was diverted 600 miles to Bangor International Airport and I found myself surrounded by six uniformed officers and handed over to the FBI for questioning.
The most upsetting thing at this point was being separated from my daughter, Maymanah, not knowing how she was or when and where we might be united. And since my phone was confiscated I couldn't contact my family (nor could they ring me) and they were relegated to watching the whole frightening episode on TV and surviving on scraps of information shown by the media.
My interrogators repeatedly wanted to know how my name was spelt; it sounded to me as though they had it mixed up with someone else's. Security officers finally told me that my name was on a 'No Fly List', I was classified as 'Inadmissible', and sent back to London.
The amazing thing is that I was not given (and have still not been given) any explanation whatsoever as to what it is I am accused of, or why I am now deemed an apparent security threat - let alone given an opportunity to respond to these allegations. I was simply told that the order had come from 'on high'.
We have now initiated a legal process to try to find out exactly what is going on, and to take all necessary steps to undo the very serious, and wholly unfounded, injustice which I have suffered.
I am a man of peace and denounce all forms of terrorism and injustice; it is simply outrageous for the U.S. authorities to suggest otherwise. I have dedicated my life to promoting peace and understanding throughout the world. It would be devastating were the charity work I do through my humanitarian relief organisation, Small Kindness, which helps countless children and families, and which is accredited by the United Nations, to be undermined by what has happened.
What makes the situation even more distressing is the fact that I have now been prevented from entering the United States - a part of God's earth that I love and whose people have always been great friends to me.
Yet, after all this, I can think of no better response than by continuing what I believe to be the tremendously important work of caring for the needy and campaigning for peace and stability in this volatile and increasingly violent world, and at the same time try to seek to clear my name of this appalling and baseless slur. In the meantime I am confident that, in the end, good sense and, above all, justice, will prevail.
------------------------
Note to Editors: Yusuf Islam's legal advisers are currently seeking clarification on the detention from the US Consulate. Cat Stevens was one of the biggest solo artists of the 1960s and 1970s, penning such songs as Matthew & Son, Moonshadow, Wild World, Peace Train and Father and Son and selling millions of LPs. Following a bout of TB early in his career he undertook an ongoing search for peace and ultimate spiritual truth. He embraced Islam in 1977 and changed his name to Yusuf Islam. Last year he was awarded the World Social Award by former president Mikhail Gorbachev for his humanitarian relief work helping children. He also performed at Nelson Mandela's AIDS benefit concert in South Africa.
Yeah, well, I've sure Rev. Robertson would be happy to buy you a one way ticket on a slow boat to China as well.
Does this slow boat involve busty hookers paid for by Robertson as well? If so.. sign me up! I figure I should get out of town before the Gays, Atheists and other such undesirables cause another terra attack. Cause ya know.. them T.V. Preachers know the best hookers.. and have a direct line to God so they know why OBL had his buddies attack us. They hate we have the freedom to have busty hookers before going back in the closet to pray. :)
/end sarcasm
Does this slow boat involve busty hookers paid for by Robertson as well? If so.. sign me up! I figure I should get out of town before the Gays, Atheists and other such undesirables cause another terra attack. Cause ya know.. them T.V. Preachers know the best hookers.. and have a direct line to God so they know why OBL had his buddies attack us. They hate we have the freedom to have busty hookers before going back in the closet to pray.
I believe Rev. Robertson's stated religious beliefs would prevent him from providing you with such, however, if you wish to obtain them for yourself, I'm sure he would have no problem with it. If you could convince said hookers to stay with you in China though, he may be willing to spring for their one-way ticket as well. However, don't forget to call Planned Parenthood and the CDC as I'm sure they would want to make sure you and your busty hookersare all free of sexual diseases and provided with several cartons of condoms for "safe" sex.
/sarcastic retort ended
You know, it's also possible that except for really OLD people who might have had, say, a birthday recently, no one really knew who Cat Stevens was.
Were in not for the talk on this board, I'd be hard pressed to know who he is, and I was around during the sixties and seventies. Of course, I didn't really know who Cat Stevens was then either.
