Blogcritics: Comments on The Significance of the Diverted Cat

Comment by holdfast

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:56:21 EDT

Look, there's probably an SOP that says when you realise that there's a "Deny Fly" on board, you land at the first convenient airport away from any potential target cities. Is that stiff and inflexible? Was it an overreactin in these circumstances? You bet - any organization staffed with responsible adults should allow people to make decisions based on the circumstances then obtaining, BUT when you consider that these kind of swivel-servants thought that Visa Express was a good idea (yes, different dept, same mentality), I'm all for overly harsh, inflexible rules. When federal employees start acting like responsible adults they'll get their decision making privelages back. For now, keep them is a straightjacket. As far as the merits go - visiting another country is a privelege not a right. If the Homeland Security boys didn't like the cut of his jib, they were 100% right to kick him out.

Comment by RealTM

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:30:32 EDT

Freddie Hill White: "The plane should have been allowed to continue to its destination and then uniformed FBI agents should have boarded the plane, handcuffed the Cat and paraded him from the front to the back of the plane and back before roughly escorting him to Federal prison." If this is your idea of entertainment then perhaps you had a blast watching Iraqi prisoners being abused at Abu Ghraib prison.

Comment by ef

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:12:37 EDT

per ABC news : A second government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said U.S. authorities think donations from Islam may have ended up helping to fund blind sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted for a plot to bomb New York City landmarks, and Hamas, a Palestinian militant group considered a terrorist organization by the United States. They THINK his money ended up w/Hamas? If I changed my name to a Muslim moniker would I be guilty too? What about my contributions to different charities..???

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:28:21 EDT

Hi Kevin, very good point, thanks

Comment by Kevin Murphy

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:23:40 EDT

Homeland Security didn't screw up, United Airlines did. They let someone board who was on the watchlist. Just like it's airlines have to insure that people coming to this country have a valid passport and visa if required, they have to make sure that people coming to this country aren't on the watch list. If they make a mistake, it's on their nickel. Every country handles this the same way. If an airline brings somebody here who isn't supposed to, they have to put them on the next available flight back to where they came from.

Comment by anonymous due to the concept of thoughtcrime

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:22:21 EDT

So long as we deny all IRA supporters (e.g. many people in Boston) from flying. And Ollie North. And supporters of Israel. And any other person who contributes at all to causes which use terrorism as part of their means. Only then is this OK. Well, not even then, but it would be a start. There is a difference between signficiant support, directing specific actions, and minor support and support for a cause if not the means.

Comment by Freddy Hill White

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:20:09 EDT

Eric, thanks for your answer. In re-reading my post I realize that I did not make my point clear. Since the two scenarios would have worked just as well, why not choose the cheaper one and the one that causes the lesser inconvenience to the paying public? I don't think that anybody could credibly claim that Mr. bin-Islam was an immediate threat to the flight (i.e., he did not have a box cutter in his hand). On the other hand, it was reasonable to think that he was, and still is, a long-term threat to our country (he has made it economically easier to murder America's allies). Therefore there was no point in cutting the flight short and even less in sending him back. Rather, we should have put him into custody and let the legal system run its course. That would have kept him out of circulation for a few months.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:17:15 EDT

Hi Suz! that's on the post from yesterday where I said how much I liked a lot of his music!

Comment by sulizano

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:11:04 EDT

Eric, I was almost afraid to scroll down to the Amazon links and find any of his music there... I should have more faith in your good sense. Suli

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:02:56 EDT

"armed with his fearsome guitar, Al-Kabong boarded a flight from London to Washington on a musical terror mission"

Comment by Electronic Bubba

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:57:01 EDT

How the Bush administration can call us "safer" than we were is beyond me. He didn't get here and kill ya, did he? Quit yer damn whinin.

Comment by Brett

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:54:37 EDT

Have you noticed all of the "Islamic Leaders" coming out to denounce the Cat Stevens issue? Where have all of these "leaders" been after the brutal beheadings that have been taking place? Where is the outrage that their religion is being hijacked in order to carry out such atrocities? Islamic leaders must balance their anger with at least some portion of it going toward these Islamic terrorist. I have seen nothing of these same individuals that have been all over CNN in the past couple of days.

Comment by Tantor

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:46:27 EDT

May I point out that Cat Stevens/Islam Whatever supported Khomeini's fatwa that writer Salman Rushdie should die for writing stuff offensive to the Ayatullah's brand of Islam? Islam publicly agreed with Khomeini that it was the duty of every Muslim to kill Rushdie on sight. I'm awfully fond of free speech and the First Ammendment and have no wish to extend the hospitality of America to public supporters of Islamic terrorism who want to kill authors of literature they hate. This is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned which is probably why only the no-brainers support Islam. Let him sell his albums in Iran to his fellow Muslim maniacs. Tantor

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:37:02 EDT

Freddy, your scenario would have worked just as well. Me, yes, although he has since retracted that belief. Much more background info on the Cat and the situation in this post from yesterday.

Comment by me

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:23:27 EDT

Add to the fact that he once endorsed the fatwa on Salmand Rushdie for merely insulting Islam.

Comment by Freddy Hill White

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:23:24 EDT

Sorry but I don't get it. Why divert a flight operated by a financially stressed airline to Bangor in order to make a purely political point? Why deport the Cat back to where he came from on our, or United's, nickel? Why justify a mistake by Homeland Security? He should not have embarked that plane. Given that a mistake was made and this was no longer possible, then his fellow travellers should not have been inconvenienced but entertained. The plane should have been allowed to continue to its destination and then uniformed FBI agents should have boarded the plane, handcuffed the Cat and paraded him from the front to the back of the plane and back before roughly escorting him to Federal prison.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:02:23 EDT

that is exactly right Jon - this whole fiasco of diverting the plane and inconveniencing hundreds of people for hours, and making a big show of sending him back from whence he came wouldn't have happened if they had done their jobs before the plane took off

Comment by Jon Sobel

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:11:29 EDT

I agree. There's too much talk about how silly it is to exclude the guy who wrote "Peace Train" from the country. It's fine for Jon Stewart to joke about it, but really, the important thing here is that someone on the no-fly list was allowed to get on a flight. How the Bush administration can call us "safer" than we were is beyond me.