RSS Feed MenuIt was at University College, London, that the underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was radicalized. Abdulmutallab served as the president of the Muslim students society at the school. Abdulmutallab is the fourth president of the school’s Islamic students society to be arrested on terrorism charges in three years. Of those other three, two have been convicted, one is awaiting retrial.
Obviously, the school has a problem with extremism among its Islamic students. How is it dealing with that problem? By cutting off all cooperation with British police except when required by law to do so!
James Hodgson, UCLU Student Activities Officer, admitted that “mistakes were made” when mobile phone numbers and email addresses of Islamic Society and Medical Islamic Society members were released to Anti-Terror Police, without a legal requirement to do so.
The data was released in connection with the alleged bomb attack on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was president of UCL’s ISoc between 2006-7. Hogdson apologised at UCL’s EGM on Tuesday 9th March, adding; “It is now not a UCLU policy to release data, unless it is legally binding to do so.” The Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS) has been applying pressure on UCL for some time to determine who passed on unwarranted personal information.
Zin Derfoufi, of FOSIS, said; “Universities should be safe for all students without feeling they’ll have their privacy infringed. They’ve got to uphold their obligations, and not release unwarranted information without consulting the students themselves.”
FOSIS are expected to release a document next week which advises students and universities on the Data Protection Act, and will clarify exactly when institutions are legally required to hand over personal information to the police.
Independent // Mar 15, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Sounds a lot like the farLeft’s sanctuary movement in San Francisco and other major Democrat Party strongholds in America. What is it with an anti-police, anti-military, anti-law bias on the Left?
DavidF, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if our farLeft trolls here at FF accuse you of some twist to the ol’ liberal boogeyman: guilt by association. Just because some of the other presidents of the Islamic society have been convicted doesn’t mean you have the right to include Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a bad apple. After all, our own President Obama said we should use “alleged” before the word terrorist… unless the ACLU approves otherwise and the newly hired DOJ al Qaeda lawyers give consent.
jerseyboy // Mar 15, 2010 at 4:04 pm
The British have lost their freakin’ minds! Britian (and Europe) seems to have passed the tipping point and can no longer engage in even the most sensible, prudent self-defense measures.
Independent // Mar 15, 2010 at 4:54 pm
The liberals in England, when allowing the liberal monarchy to led them into oblivion, have never been quite good at stopping terrorim, you know?
Like in July 82 when I was there, alleged IRA bombs went off in Regent’s and Hyde parks; it killed a slew of brit soldiers. On Boxing Day the following year, another bomb –allegedly IRA– went off near Marks & Spencer grocer and did a ton of damage and wonded a few. BTW, that one proved to be one of the earliest Islamic terrorist bombings and was set by Col Oliver North’s archnemesis, abu Nidal. That winter, Harrod’s was bombed at Christmas holiday and another bunch of folks & police died. In sept 2000, the IRA splinter group took a shoulder launched missle and slammed it into the MI-6 hdqtrs; the cheeky bastards. In 2005, London had a couple of bombings in July and in 2007, 1-2 attempts with massive car/truck bombs –which, if they had been successful, would have killed hundreds. England is lucky their enemies are idiots and poor planners; America didn’t get that break on 9-11.
Sparking results // Mar 16, 2010 at 5:10 am
Er…
“Abdulmutallab is the fourth president of the school’s Islamic students society to be arrested on terrorism charges in three years.”
That’s bollocks. He’s perhaps the fourth president of a British university student union Islamic society to be arrested, but the first from UCL.
As for being legally required to do so, he handed over the data without the legal authorisation to do so. But I suppose that Americans aren’t as fussed as us Britishers about the due process of law.
Independent // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:20 am
Spanking results: “But I suppose that Americans aren’t as fussed as us Britishers about the due process of law.”
Ummm, get a book & read it. Something on the history of the colonial revolution in the Americas. Check out the very first time Americans tried to rebel against the English’s sense of due process: the phrase to look for, my English untutored friend, is “taxation without representation”.
Then we can discuss intelligently the English’s sense of due process of law –which, I fear, is still evolving and falls far short of America’s emphasis on due process of law.
sinz54 // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:34 am
Sparking results: I suppose that Americans aren’t as fussed as us Britishers about the due process of law.
This American is.
I do NOT believe that we have to sacrifice our right of privacy in order to win the War on Terror–or any other war.
There must be a legal due process in Britain by which the police can obtain private information on suspected individuals. There is one in America.
Unlike some other right-wingers, I am a conservative who really does believe in limited government. And that includes limits on the ability to spy on its citizens in the name of national security.
In America, Alan Dershowitz drew a clear line between our right of privacy (which both he and I believe must be preserved), versus some kind of right to remain anonymous (which both he and I believe was never guaranteed by our Bill of Rights and cannot be maintained in wartime).
What that would mean in this case, is that who attends a public university is a matter of public record, and the authorities should have access to that information. But what those students do with their personal time is not something the authorities should be able to get without due process.
jerseyboy // Mar 16, 2010 at 10:10 am
What “right” is being violated when mobile phone numbers and email addresses are provided to the police? Does an individual have a “right” to hide his contact information from police? Stop being absurd!
LFC // Mar 16, 2010 at 11:37 am
Does an individual have a “right” to hide his contact information from police?
If they are not under suspicion, the yes. If they are under suspicion, then a court order is as easy to get as picking up a phone.
I don’t get the right-wing obsession with allowing law enforcement to circumvent the standard safeguards put in to place to prevent abuse. I have a nephew now in his second branch of law enforcement. If you’ve got anything approaching reasonable suspicion, getting contact information, full background information, phone records, a wiretap order, etc. is easy. If you’ve got nothing, you get nothing. Does that really sound unrealistic to some of you people?
sinz54 // Mar 17, 2010 at 11:01 am
LFC: If you’ve got anything approaching reasonable suspicion, getting contact information, full background information, phone records, a wiretap order, etc. is easy. If you’ve got nothing, you get nothing. Does that really sound unrealistic to some of you people?
Isn’t that on an individual basis?
In the case discussed here,
you have radical Islamist groups where they routinely meet to talk about jihad and the bright future Islam will have after it subverts and takes over Western governments.
Such a group is clearly subversive, especially in a time of war when NATO is fighting just such jihadists. But they may not yet have committed any crimes.
Would a court approve getting the phone records and email addresses of all these people in such a radical group, even if all they have done so far is just talk about radicalism?
The problem is that there isn’t enough evidence yet to charge anyone with conspiracy. But as we’ve seen before with the Communist parties, and the German-American Bund, a group that masquerades as legitimate protest often conceals a few truly dangerous characters. And it was hard to deal with that, because these groups would start howling that they were being persecuted.
LFC // Mar 17, 2010 at 2:57 pm
In the case discussed here, you have radical Islamist groups where they routinely meet to talk about jihad and the bright future Islam will have after it subverts and takes over Western governments.
Actually, permission is obtained on a regular basis to investigate groups. And it’s done on suspicion and evidence of potential future crime, not on crimes already committed.
What we do get in to is a sticky point about “talking”. I’ve seen multiple Tea Party quotes about the need to get rid of the current government. Glenn Beck has made the same type of statements. Does this mean they are subversive and should be investigated? What about Michelle Bachman? She’s a lawmaker who has openly said people don’t have to abide by the current healthcare bill if it becomes law. Should a lawmaker advocating that citizens disobey the law be investigated?
I’m all for keeping an eye on people when appropriate evidence of suspicious activity has been brought forth. They’ve done it to the Klan, to the Mafia, and to ELF, and all appropriately. If they have evidence, the legal hurdle to obtaining contact information is not a high one.