But would a Judeo-Christian bible student necessarily bring that up if an analagous situation was brought up? If he did, I'd certainly wonder about his fanaticism.
Yeah, but do we keep Judeo-Christian fanatics from flying because they quote those verses?
What's the difference between Stevens giving money to Hamas and USA giving money to Israel's army? I'm not seeking a political answer, but an "humanitarian".
Ever since "the Nightwatch" was created, or as the US government has called it, "Homeland Security," I've been amazed to see how quickly the small majority of American people are prepared to toss aside the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" for the illusion of safety.
I don't recall Cat being put on trial, other then by the media, so if I did miss it, could somebody please post the judges closing statement.
Meanwhile, people still have rights, whether they are Americans or foreignors.
Not in George Bush and Dick Cheney's Amerika they don't Hermann...
And that's the biggest problem. amerikans have become sheep. If amerikans of today had been our population back in the 18th century, we'd still be ruled by the British, so no one has backbone or can stand for themselves, they expect the government to do it all for them.
Hey PAD, there's your book idea. Sort of like Planet of the Apes, but modern Earth man lands in a parallel universe where the citizens of the 18th century colonies lack spines like we do today, and as the 21st century dawns, the world is a much different place...
"What's the difference between Stevens giving money to Hamas and USA giving money to Israel's army? I'm not seeking a political answer, but an "humanitarian"."
Off the top of my head i'd guess that one difference is that Hamas does whatever it can to kill as many Israelis as they can while the Israeli army does not do the same to Palestinians, as evidenced by the fact that there are Palestinians.
Ever since "the Nightwatch" was created, or as the US government has called it, "Homeland Security," I've been amazed to see how quickly the small majority of American people are prepared to toss aside the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" for the illusion of safety.
I don't recall Cat being put on trial, other then by the media, so if I did miss it, could somebody please post the judges closing statement.
Meanwhile, people still have rights, whether they are Americans or foreignors.
Cat's not on trial, and 'innocent until proven guilty" only applies in the courtroom. If you think I'm just joking then think about the whole concept of bail. Basically, the court is telling you that "we don't trust you, so someone that we do trust has to vouch for you, or you have to place something of value for us to keep to insure that you come to court for your trial. Otherwise you stay in jail until your trial.
Second, why do you feign surprise? Even before Bush thought to be President, there have been laws like the one that got Stevens bounced. Hell, during the Clinton years alone, the government acted like the Gestapo in some cases. If you carry over $10,000 dollars in cash on you, the police can confiscate it, and you have to prove in court that you weren't going to do anything illegal with it. Did you know that the bank you do business with is REQUIRED to let the police KNOW when you take that money out of your account? Did you know that certain fertilizers are required to be registered with the ATF when you buy it, because someone thinks you might make a bomb with it? But you can still go down to the nearest gas station and fill up three or four empty rusted out gas tanks and nobody would even raised their eyebrows in your direction.
Heck, I'm sure you remember the Elian Gonzalez incident in Florida? Jack -booted federal thugs knocked down the doors and came in and took Elian away. That was under Clintona and Reno's Amerika, wasn't it?
BTW, foreignors and non-citizens don't have a "right" to be allowed into this country. They have to ask permission and it has to be granted. It can also be denied or taken away.
Heck, I'm sure you remember the Elian Gonzalez incident in Florida? Jack -booted federal thugs knocked down the doors and came in and took Elian away. That was under Clintona and Reno's Amerika, wasn't it?
A fair amount of parental rights were involved as well. Don't oversimplify that one.
"Does this slow boat involve busty hookers paid for by Robertson as well? If so.. sign me up! I figure I should get out of town before the Gays, Atheists and other such undesirables cause another terra attack. Cause ya know.. them T.V. Preachers know the best hookers.. and have a direct line to God so they know why OBL had his buddies attack us. They hate we have the freedom to have busty hookers before going back in the closet to pray. :)"
Actually, Swaggert is the one who keeps getting caught with hookers. I think Bakker was also caught dipping into that pot as well.
