Cat Stevens, Threat to National Security?

[Fishu]

Originally posted by SOB
As far as his rights are concerned though, please.  He's not a US citizen, and denying him entry into the US is hardly fascism.

If you are referring to my posts, you should be able to see I'm not even referring to him, but to the no-fly list system as whole.

Wasn't there already some congress member or someone other 'important' person denied a flight, since there happened to be a 'name' on the list?

[Dowding]

Rip'n'paste scores one for the dittoheads. Why not just change your name to 'ditto' and be done with it?

As for quoting US legislature - you're missing the point. No one was saying it was illegal under US law. The US rightly controls its own borders as it sees fit. I think people are more concerned with the evidence acted upon; I would like to see a list of his donations to terrorist supporting organisations that is ommitted from that piss-poor article. I can't be bothered to google this afternoon, you see.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Dowding
Rip'n'paste scores one for the dittoheads. Why not just change your name to 'ditto' and be done with it?

As for quoting US legislature - you're missing the point. No one was saying it was legal under US law. I would like to see a list of his donations to terrorist supporting organisations that is ommitted from that piss-poor article. I can't be bothered to google this afternoon.

Check this out Jeezy, I even get credit for your posts!
 

[Dowding]

I wasn't giving you any credit at all for quoting out of some text-book, but honouring your continued contributions to dittoheadedness.

[vorticon]

at least this time they didnt deport to syria.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Fishu
Doesn't sound like freedom to me..  I'd be very damn pissed off I would suddenly find out I'm not allowed to board a plane and nobody has told about it to me, let alone having had a chance to defend myself against this 'punishment'.


No-fly decisions made without any law suits or so, undeclared detainees, torturing of detainees, detainees held for years without charges or chance to meet a lawyer... and so on..

Does anyone understand where this kind of actions are leading to?
Facism.

We reserve the right to restrict "freedom" to activities that don't include murdering women and children. If you feel we should be more tolerant in this regard I can only say tough ****.

[jEEZY]

As for quoting US legislature - you're missing the point. No one was saying it was illegal under US law. The US rightly controls its own borders as it sees fit. I think people are more concerned with the evidence acted upon; I would like to see a list of his donations to terrorist supporting organisations that is ommitted from that piss-poor article. I can't be bothered to google this afternoon, you see.

I believe that it would come as a great suprise to the Supreme Court of the United States that it was suddenly a branch of the legislature (it's bi-cameral not tri-cameral.)  See U.S. Constitution Art. III; and Federalist Paper #47.   Also, I doubt you could "google" Supreme Court opinions--if you could Westlaw and Lexis would not be able to charge their obscene rates.

Further, it is plainly obvious that you did not get the point, thus I will reiterate it.  At the borders the "government" does not need any evidence to check you at the border:

  Any officer of the customs may at any time go on board of any vessel or vehicle at any place in the United States or within the customs waters or, as he may be authorized, within a customs-enforcement area established under the Anti-Smuggling Act, or at any other authorized place, without as well as within his district, and examine the manifest and other documents and papers and examine, inspect, and search the vessel or vehicle and every part thereof and any person, trunk, package, or cargo on board, and to this end may hail and stop such vessel or vehicle, and use all necessary force to compel compliance."

United States v. Flores-Montano, 124 S. Ct. 1582, 1586 (U.S., 2004)


Furthermore, the Executive branch can conduct "searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant." Meaning that the lame and rather watered down Fourth Amendment argument (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt) you assert is simply not supported by any evidence or precedent.

In the words of Justice Jackson: "That dog don't hunt."

[Fishu]

Originally posted by AKIron
We reserve the right to restrict "freedom" to activities that don't include murdering women and children. If you feel we should be more tolerant in this regard I can only say tough ****.

Doesn't this however usually need a court ruling, where also the person accused of wrong activities is present or otherwise aware of his no-fly status?

Also why are you assuming that all people on the no-fly list are PROVEN to be for wrong cause?
At least seems like so.. correct me if I'm assuming wrong.

