The uproar, of course, is over the police bugging the Member of Parliament, not over the fact that a Member of Parliament is making repeated visits to a jailed jihadist. Jihad Watch reader Martin, who sent me this story, notes that a friend of the MP, Sadiq Khan, asks: "If he was not a Muslim MP would they be doing this? If it had been some ordinary white middle-class MP, would they have been bugged?" Martin notes that "one can naturally re-phrase the question: 'If he was not a Muslim MP -- and also not a personal friend of the man wanted extradited by the US for setting up a US-registered website to encourage Muslims to raise funds for Taliban murderers, would that MP have even visited Ahmed in jail?"
Good question.
"Police bugged Muslim MP Sadiq Khan," by Michael Gillard and Jonathan Calvert in the Times (thanks to Martin):
SCOTLAND YARD’S antiterrorist squad secretly bugged a high-profile Labour Muslim MP during private meetings with one of his constituents.Sadiq Khan, now a government whip, was recorded by an electronic listening device hidden in a table during visits to the constituent in prison.
The bugging of MPs is a breach of a government edict that has barred law agencies from eavesdropping on politicians since the bugging scandal of Harold Wilson’s government. There was no suspicion of criminal conduct by Khan to justify the operation.
A document seen by The Sunday Times shows there was internal concern about the propriety of bugging an MP, who was also a lawyer, but the operation nevertheless went ahead.
The disclosure will put further pressure on Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, who will be asked to explain why his officers apparently breached government rules – and if he authorised it.
Khan discussed sensitive personal and legal matters during the recorded meeting. The MP was said to be “outraged” yesterday. “From what you have told me, this is an infringement of a citizen’s right to have a private meeting with his MP,” he said. [...]
Andrew Mackinlay, a Labour colleague, said: “The bugging of Sadiq Khan is very dangerous indeed. It is totally unacceptable that MPs’ conversations with constituents are bugged by the security services or the police.
“It is an affront to democracy and has all the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime. No one is suggesting that MPs should be above the law, but when behaving as MPs and dealing with people’s liberty that must be sacrosanct as it is with lawyers.” Khan, 37, is a rising star in the Labour party and is seen as a key figure in Gordon Brown’s drive to win the hearts and minds of Britain’s Muslims. He is a former chairman of Liberty, the human rights group, and used to be a legal adviser to the Muslim Council of Britain. As a lawyer he was a thorn in the side of the Metropolitan police, taking a series of controversial malpractice cases against them.
The bugging operation recorded conversations with his constituent, Babar Ahmad, who is facing deportation to the United States under new extradition laws. Khan has been a friend of Ahmad since childhood and has been a prominent campaigner against his extradition. He met the home secretary to discuss the case and handed over a petition of 18,000 signatures calling for Ahmad’s release.
The US government has accused Ahmad of running a website that raised funds for Taliban and Chechen terrorists in the late 1990s. He faces no charges in Britain but is wanted in the United States because his website was registered there.
Khan made two visits to Ahmad in 2005 and 2006 while he was on remand at Woodhill prison in Milton Keynes. Both meetings were secretly recorded. Ahmad’s family say he arranged the meetings because he was no longer free to go Khan’s constituency office in Tooting, south London, and wanted to see his MP.
Knowing that Khan was coming, the antiterrorist squad requested the bugging. Senior officers had already granted authorisation to bug Ahmad’s guests before Khan first visited. The officers had previously recorded family members who were leading the campaign to free him. [...]
The second meeting between Khan and Ahmad took place on the Saturday morning of June 24, 2006, during a crucial period for his campaign and legal case. Khan bought cups of tea and chocolate bars and joined Ahmad who had already been seated at one of the “talking tables”.
Every word was transmitted to a receiver in the domed ceiling above them and then routed to a nearby office. The digital recording was picked up by an antiterrorist branch officer the next Monday morning.