Robertson is the one who hates the United States because it isn't the theocracy he wants it to be.
A fair amount of parental rights were involved as well. Don't oversimplify that one.
Nope. While I did side with the boy being with his father, the decision to remove him from his relatives' house was a purely political one on the part of the government. It was spurred on by the fact that there were several cases similar to it worldwide that involved American kids.
Micko:
"What's the difference between Stevens giving money to Hamas and USA giving money to Israel's army? I'm not seeking a political answer, but an "humanitarian"."
Bill Mulligan:
Off the top of my head i'd guess that one difference is that Hamas does whatever it can to kill as many Israelis as they can while the Israeli army does not do the same to Palestinians, as evidenced by the fact that there are Palestinians.
So, by that reasoning, Saddam wasn't trying to kill as many Kurds as he could, as evidenced by the fact that there are Kurds?
The difference between Hamas and Israel is that Hamas doesn't care about innocents, whereas Israel cares, but doesn't let that stop them.
"So, by that reasoning, Saddam wasn't trying to kill as many Kurds as he could, as evidenced by the fact that there are Kurds?"
Well, he was hampered a bit by the fact that we declared the Kurdish areas no-fly zones--essentially dividing up the country to protect some of the people he was oppressing.
My point is that if Hamas obtained a nuke on Monday there is virtually no doubt in my mind that Tel Aviv would be mostly thermic mist by, um, Monday night. On the other hand I'm pretty certain that Israel hasn't nuked any of its enemies. Yet.
"The difference between Hamas and Israel is that Hamas doesn't care about innocents, whereas Israel cares, but doesn't let that stop them."
I'll take issue with that statement. If Israel wanted to obliterate the Palestinians it could do so almost at will. Israel uses force when necessary to locate, target, and remove those persons bent on its destruction, and usually only in relatiation for some act of violence perpetrated by those persons first. Unfortunately there is most always some collateral damage because those persons invariably situate themselves in shield situations.
You don't see Israelis strapping bombs to their bodies, entering Palestinian areas, and arbitrarily blowing themselves up to kill as many innocents as possible.
If you really come down to it, all Israel wants is to be left the hell alone so it can exist in peace.
You need to start thinking.
Yeah, well, I've sure Rev. Robertson would be happy to buy you a one way ticket on a slow boat to China as well.
More than likely, he'd rather send me to that mine in Africa he invested in so that I could work as another slave for him.
BTW, is he still claiming that the world is coming to an end in 2000? Oh wait, it's 2004 and we're still here. I guess not. What's the new date for armagedden now? I want to make sure I'm pack for it.
Robertson is the one who hates the United States because it isn't the theocracy he wants it to be.
Yep. And he's also the one who invests in silver mines run by slavers and sells Christian vitamins because the makers of One-A-Day are apparently all satanists.
Even worse, John Tesch is a free man! If someone hasn't noted this yet, the news reported that there was a "Yousseff Islam" that was on the list. So, it might all be a spelling error. But at the same time agreeing with the hit on Rushde and giving money to Hamas doesn't seem very much like the Cat Stevens I listened to as a kid. At least he came out against 9/11 and for the WOT...
Ever since "the Nightwatch" was created, or as the US government has called it, "Homeland Security," I've been amazed to see how quickly the small majority of American people are prepared to toss aside the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" for the illusion of safety.
I don't recall Cat being put on trial, other then by the media, so if I did miss it, could somebody please post the judges closing statement.
I don't recall him being put in jail or on probation either. Visiting this or any country is a privilege, not a right. We don't have to let anyone in. It's not a punishment and it doesn't deprive anyone of anything they own or have a right to, so presumption of innocence has nothing to do with this.
Where were the howls of outrage when the British denied Louis Farrakahan the "right" to inflict his odious presence on their fair land?
People are denied entry to the USA every hour of the day. Since they are mostly poor Mexicans they just don't don't get Mr. Islam's press.
You don't see Israelis strapping bombs to their bodies, entering Palestinian areas, and arbitrarily blowing themselves up to kill as many innocents as possible.
