Hobsbawm deported

It’s becoming a habit, this deportation and flight-diversion thing! Interesting timing.

Interesting also to hear people justify the concept that opinions alone, no matter how repulsive, are enough to deport someone. Even more interesting, when that deportation-triggering opinion is one that justifies deporting and killing people on the base of opinions. The coherence!

But what I love most about this story is that it’s about the Soviet Union in the 30’s. How far does the concept of “threat” go back in time? When do they start deporting people who said the Mayflower should have sunk?

And all the nutters and neonazis and genocide apologists and extremist groups, active or inactive, that are within the US, why are they not a threat, just because they’re not foreigners?

Oh I give up trying to see some logic in all this. I just want to know if the other passengers get compensated for the trouble.

… doh, sorry for not getting it earlier, but my comments still stand.

It was satire, Mona. You probably missed that because it wasn’t very good satire. After all, Cat Stevens didn’t just hold nasty opinions, he backed them up by donating money to terrorists. And Stevens, after all, is a British citizen.

nosemonkey: I’m glad I’m not the only one who was fooled :)

Unless CT has special exclusive sources, Eric Hobsbawn has not been deported, but it sounded entirely plausible (at least to you and me! I think anything is possible these days…). Anyway. It is a rather clever way of making a point about those reactions to the Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens story.

Apologies to Chris… and well done.

“You probably missed that because it wasn’t very good satire. ”

Brett Ballmore, usually it’s good satire that is missed, because it sounds real. Especially in times where satire is made difficult by the fact reality itself is already defying belief.

I don’t know and you don’t know and no one knows what were the real reasons for deporting Cat Stevens in mid-flight – after he’d already been to the US as recently as last May.

I don’t know how I could trust a security department that does that kind of thing, and only a few weeks before elections, how pathetically transparent. It’s not likely to make up for the fact the 9/11 terrorists were free to operate within the US for years, and their financial backers got away with insider dealings. In the immortal words of Shania Twain, it don’t impress me much.

If it was about his opinions on Rushdie, aside from what exactly those opinions were and whether they alone qualify as “security threat”, they’d been expressed prior to May 2004, so why wasn’t he deported then? If it was about donating to Hamas, _if it’s true_ that he is donating money to terrorist organisations (I don’t know that, you don’t know that, no one know that either), then why has Jack Straw complained to Colin Powell about the deportation, and why haven’t the British intelligence and authorities brought a case against him for being a terrorist sponsor, huh? Are we supposed to believe the US security agencies know something the British ones don’t? I bet Jack Straw is pissed off!

“And Stevens, after all, is a _British_ citizen.”

Yeah. Meaning? That he doesn’t enjoy the free speech protections that a Jerry Fallwell enjoys as an _American_, as someone remarked on the comments in Drum’s blog, so it’s all ok? Or meaning that the UK would never do something so absurd as diverting planes to deport people only 5 months after they’d been let in?

Nevermind the crimes of opinion and unproven allegations aspect. How does a government get away with such ridiculous undermining of the reliability of their own intelligence services? How can people think it’s a good thing? A rhetorical question, I know.

“Did Eric Hobsbawm ever give thousands of dollars of his own money to Hamas? Did he ever give money to ‘charities’ to funnel to Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman?”

Did Stevens do these things either? He’s repeatedly denied it, and no one has ever deigned to offer proof to the contrary

“The only thing at all annoying about this story is that so many other people should have been inconvenienced in the process.”

I’ve certainly got to agree with that; Typical government agency at work. Should have just met him at the gate, and escorted him to a return flight. I suppose they did it that way to deliberately inconvenience all those people, as a way of sending a message to the British to be more selective about who they put on US bound flights, but I’ve always thought, “If you want to send a message, use Western Union.”

Mona, the reason I said it wasn’t good satire, is that the posited situation wasn’t sufficiently similar to the Cat Stevens case, varing on a number of highly relevant aspects. Now, if somebody coughs up evidence that Eric Hobsbawm is donating money to some Marxist terrorist group, I’d be all in favor of deporting him, assuming prosecution wasn’t feasible.

Does being a British citizen mean Stevens doesn’t have rights? No, of course not. It means he doesn’t have any right to be in the US.

Oh, and if he doesn’t think he has supported terrorism, I can only conclude that he doesn’t grasp the concept of money being fungible. That, or has a rather restrictive definition of “terrorist”.