During the conversation the two men discussed the latest developments in the campaign against extradition. Khan updated Ahmad on a meeting in the House of Commons against the 2003 Extradition Act.
The Commons gathering had drawn support from politicians of all parties who had objected to changes in the law that allowed the United States to extradite suspects without first testing the case in a British court.
The antiterrorist officers would have heard Khan and Ahmad discussing tactics for his appeal, which was due to start shortly. The two men also talked about the civil case he was taking against the police, alleging that he was physically assaulted by officers when he was first arrested in December 2003 and released without charge. [...]
The Sunday Times told him about the bugging operation last week. A friend said the disclosure might further undermine the government’s attempt to “reengage” the Muslim community. He said: “If he was not a Muslim MP would they be doing this? If it had been some ordinary white middle-class MP, would they have been bugged?” He added that this was a violation of an MP’s relationship with his constituent: “If you have not got the confidence to see your MP and know it is privileged, then that raises serious questions. It is f****** outrageous.” [...]
He added that the operation may have breached Ahmad’s legal privilege: “The officers in charge would have known that because Khan is an MP and a lawyer there was a grave danger that the legal professional privilege would be breached.”...
In Bosnia, there were protests over the plan to deport a known Jihadist who participated in ethnic cleansing, beheadings on video, burning down churches with non-Muslims inside, and all sorts of horrible crimes.
The fact "moderate" Muslims protest in defense of Jihadists should tell us loud and clear where their allegiance lies...
"A friend [of Sadiq Khan, who was visiting in prison his old friend Mr. Ahmad, being held while the American government's request that Ahmad be extradited to face charges that he supported terrorism can be examined] said the disclosure might further undermine the government’s attempt to “reengage” the Muslim community. He said: “If he was not a Muslim MP would they be doing this? If it had been some ordinary white middle-class MP, would they have been bugged?” He added that this was a violation of an MP’s relationship with his constituent: “If you have not got the confidence to see your MP and know it is privileged, then that raises serious questions. It is f****** outrageous.” [...]
He added that the operation may have breached Ahmad’s legal privilege: “The officers in charge would have known that because Khan is an MP and a lawyer there was a grave danger that the legal professional privilege would be breached.”...
-- from the article above
This is nonsense. There is an Attorney-Client Privilege. There is a Spousal Privilege. There is a Privilege between a worshipper and his minister or priest (as with Robert Hanssen and Father Bucciarelli). But there is no politician-constitutent privilege. Sadiq Khan may be a lawyer, but he was not visiting the man accused of support for terrorism in jail because he was that man's lawyer. He wasn't. And neither he nor anyone else can properly express "outrage" at the police being interested in his campaign, on behalf of a "friend since early childhood, who has been accused by the American government -- a friend"of the British government for even longer -- of support for terrorism.
One would dearly like the transcript of those tapes, without any omissions, to be printed, or still better, the tapes of those meeings to be played on the BBC, again and again and again.
We can't take too much more of this. Common sense has to prevail. The striking of attitudes, attitudes of "indignation" at "encroachments" on Sadiq Khan's supposed "liberties," are as out of place as were the actions taken, including spying on those believed to be Nazi sympathizers, during World War II.
This was not, note, a bugging operation without a search warrant in a man's castle-home. It was a bugging operation in a prison, a place where everyone should expect that the police have total authority and can listen in, when they have good reason to believe that information they might acquire may be relevant to public safety or that the government needs to know (the government that was being pressured by Sadiq Khan not to extradite his friend to face charges in a country that is not, pace the hysterical, a police state, and where a full panoply of procedural and other rights are availalbe). Of course the police can monitor conversations if they have good reason for doing so, and in this case no intelligent third party would deny that they did have such reason. This was not Sadiq Khan's home, nor the home of his friend since childhood, the man whom the Americans wish to have extradited so that they can charge him with support for terrorism, Mr. Ahmad.
Don't let up on this, or on mocking those who, on the other side, won't let up on this. The case is clear.