No, the Israelis use helicoptors instead, and then people make god-awful comments that innocents are just "collateral".
"I can't stand Cat Stevens"
..and I can't stand Britney Spears. So in the spirit of fairplay, I think she and her new hubby ought to be deported to Iraq for promoting an 'alternative' lifestyle and making wacky, off-the-cuff commentary in public. :)
KET
But, KET, we're supposed to be rebuilding Iraq, not dropping another bomb on them!
Howzabout we deport them to North Korea? :)
If someone could deport Britney, sans husband, to my house, I'd be much obliged.
"People are denied entry to the USA every hour of the day. Since they are mostly poor Mexicans they just don't don't get Mr. Islam's press."
Actually, it's quite different. Mexican citizens need a visa to enter US. But all citizens from Western Europe (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain et al) do not need it - so the US government needs to have a really good reason to deny permission to a citizen of one of these countries. And I think they have it not in the case of Mr. Islam (or Stevens, or whatever...).
Mexican citizens need a visa to enter US.
Nah, they just need an unprotected part of our border.
"Howzabout we deport them to North Korea? :)"
Nah, they'd probably just turn around and send them back here, using "collatoral damage" as some sort of excuse. :)
"If someone could deport Britney, sans husband, to my house, I'd be much obliged."
Buddy, she's ALL YOURS....although I'd strongly suggest that plastic blow-up dolls are much cheaper maintenance. :)
KET
Buddy, she's ALL YOURS....although I'd strongly suggest that plastic blow-up dolls are much cheaper maintenance. :)
Not to mention they carry less danger of you needing a shot of antibiotics later.
"But all citizens from Western Europe (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain et al) do not need it - so the US government needs to have a really good reason to deny permission to a citizen of one of these countries."
Or...what? Seriously, what exactly happens to the US government if they deny someone entry for what you or I believe are not good reasons?
My Statement: If CS/YI does indeed donate his lunch money to Hammas how does that make the other people on the flight with him any less safe?
Yielded the responses: It probably doesn't affect the people on the flight. However, it certainly is a problem for people in the country.
Don, the reason this is scary is because the next person on a terrorist watch list to get on a plane might not be a singer with questionable charitable impulses. It could be bona fide 'bad guy' as Dubya would call them, and in the time it took for Homeland Security to figure out that person shouldn't be airborne is the time it would take to bring that plane down.
I agree exactly. Which is why the no-fly list is junk. It casts a wide net and includes many who nobody thinks are a danger of violent activity, folks who are on it because of financial associations. It diverts labor from monitoring WHAT people take onto a flight and onto WHO is on a flight.
If you really need a more concrete explanation, consider this - prisons are filled with dangerous people. How many of them blew up this year? None, because we don't let explosives in there. I'm suggesting a similar approach to aircraft.
So Don, you're saying we should treat airline passengers like criminals?
Maybe for safety we should strip search and de-louse the whole bunch. Rip out all the seats on the plane and pull in cells instead?
All this "security" is why I quit non-business travel... and people wonder why the airlines are whining about going broke. Who wants to use a mode of transportation that has gotten more and more unpleasant as the years roll on...
Used to be the stale air and smokers, but now smoking is banned and mindless "random" searches and racial profiling has replaced it...
During a bail hearing, the District Attorney's office has to prove there is a reason for a charge. Evidence is usually important, here. A judge determines bail based on evidence from both prosecution and defense. Sometimes the judge might think an accused person poses no threat and is Released on his own recogniscence(sp?).
As for Clinton and his administrations' wrong-doings, I'll go you one better and remind everyone of the Nazi War Crims that made it into the US simply because the government found them useful.
And if you don't want people showing up, I might suggest that you tell the government to take down the "Welcome" sign, aka the Statue of Liberty, because if you don't want people coming, that's bullshit advertising.
As for rights, aside from the rights granted under the bill of rights, let's not forget that all important piece of toilet paper the UN calls the Charter of Human Rights.
But you notice how the only time The U.S. pays any attention to the UN is when they already agree with us anyway?
So, getting back to the subject at hand, does the UN charter on human rights say that everyone has the right to enter the US at anytime they want?