If Cat Stevens has funded terrorism that would certainly change things. But I’ve not seen any evidence that this is so. Rather I’ve seen assertions by guys-with-websites, Daniel Pipes, Michelle Malkin etc. These allegations all seem to be of the form “Cat gave money to organisation X” where it is then further alleged that, according to dodgy security expert P or right-wing-commentator Q or whoever, that X is a front for Hamas. Sure sets off my spin-and-bullshit detectors! Maybe Brett, Abiola et al can come up with some credible source for the allegation?

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1

I only have the Israeli government to go on, but hey, I guess that doesn’t count as a “credible source” in some circles (never mind that the same government doesn’t have a blanket ban on Muslim visitors, even extremists, otherwise Farrakhan would never have been allowed into the country) …
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) – GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt

iD8DBQFBVAOrOgWD1ZKzuwkRAky/AJ9QSiRZM26d3Xs8pf7wbfa4z3qcywCeKMuP
Yjc3MIwRwJhXOS7LuWJ9/4g=
=cWtV
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Do I have an audit of his donations in front of me? No. I do have the fact that both US and Israeli security agree that he has donated to terrorist organizations, and his own admission that he has donated to unspecified Palestinian charities, of which darn few are NOT terrorist fronts.

If it was a case of prosecuting a US citizen, rather than refusing a British citizen entry to the country, I’d ask for better evidence.

With all due respect I think you are all missing the really scary point. I’ve spent a good deal of time in UK and US airports since Spet 11th, and one thing is absolutely clear — if you compare the security you encounter as a passenger, the US people clearly hav no idea what they are supposed to be doing. The UK people give the impression that they do – -so at least they have an idea of how to give the impression that they do. Of course, I oppose the Yusuf Ilam deportation on all sorts of grounds — he is clearly, whatever his past, a liberalising and important influence on British Islam; he is also clearly a decent person, if one who has, in the past, endored repellant views. But then I’ve never heard of Mrs Thatcher being deported for her past support of vicious and murderous dictators. BUT the sacary thing here is that it is evidence that these people do not know what they are doing. Congress has thrown money at security, but has not made reasonable efforts to ensure that it is being spent efficiently. Islam’s deportation makes me feel less safe; and it should make everyone else feel the same way. Except, perhaps, him.

Abiola – no, the Israeli government is not reliable on these things. And it would be a bit rich for them to compain about someone supporting Hamas, no? But, in fact, the report you link to does not attribute that claim to the Israeli government. It attributes to them the claim that he gave money to a ‘militant Islamic group’. If they had evidence that it was to terrorists don’t you think they’d have said that? Or maybe this is the appalling BBC twisting their words.

flann – sorry, I missed your comment because it was so short, but see that above I was echoing you, if very loudly.

Part of the point of this is that Hobsbawm _did_ have considerable difficulties in entering the US for a large part of his career. As a member of the Communist Party, he was considered _persona non grata_ for quite a long while. I don’t have my copy of his autobiography to hand, but my memory is that he was able to enter the US after the initial red scare was over – but always had to go through a fair amount of bureaucracy before getting on a plane in order to satisfy the US authorities that he was a non-subversive etc etc. Like other Marxist historians of his generation, he also found his job opportunities to be greatly curtailed by his politics – most universities simply weren’t giving positions to Marxists in the UK (or in the US – he has an account of an American colleague who was asked by Berkeley effectively to foreswear radical politics before he could be considered for a position).

As a postscript to my last post, then was remembering the Index the Catholic Church has of forbidden books, but now I remember that Bush administration wanted librarians to keep them updated on who was reading what in public libraries.

DSW

Brett, my historical memory may be faulty, but afaik, the United States and the Soviet Union enjoyed normal – if frosty – diplomatic relations until the latter’s disappearance from the scene. Between 1941 and 1945 a rather different relationship obtained between the United States and the government of Germany. Did I get that wrong?

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1

“But, in fact, the report you link to does not attribute that claim to the Israeli government. It attributes to them the claim that he gave money to a ‘militant Islamic group’.”

Oh really? Did you miss the following in your rush to compose an apologia for this “clearly decent” man (as if supporters of terrorism have to look all swarthy and sinister)?

“The government claims that during that trip, he delivered tens of thousands of dollars to Hamas, a militant Islamic group.”

