The temporary detention and expulsion of Yousef Islam - formerly known as Cat Stevens - has become something of an international embarrassment for America. It's also given a lot of editors the chance to have "Islam Kicked Out of America" as a legitimate, if unfortunate, headline.

The facts, such as they are known, are rather lengthy. They have also been gone over more than a few times, elsewhere, so I won't repeat them here. However, there are also some unknown facts at work, and they are the cause of some serious questions.

It doesn't seem as though we're getting an answer, though: as of this writing, no one in the Administration can - or will - give a definite explanation of why Mr. Islam is on the no-fly list. They say that we have serious "concerns" about him, but won't elaborate past that.

The Administration isn't the only one with "concerns," though. This incident has also highlighted a number of them for me, mostly due to the questionable - and obviously ineffective - procedures to protect our airspace.

* If the man was on the no-fly list, then why wasn't his Visa revoked? If that isn't standard procedure, then shouldn't it be?

* They say that he got onto the plane, in spite of being on the no-fly list, because his name was misspelled somewhere in there. If that's true, then how did the people on the ground in the states know he was on board? If this is because there's a second, more accurate list being generated - either in-flight or before it - then why wasn't it used at the airport, instead?

* About that no-fly list: is the name the only thing they're checking? If so, what do we do when a Bob Jones or John Smith joins Al Qaeda? Shouldn't there be other things checked as well, like passport numbers?

* He was traveling with his 21-year-old daughter. He was detained and deported, but she was allowed to continue her travels. If they had "concerns" about him that were serious enough to send him back, then why wasn't she detained and deported as well?

* If we have serious "concerns" about him, then why was he deported after a day? Why isn't he being held indefinitely and interrogated about possible connections to terrorism? If that isn't standard procedure, then why isn't it?

* He says that the people carrying out the interview were polite - which is good - but that they also asked for, and received, his autograph. Is that really appropriate behavior when dealing with someone who might be a security risk?

Past that, I think the real question is this: if the "concerns" we have about Yousef Islam aren't serious enough to warrant his arrest as an enemy combatant, or at least to earn him an extended stay in the interrogation suite, then where are we drawing the line on the no-fly list?

Since becoming a Muslim, Yousef Islam has been accused of a few things, some of which are true and some of which have yet to be proven. The most damning of the true statements is his utterly stupid agreement with the late Khomeni of Iran that Mr. Rushdie deserved death for blasphemy. He has since backed away from that statement, claiming his words were twisted around, but one has to wonder how hard they were actually turned at the time.

More questionable - but even more damning - is his connection to Hamas, if any. The Israelis claimed that he gave the terrorist organization a considerable deal of money through one of its many "charities." They threw him out of Israel in 2000 over this charge, but it remains to be seen if he actually did it, or if he knew where the money was really going.

In recent years, however, Yousef Islam seems to have distanced himself far away from any radical statements or affiliations of the past. He claims to be a man of peace, and hasn't done or said anything to the contrary since 9/11. If anything, he's used his status as Britain's most-recognizable Muslim to work for the common good in trying times.

And this change has been noticed: the Brits, most notably Foreign Secretary Straw, are crying foul over this situation, and demanding an explanation and reversal of policy. Meanwhile, Mr. Islam has started a legal procedure to find out what's behind this, and clear his name if he can.

But one can only hope that more than a few Americans also cry foul at some of the idiocies that have been exposed by this incident. Are we really securing our borders from potential terrorists and troublemakers, or are we just making a token effort, and hoping that the appearance of tighter security is keeping the enemy away? And are we using our intelligence and technology to really pinpoint the actual troublemakers, or just dealing out "one category fits all" no-fly designations?

It would be nice if someone would start procedures of their own to discover what's really going on here, and demand - and get - some kind of explanation. The Presidential debates would be a perfect venue.