If not, how were Cat Stevens' rights violated?
Oh, and the inscription on the Statue of Liberty reads, "Give me you tired, your poor. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" "
Again, how does that apply to rich ex-folk singer who advocates the murder of authors?
My Statement: If CS/YI does indeed donate his lunch money to Hammas how does that make the other people on the flight with him any less safe?
I'll give you a straightforward answer. It's the same as an accesssory to a crime. He made not be the one to pull the actual trigger but he helps facilitate it. Hammas, indeed, any terrorist group, funds their crimes through the funds that supporters give and divert toward their needs.
So yes, if CS/YI willingly and knowingly gives his money to a terrorist group, knowing what they will possibly use that money for, they have made them less safe.
So now, I'm going to get on PAD's "enemies list" (like I'm probably not already there), and say that people should boycott Cat Stevens' records and concerts if they believe the money they pay with would be used to fund terrorist activities. I know how PAD hates to take money out of people's pockets, but this is probably a good thing.
How about if I boycott him just because his music sucks?
I disagree with the comment that Cat Stevens' music "sucks". No, it did not. His songs from the early 70's were quite good. Listen to his songs like "The First Cut is the Deepest" and "Moonshadow". They are quite good. Cat Stevens had a unique voice and was quite a good lyricist. I recall that the musicians that contributed to his albums back then included Peter Gabriel. He did not record commercial pablum. Instead, prior to converting to Islam, his songs had substance. Consider "Matthew and Son".
So, you may not like the man (and that his your right), but do not just say his music "sucks".
I've heard "Moonshadow" (more often than I'd like, on the local classic-rock station), and "Matthew and Son".
His music sucks.
:)
As for rights, aside from the rights granted under the bill of rights, let's not forget that all important piece of toilet paper the UN calls the Charter of Human Rights.
There is no amendment or right in the Constitution or the UN Charter on Human Rights that gives anyone who is not a United States citizen permission to enter this country anytime they take a mind to.
BTW, not to nitpick, but the Bill of Rights has not existed for over two hundred years. A bill is a proposed law that is waiting ratification by Congress and the state legislatures to be included in the Constitution, in this case, several amendments. Once it's ratified, it ceases to be a bill.
Give it a rest Clark, it's called the "Bill of Rights" regardless of the fact that they are amendments. You're pathetic
Cat Steven's music is just about as bad as folk music gets, and there's a LOT of bad folk music out there
*Give it a rest Clark, it's called the "Bill of Rights" regardless of the fact that they are amendments. You're pathetic*
Ummmmm, how does the United States's 'Bill of Rights' cover a citizen of the United Kingdom again? Perspiring minds want to know! :D
Give it a rest Clark, it's called the "Bill of Rights" regardless of the fact that they are amendments. You're pathetic
Ironically enough, if you really felt that way, you wouldn't have said it.
I'll give you a straightforward answer. It's the same as an accesssory to a crime. He made not be the one to pull the actual trigger but he helps facilitate it.
So, when are we locking up those involved with giving Saddam and bin Laden all those wonderful toys in the 80's?
Because they sure as farking hell facilitated those situations.
So, you may not like the man (and that his your right), but do not just say his music "sucks".
Personally, I couldn't care less about the man, but I can and will continue to say his music sucks. I've listened to "Moonshadow", "Peace Train," "Morning Has Broken," et al., plenty of times and it does suck. All of it. That's not just my opinion, that is a scientifically proven fact. Scientists have observed lab rats, after being forced to listen to "Morning Has Broken" repeatedly, begging for more sacharrin so that they can get cancer and die.
So, I will say again and say it with emphasis: His music SUCKS!!!!
So, when are we locking up those involved with giving Saddam and bin Laden all those wonderful toys in the 80's?
You can't without violating sovereignty. Otherwise, Bill Clinton would have to go too for selling nuke tech to North Korea. On the other hand, CS/YI is an individual acting on his own behalf.
"You can't without violating sovereignty. Otherwise, Bill Clinton would have to go too for selling nuke tech to North Korea. On the other hand, CS/YI is an individual acting on his own behalf."