See the “Hamas” in there? While you’re at it, please explain why the Israelis were willing to permit him to enter the country in 1988, even though he’d been a Muslim then for 9 years, if it was simply his religion that was at issue? Please explain why Farrakhan, who is on record as calling Jews “devils”, was permitted into Israel in 1997, if it was their policy simply to bar people for their public utterances. And finally, tell me again why we ought to assume that there’s some sort of statute of limitations on funnelling money to mass murderers?

A lot of people on here are trying their damndest to live up to the worst right-wing caricatures of liberalism.

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) – GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt

iD8DBQFBVCCfOgWD1ZKzuwkRAu37AJ0YFopV5956FgvjwVQso8llyZ0MYwCeI6aC
R/O4SwLuXxfO0m6jb6dw9Ls=
=//wr
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Lol,
the PGP-signature poster says others are caricaturing themselves…

I say we start now. I have a list (pause for massive thump)…. oops, if we deport this many functionaries, who’s going to do the deporting? And will the earth tilt out of its orbit?!?!?!?

Nobody’s saying much about the actual Hobsbawm quotation, which I assume was legit, despite the satirical context of the post. So I’ll take a stab. Apart from the question of sheer numbers, maybe somebody can help me out with the crucial distinction here:

1. Ignatieff: “What that comes down to is saying that had the radiant tomorrow actually been created, the loss of fifteen, twenty million people might have been justified?”
Hobsbawm: “Yes.”

2. “When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”” — John Pilger, “Squeezed to Death”, Guardian, March 4, 2000

3. “In response to the question how many soldiers and civilians were killed in Iraq in the war, then-Gen. Colin Powell told the New York Times on March 23 [2003]: “It’s really not a number I’m terribly interested in.”

“If there are serious and reliable security reasons for preventing someone from entering, how come he was granted a visa in the first place to get on that very plane, before it was diverted.”

I’m not sure if this has changed since I flew to the US in february, but a British citizen doesn’t need a visa to travel to the US. We just fill out a waiver on the plane.

This conversation presents an interesting contrast between preconceptions and base concerns. One groups primary concern is the abuse of government authority. The second groups primary concern is national security. Depending on which concern is greater, Cat Stevens was either removed due to unpopular speech or past associations with known threats.

I stand corrected, Abiola. And where does it mention terrorism? What’s your answer to mason. Why do you assume that Israel’s proclomations are entirely reliable and accurate? If I were them I wouldn’t rely absolutely on US or UK government statements; I don’t see why the US or you or I should do the same with them. Do you have any knowledge of Yusuf Islam’s role in Islam in the UK, as a pole of attraction counter to the extremist and terrorist-inclined Islam promoted by that great freind of the US, the Saudi government? Or what message this sends to moderate Muslims in the UK who have backed Yusuf Islam’s positions on issues like September 11th, against that of the Saudi-funded pro-Taliban Imams? I think the DHS is being incompetent. But most of them will see this as simple Islamophobia. Or should the DHS, or we, ignore the long-term consequences of its actions? I’m sorry if people here seem like conservative caricatures of liberals; the DHS behaved like a liberal caricature of the Israeli government: so keen to be seen to be ‘fighting’ terrorism that it does things which any sane person could see will promote terrorism.

That was so funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Remarkable; You actually think the war, of which such bloody conflicts such as Viet Nam were mere battles, wasn’t really a war?

And, Adi, are there really that many countries where non-citizens have an equal right under law to be in the country? I think not.

I feel obligated to point out that, while Saddam’s decision to divert the “food for oil” program revenues to military purposes, and to bribing some of our former allies to oppose the war, rather than food and medicine, was predictable, it WAS his decision that lead to those deaths. Not the sanctions.

brett, this is not “refusing someone’s entry” based on immigration laws. Intelligence allegations (not even officially stated, but simply reported second-hand and anonymously) do not “require” a trial either. However, this is supposed to be about terrorism and financing terrorism. The UK has similar laws to the US on the matter. So, if there was enough evidence against someone for financing terrorism, that intelligence would form the basis for prosecution in the UK, nevermind deportation in the US. It would require prosecution in the UK. Understand what I meant now?

The US and UK are also supposed to be the joint leaders of this war on terror thing, not to mention main allies in Iraq. Don’t you think that if there was real solid evidence about the terrorist liaisons of a British citizen who also happens to be famous and famously converted to Islam, the UK would have known before anyone else?

