Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Boo
What if the "credible evidence" is also critical in stopping the 27 member team that he is supporting? What if stating it at this time would jeopardize 2 US operatives that have spent 3 years getting into position?
|
Your premise seems to be that arresting and charging someone (in this particular case, Cat Stevens) will alert the more distant network he is supporting.
If true, wouldn't the action of questioning and denying someone entry into the States have the same effect?
I mean, the terrorist network that he may be supporting now knows the intelligence community is on to them. Do I read you correctly that accosting Stevens would have alerted them of the government's knowledge that they exist?
Also, how does sending Stevens back to the UK do anything at all? Is he being denied entry for his ties to terrorists abroad? And if so, what would letting him visit the States with his daughter do to our collective safety? How exactly would our safety be undermined by him being here, yet bolstered by him being sent back to the UK?
Why hasn't he been more closely scrutinized on the other side of the pond? It would seem that while we aren't privy to certain info, the British Military Intelligence would be--especially, since Britian is our most vocal and tangible ally in our current endeavors?