As depressing as this story is there is another story buried underneath. Somebody knew that it was right to bug this Muslim MP and his fellow believer and had the anti-dhimmitude to do it. Well done that person. I hope and pray there are many more like you. And if you are a reader of Jihad Watch AND YOU HAPPEN TO SEE THIS: WE SALUTE YOU!
Quote:
"It is an affront to democracy and has all the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime."
Uhm, so is Shari'a ...
"During the conversation the two men discussed the latest developments in the campaign against extradition."
...is he afraid of the US?.....things are beginning to sour for militant muslims.....
Ban Muslim Immigration...
England has a right to exist.
Infidels have a right to oppose Islam.
If "War is deceit", don't blame us for playing by your rules.
If this is too much for Sadiq Khan, he could always move to an "enlightened" Islamic state where Sharia law exists and the rights of the Muslim male are superior to all other individuals. (Unless they are Muslim males with more power that Sadiq Khan.)
When one muslim talks to himself, I am suspicious. When one muslim talks to another, I am doubly suspicious.
I wonder what this MP's reaction would have been if Scotland Yard hadn't broken up that terror cell planning (again!) to attack Britain. Whose side is he on? (Silly question. Of course it's Allah's side!)
" Khan has been a friend of Ahmad since childhood and has been a prominent campaigner against his extradition."
They want sharia and the Britons are giving them it.
"The Sunday Times told him about the bugging operation last week. "
The press are colluding in the quiet Marxist revolution which has been gaining ground since the 50's.
"A friend said the disclosure might further undermine the government’s attempt to “reengage” the Muslim community."
blackmail.
Generally, elected politicians enjoy immunity from civil liability and criminal culpability. However, that is voided where they act in bad faith. Mala fides includes: criminal conduct and abuse of office. As for wiretapping, it can be done if the police agency has reason to believe that they might be recording criminal activity. A politician who choses to contact a criminal in prison, is suspect.
Soon the muslim enemy will be a majority in their first European city - Malmo, Sweden - and they will govern by shariah, even if they pretend to accept "kaffir" statutes.
All one has to do is look at the article above this one and clearly see what the Brits as well as other Western societies(USA) are up against daily. If the UK really cares about the survival of their country they need to come out and support Scotland Yard/MI 5 through their MPs' strongly.
No doubt the petition of 18,000 signatures comes out of a particular non assimilating society peppered with ignorant dhimmis like Ken Livingston.
Scotland Yard has already helped to save thousands of lives (remember the plan to hijack several airliners)--
Being on the front line of terrorism as the rest of us go about our daily lives, these folks are
in the trenches of intelligence gathering day after day. Did we not just read the article about at least 2,000 terrorists are living in the UK.
So far we have been lucky thanks to Scotland Yard and the FBI.
Hmmm...
The phrase "absurd on its face" comes to mind.
They suspected him of conspiring with a jailed foreign agent!
Otherwise they wouldn't have been taping his meeting with a jailed foreign agent.
So, ummm ... DOH!
Khan has been a friend of Ahmad since childhood
More the reason to listen in on here meetings
Another Jihadi exposed
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2008/02/profile-jihadi-on-home-front.html
He said: “If he was not a Muslim MP would they be doing this?
Maybe, but probably not. The fact that he is a 'Muslim MP', has everything to do with it and rightly so.
I get tired of these political types trying to hide their misdeeds behind a wall of secrecy, mulims or not. All government officials except in a case of national security, should be transparent.
Not only that, it is becoming increasingly obvious that no muslim should serve in an infidel government , military, or police force. We know who/what comes first with them, and we are fools if we think they wont work in Allahs behalf...And you know what He wants...
Well, McCain would never allow this type of bugging in the US.
- kinda makes one feel safer, doesn't it ?
- being protected by such a patriotic hero ?
'If he was not a Muslim MP -- and also not a personal friend of the man wanted extradited by the US for setting up a US-registered website to encourage Muslims to raise funds for Taliban murderers, would that MP have even visited Ahmed in jail?"