Without any kind of trial, I find it rather odd that *any* person could be denied flights *without* a reason and without prior *notification*, solely based on someones suspections -- which could be errorneous, let alone the ban including also people who has a same name. (..and theres alot of people with same names)

Just doesn't strike to me as justified in a country praised for freedom and justify.

It'd be nothing if the person in question would be trialed or given a chance to defend himself, before appearing for the flight, just to hear all the sudden hes not allowed to board the plane.


Any one of you barking at us liberal commie euro dogs blaablaablaablaaablaaa sticking nose in yer business blaablaaablaaablaablaaa could be found on the no-fly list and you wouldn't even know about it until appearing for the flight.
Isn't that worrying you guys at all? I find it odd if it doesn't at all.
Of course you are law abiding citizen who wouldn't want to have anything to do with kamikazing in a passenger jet, but the list simply doesn't look into that whether YOU are or not.
There are just names, which are not allowed to board a flight and the names are added there for whatever reason we don't have a slightest idea about.

it is really really odd to me people can find the system justified, especially by people living in USA with long traditions in couple of things..

[Edbert]

Originally posted by Dowding
Is that the best they can come up with? Giving to charity is a pillar of Islam, a fundamental tenet that all followers must abide by.

Funding terrorism is a pillar of Islam? Are you sure about that? Or did you simply not know that terrorist organizations have charity front-ends to account for their funding?

All I keep hearing about Islam is that it is such a peaceful and honorable religion, not one that advocates the slaughter of inoocents and the beheading of truck drivers. Now Dowding is telling me that all followers MUST contribute to the terrorist organization as part of their religion....hmmm.

[Muckmaw1]

Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Funding terrorism is a pillar of Islam? Are you sure about that? Or did you simply not know that terrorist organizations have charity front-ends to account for their funding?

All I keep hearing about Islam is that it is such a peaceful and honorable religion, not one that advocates the slaughter of inoocents and the beheading of truck drivers. Now Dowding is telling me that all followers MUST contribute to the terrorist organization as part of their religion....hmmm.

I think he was being sarcastic.

[AKIron]

Fishu, when all Muslim terrorists (individuals) begin making their intentions public perhaps those charged with defending against terrorism will make these "lists" public.

Since there are many that likely won't reveal their intentions until they blow up a plane or a schoolbus it's probably prudent to keep any intel on their identities or activities secret.

[jEEZY]

Fishu, I realize that the rest of the world has the impression that US law is the most free, etc. and that may be the truth in comparision to the rest of the world.  However, our freedoms are not without limitations.  For instance, since the airline industry is a regulated industry your rights and privileges to use that industry are limited by regulation.  In short, you or even a US citizen does not have an absolute right to fly on an airplane, domestic or international (either concluding or originating in the US).

Are their problems with the "no-fly" list why yes there are.  Do they implicate the limitations of the government found in our Constitution, probably not.  If, however, the government was keeping lists of people, say for a "no-speech" rule than yes that implicates a limitation on government powers (a simplistic example sorry).  This is what is known as prior restraint and has a whole host of limitations on it.

In sum, when you fly on an airplane you do not enjoy as many "rights" as you do otherwise.

[Yeager]

The best defense is a good offense.  

I have been interested in the story of this man because I have enjoyed his music over the years and find it fascinating that he joined the islamic faith.

that being said:  As far as Im concerned any muslim on this planet is a suspect of potentiol violance until proven harmless in my estimation and I estimate harshly in matters of self defense.


I wish it was not the status quo but unfortunately is is.

[Dowding]

Funding terrorism is a pillar of Islam? Are you sure about that? Or did you simply not know that terrorist organizations have charity front-ends to account for their funding?

All I keep hearing about Islam is that it is such a peaceful and honorable religion, not one that advocates the slaughter of inoocents and the beheading of truck drivers. Now Dowding is telling me that all followers MUST contribute to the terrorist organization as part of their religion....hmmm.

You really are as thick as two short planks, aren't you? Talk about putting words into my mouth.

Your reading comprehension skills are as lacking as your straw man arguments.

I never said giving to terrorist organisations is a pillar of Islam. Giving to charitable organisations is (Red Crescent beign an example).

[firbal]

Is he still around???