perfidy

Regarding Cat, he's been busy today, fulfilling">http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/24/wcat24… the story lines you two gents have discussed.

Cat Stevens is considering taking legal action to overturn the ban on him entering the United States following claims that he funded terrorism.

While I agree completely that there must be a way to right any wrongs attendant to restrictions on flying by citizens (even including Mr. Kennedy) I don't think it makes too much sense to worry a lot about some presumed absolute right of entry to the US. I mean, we've got weightier">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/24/ntoon24… matters to consider.

Before I continue with the heart of the discusison, watch lists, let me address the peripheral bits.

Why divert the plane? I don't have an answer. I mean, the needle on my commonsense-o-meter jerked hard to the right over that. Unless there was a compelling reason, a specific threat involving him and that particular flight and time, why inconvenience and scare a whole planeload of people? So I guess we have to let that very good question just flap out there.

Why Bangor? My guess- closest runway big enough to handle that size plane, plus at short notice...? But otherwise, yes Maine is entirely disposable. Recall that MA threw it away years ago but it seems to be stuck to the country's rim.

I think the topic of "Which crappy singer would you deport?" deserves it's own space, but yours are a good start. For my mind, tack on Carly Simon and Sting. Harry Chapin can stay but under rigorous probationary terms, if that's alright with everyone else.

So, watch lists: I don't believe there is a single Watch List, in the way there is no Button. The President does not have a red button on his desk that, if pressed, releases every US ICBM in a single simultaneous salvo of orgiastic atomicness. But I do believe he has a green button that, if pressed, summons a Navy steward with sandwiches.

What I think there are, are various lists that are updated, deleted, lost, found, buried, folded, spindled, or otherwise altered on a frequent basis by a half dozen agencies that pretend to be one agency: the Dept of Homeland Security.

The reason I think this watch list topic is so worthwhile to spend time on is because it includes many areas that need direct attention and improvement. The tremendous problems we face with border security includes problems within the DHS, with the State Dept, with domestic social policy- all of these things are interconnected in intimate ways, and ALL of them need to be fixed in some way.

Want to improve the watch list system? For a start, fire half the mouth breathers that work for the DHS. Retain the ones that actually perform. With a more streamlined organization, you should get a more responsive one- quicker to address faults, but also quicker to act in emergencies. Or, just privatize the whole goddamned apparatus. Maybe a for-profit can run border security better than the govt?

As for getting on or off the list, there absolutely should be some sort of public manner of oversight. At the very least, elected representatives should be involved in some way of approving people on the list if those people are citizens. I think we might see some shortcomings here though, the first time a big donor's son comes up on the ATF's "Most Likely to Die In a Shootout at His Idaho Compund Within Two Years" list.

Problem for non-citizens is- and let me stretch this out for a second- if there WERE a formal procedure involving the judiciary in some way, the argument could only be that the petitioner had a lawful purpose to be here but the gubmint was denying his entry. That sounds alot like the starting place of the suit is that the petitioner has an inalienable right to be here, and the feds are not allowing him to exercise that right. I don't want to go to that place, because I don't agree with it as policy, and anything that makes work for lawyers can't be good for the rest of us.

I'll pause here for station identification...

GL, I'll bite.

I'm okay with there being a list of people that deserve extra scrutiny, and standards that must be followed especially if that list and those standards are carefully and rigorously enforced (viz. Mohammad Atta). What makes me uneasy is that there is a watch list, a centralized watch list, that currently has no review/appeal/public reporting process to manage it. I'm not arguing that such a list needs to be transparent-- that's ludicrous-- but that there needs to exist some sort of public process for finding out why, for example, your name is theoretically on that list, and how to get it off (provided that you're really who you seem to be, and not some nascent Ted Kaczynski). Take Ted Kennedy's predicament a few weeks ago. All joking aside about my senior Senator being a menace to society, bridges, and bottles of gin, if TED KENNEDY'S name was on a terrorist watch list-- Ted "I can't run for President because both my brothers got their brains blown out by enemies of our nation and Rose made me promise not to go out like that" Kennedy-- and it took him weeks of phonecalls to the highest levels to get him cleared-- again, a longserving US Senator, the brother of a President, and someone who has lost two members of his immediate family in service to our country-- what chance do I have, for example, of being able to clear my name if it ends up being phonetically similar to "Etaoin Shrdlu," the notorious Albanian terror kingpin, in some 1950s vintage "Guide to Phonetic Names of the World"?