In other words, Republicans are god and can do no wrong...ignorant
Clarkles also bleated "BTW, not to nitpick, but the Bill of Rights has not existed for over two hundred years. A bill is a proposed law that is waiting ratification by Congress and the state legislatures to be included in the Constitution, in this case, several amendments. Once it's ratified, it ceases to be a bill."
You didn't mention the UK anywhere here, but brought it up when I called you on it, how conveinient.
In other words, Republicans are god and can do no wrong...ignorant
You know, I think you're right, Bladestar.
And trust a Republican to drag Clinton into it, when, either way, the N Koreans haven't used those nukes on anybody (yet).
It's never about them, always somebody else to blame...
Okay. For some light reading, may I recommend the following:
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/disappearance.htm
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/victims.htm
and my personal favorite
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/religion.htm
Interpretations vary widely on their meaning, but then again, that's the nature of law makers.
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/disappearance.htm
"Enforced disappearance?" How does that apply? CS/YI didn't disappear. He was sent back to England.
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/victims.htm
What crime was CS/YI a victim of? Denying him entry into a country is not a crime.
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/religion.htm
CS/YI was not denied entry due to his religion. He was denied entry because he allegedly has supported terrorist organizations. Thousands of muslims enter the country every year without any problems.
Well, that's 0-3 in the revelance to the Cat Stevens case
And back when Russia was still the "Communist Menace", the AMERICAN government gave Afghanistan tons of weapons to fight them with, so we supplied the terrorists in Afghanistan, everyone who paid their taxes.
Geuss we all have to get kicked out of America now,,,
My Statement: If CS/YI does indeed donate his lunch money to Hammas how does that make the other people on the flight with him any less safe?
EClark replies I'll give you a straightforward answer. It's the same as an accesssory to a crime. He made not be the one to pull the actual trigger but he helps facilitate it.
Which is how he makes people in general/Americans/Israelis/whoever less safe. I do not disagree with being concerned with donations to hate/violent groups. I still dispute that he made the OTHER PEOPLE ON THAT PLANE less safe. And I am willing to bet that if you had been on that plane and had at least 1/2 your day screwed up by the alternate landing you'd be asking "and what immediate danger was I in that we couldn't have continued on to our destination?"
Bladestar, I am boggled as to how you can find the idea of checking passengers for real threat material (as opposed to BS like nail clippers) to be more offensive than secret nebulous measures like the no-fly list. Maybe you really feel like you need that flare gun and bottle of turpentine with you at all times, I dunno. Personally I find the "papers, please" approach a lot more offensive than the suggestion that there are some things I shouldn't carry with me into an enclosed space.
I don't, Don, the "No Fly-List" is bullshit McCarthyism pure and simple.
Where did I say I was against looking for bombs and guns?
What drugs are you on? I could use some of those...
"So, you may not like the man (and that his your right), but do not just say his music "sucks". "
Sorry J Alexander, but you're DEAD wrong. Or at lease totally Anti-Free Speech / Free-Thought.
Saying someone's music "sucks" is strictly an opinion. You can't treat anyone's opinion of music as "Fact" as say they can't express their opinion, be it "I love his/her/their music" or "Goddamn that performers sucks" unless you are a scumbag fascist bent on forcing kids to pray in school and forcing your beliefs down everyone's throat as law, etc. etc. etc.
Me:
"You can't without violating sovereignty. Otherwise, Bill Clinton would have to go too for selling nuke tech to North Korea. On the other hand, CS/YI is an individual acting on his own behalf."
Bladestar:
In other words, Republicans are god and can do no wrong...ignorant
Well, I believe you're putting words in my mouth, not that you seem to have any problems with the ethics of that...
Clarkles also bleated "BTW, not to nitpick, but the Bill of Rights has not existed for over two hundred years. A bill is a proposed law that is waiting ratification by Congress and the state legislatures to be included in the Constitution, in this case, several amendments. Once it's ratified, it ceases to be a bill."