Good question.
Actually, a rather excessively gingerly and too careful question.
We should be surveilling Muslim MPs as a matter of course -- because they are Muslim (because, being Muslim, there is a higher degree of probability of their involvement, in one way or another, in a dangerous plot).
But we are far from being able to take such a rational measure; and the uproar over doing this for good reasons that go beyond the MP being Muslim, and to which his being Muslim could well have been incidental, shows how depressingly far we are from the rational point where we can be surveilling Muslims simply because they are Muslim.
How does a Muslim make it into Parliament? Don't you vote for the party, meaning that Labour included him on its slate of candidates, or do they run individual races? What kind of background checks are made on potential candidates? Maybe that's what's needed for potential Muslim MPs.
" There was no suspicion of criminal conduct by Khan to justify the operation."
He's a Muslim, That justifies the operation.
This makes me wonder what kind of sensitive committee Keith Ellison will be appointed to when Hillary or Obama are in the White House.
OT
Wanted to post a link here regarding some Muslim women (!) that have filed a Human Rights Complaint against their Imam in Canada.
The audacity!!! end sarc
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=23a3b73d-0531-491e-b30a-1b402d536a81&k=90544
Remember:
- Islam is not a religion
- Muslims are not citizens
- Mohammed was not a good man
- Allah is not God
Unless the muslims are deported from Great Britain, they will take over sooner or later. History proves it.
The Islamic Empire has been spreading for 1,400 years. In that time, we have won back Spain and Sicily. That's it.
Islam is the clear winner and will continue to win until the majority of human beings accept the four facts listed above.
Another Muslim MP, a friend of Sadiq Khan's, was interviewed on the radio this morning discussing the case. He said at one point that, as an MP, his sole concern was with the interests of the British people. Bizarrely,the comment was identical with a statement made by the MP Shalid Malik in an interview many months earlier, when the question of whether Muslim politicians were too partisan over issues where the aims of their community might be different from those of everyone else. An answer something very like it ( along the lines of 'I want what is best for the British people') was given by Baroness Warsi on a talk show a few weeks ago.
The problem I have with this form of words, that they have all adopted, is that to a devout Muslim, the best interests of the British people would be best be served if they were all to face Mecca and press their heads against the floor.
Of course, it would be highly unusual for a Muslim to use language in such a way that it would mean one thing to an infidel and something quite different to a fellow believer.
mike -
you wrote:
"The Islamic Empire has been spreading for 1,400 years. In that time, we have won back Spain and Sicily. That's it."
We - the Infidels - have also won back: Portugal; Malta; Greece; Serbia; Croatia; Macedonia; Greece; Bulgaria; Romania; Hungary; and most of India (although troubled by a massive Mohammedan infestation, India *is* currently ruled by a majority-Infidel government and has a majority-Infidel army).
Israel and Timor Lorosae are also, currently, out of Mohammed's and 'allah's' greedy claws, though they will only remain so if the rest of the Infidel world is prepared to resolutely help them; ditto Ethiopia, which has held off the siege for over a thousand years, God bless them, but needs - at present - much more help than they're getting.
Sorry. I wrote 'Greece' twice. It's too early in the morning where I am and the cup of tea hasn't hit home yet.
The MP, Sadiq Khan, not only owned, but was also a dedicated follower of a publication that calls for worldwide Islamic Jihad. This publication also obligates its followers to subjugate and/or kill those who refuse to follow its barbaric beliefs and rituals. More than enough reason for wiretapping conversations between himself and a prisoner who does not have the same expectation of privacy as a free citizen, and who is also a follower of the same primitive "War Manual" (AKA: The Qur'an)
I would be more worried if they were NOT bugging Muslim MPs!
Apart from that, why should MPs be exempt from being bugged anyway? Nobody else is!
Two words " tough shit "
Bug the buggers.
Until they return to Bugville, AKA Mecca.