I mean, shit. I would have deported Mr. Islam (still love that name!!!!) back in '71 just for releasing "Wild World," and sent Jim Croce, James Taylor, and Tim Buckley with him. But everything about how things are handled right now sends up red flags to me.

Moreover, why divert the flight he was on to Bangor? Why not just let everyone get where they're going, and "detain" him then? Is he some kind of walking bomb threat? Does that mean that Maine is disposable or something?

So that's my two cents. Let's chaw on this some more, like they say back in my birthplace.

J,
Where I was going was that if we agree that there has to be a system in place to regulate foreign travelers- and we do- then there have to be people determining who can come and for how long. Now, however lackwitted or ineffective your typical gubmint hack is, it's that hack's decision to make.

Would you rather there be some sort of appelate process, or a more formal judicial proceeding to determine cases like this?

Is the part that makes you uneasy that this guy was on a watch list, or that there is an actual watch list in the first place?

I'm not being purposefully obtuse here (accidents, however, may happen)- but I think this is a good topic to really stretch out and chew on a bit.

He was also denied entrance and deported by Israel, probably also for his support of Hamas.

If the US government had actual proof that Islam donated money to Hamas or knowingly donated money to a charity that funds Hamas they could easily charge him - since they have not done so leads me to believe that the "watch list" is being used as an intimidation technique, rather than to, oh, I don't know - actually protect us from terrorism?

The main thing that tends to keep me from being classified as an outright libertarian on non-economic issues is the fact that I don't support an absolute right for others to cross our borders whenever they please.

As a result, I wouldn't honestly be too upset if they'd forbidden him entry based on the fact he has a shitty beard.

If Cat supported Hamas, but did so from outside the US, he'd have broken no US laws, and thus couldn't be charged here. Barring him entry, then, is beyond an intimidation tactic; it's perhaps the only remedy available. Remember: The EU has similar strictures on entry, and can invoke them based solely on the (government's) presumption that a visitor will disturb the peace.

I'm more concerned, frankly, that they inconvenienced the others on his plane. He could have been kicked to the curb at his final destination, since he wasn't presumed to be on a terror mission himself. As a result, the handling of the matter seems a bit grade-school to me.

But (I repeat) he has no absolute right of entry to the US, nor should he, in my humble opinion.

The Ayatollah Khomeni/Rushdie thing was largely a misunderstanding that was blown way out of proportion. I don't know about Islam (f/k/a Stevens) giving money to Hamas, but everything I've seen so far looks like pure speculation. I know I'll take a beating from the warbloggers for saying so, but I don't think Cat Stevens is a bad guy.

J,
FR says he gave $$ to Hamas and publicly supported Khomeni's death/fatwa thingy on Salman Rushdie. I'm too lazy and uninterested to find out for myself.

But let me ask you this: do you feel that non-citizens have a right to travel in and out of the US as they wish? Or is some sort of control/oversight of who comes and goes a good thing?

The Hamas thing I know nothing of... let's try to find a non FR source to corroborate. As for Khomeini, I knew about his regrettable and ghoulish support for the fatwa, but what does that have to do with threats of terrorism? Why did they have to divert a plane because he was on it?

Let me answer you this: Of course some control/oversight is called for. But that's what the whole green card/visa system is about. How does Mr-former-pussy-folkman's predicament, and the government's responst, relate to your question?