Shermel – yes, reports said Stevens was granted a visa for this trip.

James – to me this is *both* about security and potential abuse of legal principles. I can’t separate the two. A government would not pull stunts like this if it was serious about security. If I were to believe that the sudden decision to deport Stevens in the middle of his flight was prompted by real security concerns, and that this guy is a real threat to the US and to any country concerned about terrorism – ie. all, starting with Britain! – , I would consider the US intelligence a joke for only waking up after this highly dangerous person had already been granted a visa and boarded the plane. How could I ever trust any security agency doing something like that? Even private bodyguards for a pop star would do better than that. The security procedures of a mafia gang would be more thorough. I do not happen to hold such a tragicomic view of the US (and UK) intelligence, I do not consider them that incompetent, but like any government agency they’re highly subject to the political context they operate in, so I can only conclude that this incident, like Tareq Ramadan’s case (also granted a visa which was then suddenly revoked, and also able to freely enter the US several times before in the past years), has only to do with politics, and the media effect, and timing of it, for domestic propaganda.

If I were to believe that the reason for banning both Ramadan and Islam/Stevens had to do with pure, unadulterated, fat-free security concerns about their being a terrorist threat, then I’d have to conclude France and the UK, respective countries of departure of said individuals, are terrorist havens where security threats get ignored and people can donate billions directly to Al Qaeda, all under the unperturbed gaze of the British and French authorities. Allies my ass, I’d want the UK on the axis of evil list. Really. How can I trust governments that are so incoherent?

Oh. Should have mentioned Charlie Chaplin in post above.

Don’t “argue cases” with these guys. It is never the point.

ai-ya, Mr. Bellmore needs to stop reading William Safire’s obessive NYTImes op-ed columns about the UN food for oil “scandal.” It is his tired horse, and he’s riding it, but there’s probably a very good reason why he’s the only one in the posse.

But … IIRC, Gerry has visited the White House itself, several times — and I seem to remember Martin McGinnis accompanying him on at least one occasion. I could be totally wrong, and things are much better in the Irelands than they used to be, but if there’s no statute of limitations for Cat Stevens, then WTF?

After the Oklahoma city bombing, (during the Clinton years), Congress in a panic passed an anti-terrorism law, which we might now call a pre-PATRIOT Act. It was this law that authorized the deportation of people on “secret evidence”.

I’m amazed that so many people are just now noticing.

so to review, the best evidence we have is an israeli government allegation that stevens gave money to hamas in 1988, at which time hamas had not been designated as a terrorist organisation by any government on earth, not even israel [in israel it was designated in 1989, whereas the unites states waited until 1995]. it was not until 1994 that hamas started carrying out car bombings and suicide bombings.

this is hardly persuasive, especially considering that giving money to hamas in the 1980s is something that israel itself has been accused of. of course, no one has demonstrated that israel did in fact donate money to hamas, and unsurprisingly they deny it. but then, the same goes for stevens.

anyway, this whole business about the purported hamas donation is irrelevant to the hobsbawm comparison. hobsbawm did after all give money to the british communist party as a member, and moreover did so at a time that communist parties had to assist stalin with the purges/terror/etc or be expelled from the comintern. even if the stevens-hamas thing is true, i still think the stevens-hobsbawm analogy stands.

That’s why I don’t really trust Kevin Drum and the rest. They are more interested in ideology (their extremist moderation I suppose) That they don’t realize that by standing by and saying nothing while one lunatic gets sent away, He’s making it a lot easier for ANYONE with unpopular views to be deported. I don’t think he’d even say something if this were a US citizen and he was being exiled.

This illustrates once again the utter cluelessness of the Bush strategy in the “war on terror.” They completely fail to understand that small tactical victories which lead to large propaganda defeats can be and often are net negatives.

On the other hand, seen in the context of the War on John Kerry, the deportation was most likely a large propaganda victory and a net positive. A big, splashy, celebrity-driven story like this will be received as proof positive by many that the administration is “doing something” about terror. The dismal record of John “0 for 5,000” Ashcroft and his pals won’t get a tiny fraction of the media attention.

Most of the time this administration only appears “clueless” at first glance. Once you accept that short-term political advantage is pretty much the alpha and omega of policymaking in the Bush White House, it all starts to make a lot more sense.