Cat Stevens / Yusuf Islam

Cat Stevens, or Yusuf Islam to use his adopted name, has been arrested after landing in the United States. He was interrogated, denied entry and deported.

Does anybody have an opinion on this? What do US citizens feel about their government's behaviour? Is it all justified when 'national security' is at stake, or is it riding rough-shod over the Constitution? And how do non-US citizens feel about this? Is it scary? Or are the US fighting the good fight?

<edit>
It should be pointed out that Yusuf Islam has always denied having any links with any terrorist groups, and has always publicly condemned terrorism. Officials at the Transportation Security Administration gave as a reason for his denied access as being "on national security grounds".
</edit>

Originally posted by Edwardipov
Cat Stevens, or Yusuf Islam to use his adopted name, has been arrested after landing in the United States. He was interrogated, denied entry and deported.

Does anybody have an opinion on this? What do US citizens feel about their government's behaviour? Is it all justified when 'national security' is at stake, or is it riding rough-shod over the Co ...[text shortened]... And how do non-US citizens feel about this? Is it scary? Or are the US fighting the good fight?

I do not believe it is wrong to arrest, interrogate, deny entry and deport a person suspected of subversive activity. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to back up such treatment of Mr. Islam is an entirely different matter. I do not have the facts upon which base a valid judgment of an alleged violation of his rights.

Originally posted by latex bishop
It does not suprise me in any way.

Andrew

Originally posted by Edwardipov
Cat Stevens, or Yusuf Islam to use his adopted name, has been arrested after landing in the United States. He was interrogated, denied entry and deported.

Does anybody have an opinion on this? What do US citizens feel about their government's behaviour? Is it all justified when 'national security' is at stake, or is it riding rough-shod over the Co ...[text shortened]... ation gave as a reason for his denied access as being "on national security grounds".
</edit>

Originally posted by Frank Burns
As you have requested peoples personal opinions I will offer mine and will not debate it with anyone. If you don't like mine there is a very good chance I will not like yours.
As for entering the war without the UN's backing and the toll it has extracted upon my country in lives and tax dollars wasted I find my countries behavior reprehensible.
...[text shortened]... these years (he left in the late 70's) what was his motive to return? More to follow I'm sure.

Ooo baby it's a wild world ...
Doesn't surprise me, given the current climate.

Originally posted by darvlay
If his motive was to record more crappy albums then I'm glad he's gone 😛

Originally posted by darvlay

What surprises me is how many people think that this kind of blatant and accepted racism is the solution to national security. And we're (speaking as a NORTH American) are supposed to be the most advanced nation? It's so ironic it makes me want to puke on myself.

It really doesn't matter does it ? Cat Stevens is my all time fav artist, yet even I can understand the motives behind questioning or detaining certain individuals.

2 years ago in Detroit, I got my bag searched twice and questioned to the nth degree. Why, because I claimed I was visiting the city for 'pleasure' not business. I was actually there to see a hockey game, but thats besides the point. Fact is that if you want to protect people, being politically correct should not come into play. If a white man comes into my house, kills my family, then runs into the streets, are the police racist for ignoring all black suspects ? Yes, I know there (in the uk) are many cases of racist harassment, but if racially motivated profiling could have prevented Sep 11th, would we still be discussing this ?

Back to topic, I believe Cat did a capella version of peace train after Sep 11th. Pretty touching. I would indeed be quite interested in their motive for deporting him.

Originally posted by pcaspian
Yes, I know there (in the uk) are many cases of racist harassment,

Originally posted by Edwardipov
Cat Stevens, or Yusuf Islam to use his adopted name, has been arrested after landing in the United States. He was interrogated, denied entry and deported.

Does anybody have an opinion on this? What do US citizens feel about their government's behaviour? Is it all justified when 'national security' is at stake, or is it riding rough-shod over the Co ...[text shortened]... ation gave as a reason for his denied access as being "on national security grounds".
</edit>

There are a number of interesting points raised by the thread so far.

eagle54 and pcaspian raise the point that without knowing the reasons for his deportation, it is hard to come to an objective conclusion. However, the reasons for his deportation are being kept confidential by the authorities. Is it regrettable but necessary for the authorities to withhold information? Or is the risk of abuse of power too great? This leads to the question - how much does the public have a right to know?

pcaspian mentions racial profiling as a method of detection and prevention of terrorism. I am *assuming* he is referring to the profiling of those of Arabic origin. However, Cat Stevens is half-Swedish and half-Greek, and Richard Reid (the British 'shoe bomber'😉 is from London. Will racial profiling work when not all extremists are of Arabic origin, and of course the vast majority of Arabs are not extremist? Or is the whole 'race' thing a red herring?

Frank Burns wonders what Mr Islam's reasons for returning to the US might be. This is linked back to the first point regarding freedom of information, but raises a further point - should innocence always be assumed until guilt is proven? Or has the 'world situation' changed to such an extent that the burden of proof has to shift away from the prosecutor and towards the defendant?

IMO, the right of any nation to detain, question, and deny entry to anyone should not be held to the standard of &quot;proof&quot; that t he person has done anything. It is much more practical to use the standard of mere reasonableness, which is not a very difficult concept. If the standard were proof, then Officials would be rendered helpless to prevent practically anyone from entering any country, as there would have to be hearings of some sort to make determinations as to whether or not such proof exists. If that simple point can be made, then it should reasonably follow that the source of such informatiion which gives rise to the &quot;reasonable doubt&quot; as to an individuals motives or intentions should not neccessarily be public information. Should there be some form of oversight, yes...without doubt. But this should be handled by high level Officials. And as far as the issue of the trustworthiness of said Officials, at least on the part of the democracies, if you have doubts...don't vote for them.

Brian

Originally posted by BLReid
IMO, the right of any nation to detain, question, and deny entry to anyone should not be held to the standard of "proof" that t he person has done anything. It is much more practical to use the standard of mere reasonableness, which is not a very difficult concept. If the standard were proof, then Officials would be rendered helpless to prevent practically ...[text shortened]... s, at least on the part of the democracies, if you have doubts...don't vote for them.

Brian

He was banned coz his music is crap.
Shame we could not stop him getting back into the UK.

Now Sid Vicious the USA had no problem with.
They let him in.
They were kind enough to send him back in a box.
They even sent John Lennon home in a box.

I guess a cat has 9 lives. Consider one used up by only flying home.