(Clarkles bleats:) BAAAAHHHHH!
You didn't mention the UK anywhere here, but brought it up when I called you on it, how conveinient.
If I didn't mention the U.K., how could I bring it up?
So, Bladestar, have you gotten this contentiousness out of your system yet or do you wish to continue in a more civil tone? I find you amusing, actually, so it doesn't matter to me.
BBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!
Point to Clark, it was Carl who ignorantly introduced the UK into this:
"Ummmmm, how does the United States's 'Bill of Rights' cover a citizen of the United Kingdom again? Perspiring minds want to know! :D"
No Clark, I still find you an assinine blowhard repudlickan apologist. No "contentiousness" there, just hatred. I find you pitiable, but I'm glad I entertain you.
Don, I think I see where your confusion lies.
I don't think TSA agents need to strip search old ladies or rip the heads off children's teddy bears looking for bombs or weapons. THat's what all that expensive but "neccessary" equipment is supposed to be for.
I was more parodying the idiots that support the ridulous measures being taken. Afterall, if the passengers were naked and locked up on the planme, wouldn't that achieve the "Security at the cost of reason and freedom" that the rabid republicans endorse so heartily?
No Clark, I still find you an assinine blowhard repudlickan apologist. No "contentiousness" there, just hatred. I find you pitiable, but I'm glad I entertain you.
Well, at least you admit you're a bigoted jackass.
But I don't consider you a person Clark, so is it really bigotry, or just "speciesism"?
"Or...what? Seriously, what exactly happens to the US government if they deny someone entry for what you or I believe are not good reasons?"
Nothing. Anything at all. Every country can treat incoming foreigners as they wish.
But, when the same kind of disrespect happens with American citizens all over the world, the American government and American citizens couldn't do nothing - but, surprise, they do. I still remember the "noise" when American citizens were obligated to do a kind of criminal register when entering Brazil - a AA pilot showed the finger, another one offended the customs officer...
But I don't consider you a person Clark, so is it really bigotry, or just "speciesism"?
Either / or. I do note that you didn't contest the 'jackass" label.
In case you can read, I don't CARE what you think of me. I only care about people who I think are worth caring about, and you aren't on that small select list.
You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to find yours worthless and disagree with it. Learn to deal
Sure you care, Bladestar. If you didn't, my opinions wouldn't rile you up so bad. It's knowing that I've pissed you off so much that you've actually had to admit that you HATE me that amuses me so much. You can only arouse that kind of emotion in someone who really does care what you think. It gauls you so much that you can't defend your position with good reasoned and logical debate that you resort to being rude and obnoxious to hide your frustration. The thing about you that amuses me is because the more frustrated you become, the more rude and obnoxious you get. What scares me about you is that there's not much difference between you and any other hate group member.
All that matters is I keep pulling your pathetic strings my puppet
Alexandre Said:
"But, when the same kind of disrespect happens with American citizens all over the world, the American government and American citizens couldn't do nothing - but, surprise, they do. I still remember the "noise" when American citizens were obligated to do a kind of criminal register when entering Brazil - a AA pilot showed the finger, another one offended the customs officer..."
I actually know something about why the Brazilians did what they did with registering Americans entering into Brazil. Brazilian law states that the customs procedures and requirements a foreign national entering Brazil must go through will be exactly the same procedures procedures that a Brazilian citizen is required to go through when entering that foreigner's country. The registration and fingerprinting procedures that various Americans found so odious and offensive were put in place because that is exactly what Brazilians were required to endure when entering the U.S. Brazil has had this policy codified into law for years. When the U.S. placed more stringent procedures on Brazilian citizens entering the U.S., their hands were tied. They HAD to place the same procedures on U.S. citizens. The only way Brazil could have NOT done this would be for their legislature to change their entire immigration policy.
Bottom line: If your country lets Brazilians in without even a Visa, you can show your passport and pretty much breeze on through. If your country requires a pre-approved Visa that can't extend beyond a 90 day stay, that's what you need to get into Brazil. When I read about this, it struck me as one of the more fair-minded customs procedures that I'd ever heard of.