New York police monitored Muslim students at Rutgers University, other colleges

[Ban Hammer 13,427]

two posts removed for tos violation:

Post Content intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a broad demographic or group of people identified by a unifying trait or characteristic (discrimination). For instance, racist or sexist content may be considered hate speech.

posts negatively stereotyping muslims will not be tolerated.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Now you really are embarrassing yourself, puerile name-calling? Bravo! Now that's the way to win an untenable argument.

Please scan nod post for all of us to see your mysterious alleged version of the Constitution which prohibits monitoring of public websites and disallows undercover police investigations, and documenting the same. I won't hold my breath since such a version does not exist.

The original attack was indeed idiotic and was yours not mine since your spouting the nonsense not I. Your attack post speaks for itself and I am glad Charles didn't delete it.

Edited February 22, 2012 by ready4ONE

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Oh Dear, so nice to hear from the great Constitutional scholar. Try to remember what country this is,not the Philippines, not Myanmar not Russia, this is The United States of America. There seems to be some difficulty or deficit that prevents you from understanding this very basic concept of the Bill of Rights and Freedoms To continue to explain this to a braying donkey who endlessly repeats a mantra does no one any good and since literacy and comprehension seems to be an intellectual morass that you are unable to ford, I will return you to your normal state of willful blindness. If ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic. Good day!!!!

My link

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

No such violations were alleged in the OP but carry on with the ranting personal attack. Good comedy is such a wonderful thing!

[MyLittlePony 340]

Muslims are people too so stop judging a book by its cover.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

No such violations were alleged in the OP but carry on with the ranting personal attack. Good comedy is such a wonderful thing!

You make me laugh every single time you post, I should be thanking you for bringing a smile to my day.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Please scan nod post for all of us to see your mysterious alleged version of the Constitution which prohibits monitoring of public websites and disallows undercover police investigations, and documenting the same. I won't hold my breath since such a version does not exist.

The original attack was indeed idiotic and was yours not mine since your spouting the nonsense not I. Your attack post speaks for itself and I am glad Charles didn't delete it.

You keep digging yourself a hole and can't see it. You have made another logical fallacy, you try to morph the lack of a legal warrant by foisting a discussion of public websites, this is not about that, Go back and re-read what it is about, a lack of probable cause, no warrants of any sort and no legal basis to follow around Muslim students. That is the crux of the story but haterz gotta hate so go on, express your rampant and vile dislike for Muslims.

U.S. Supreme Court

LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 206 (1966)

385 U.S. 206

LEWIS v. UNITED STATES.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT.

No. 36.

Argued October 17, 1966.

Decided December 12, 1966.

An undercover federal narcotics agent, by misrepresenting his identity on the telephone, was twice invited to the home of petitioner for the purpose of executing unlawful narcotics transactions. Petitioner was thereafter indicted and convicted under 26 U.S.C. 4742 (a). Rejecting petitioner's motion to suppress the purchased narcotics as illegally seized without a warrant, the trial court found petitioner guilty and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: The facts of this case present no violation of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 208-212.

(a) The Government's use of decoys and undercover agents is not per se unlawful. Pp. 208-209.

(b) The petitioner invited the agent to his home for the very purpose of illegally selling him narcotics. Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298 (1921), distinguished. Pp. 209-210.

© When the home is opened as a place of illegal business to which outsiders are invited for commercial purposes, the Fourth Amendment is not violated when a government agent enters pursuant to an invitation and then neither sees, hears nor takes anything either unrelated to the business purpose of his visit or not contemplated by the occupant. P. 211.

352 F.2d 799, affirmed.

S. Myron Klarfeld argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Ralph S. Spritzer argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Nathan Lewin, Beatrice Rosenberg and Sidney M. Glazer.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question for resolution here is whether the Fourth Amendment was violated when a federal narcotics agent, [385 U.S. 206, 207] by misrepresenting his identity and stating his willingness to purchase narcotics, was invited into petitioner's home where an unlawful narcotics transaction was consummated and the narcotics were thereafter introduced at petitioner's criminal trial over his objection. We hold that under the facts of this case it was not. Those facts are not disputed and may be briefly stated as follows:

On December 3, 1964, Edward Cass, an undercover federal narcotics agent, telephoned petitioner's home to inquire about the possibility of purchasing marihuana. Cass, who previously had not met or dealt with petitioner, falsely identified himself as one "Jimmy the Pollack [sic]" and stated that a mutual friend had told him petitioner might be able to supply marihuana. In response, petitioner said, "Yes. I believe, Jimmy, I can take care of you," and then directed Cass to his home where, it was indicated, a sale of marihuana would occur. Cass drove to petitioner's home, knocked on the door, identified himself as "Jim," and was admitted. After discussing the possibility of regular future dealings at a discounted price, petitioner led Cass to a package located on the front porch of his home. Cass gave petitioner $50, took the package, and left the premises. The package contained five bags of marihuana. 1 On December 17, 1964, a similar transaction took place, beginning with a phone conversation in which Cass identified himself as "Jimmy the Pollack" and ending with an invited visit by Cass to petitioner's home where a second sale of marihuana occurred. Once again, Cass paid petitioner [385 U.S. 206, 208] $50, but this time he received in return a package containing six bags of marihuana. 2

Petitioner was arrested on April 27, 1965, and charged by a two-count indictment with violations of the narcotics laws relating to transfers of marihuana. 26 U.S.C. 4742 (a). A pretrial motion to suppress as evidence the marihuana and the conversations between petitioner and the agent was denied, and they were introduced at the trial. The District Court, sitting without a jury, convicted petitioner on both counts and imposed concurrent five-year penitentiary sentences. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed, 352 F.2d 799, and we granted certiorari, 382 U.S. 1024 .

Petitioner does not argue that he was entrapped, as he could not on the facts of this case; 3 nor does he contend that a search of his home was made or that anything other than the purchased narcotics was taken away. His only contentions are that, in the absence of a warrant, any official intrusion upon the privacy of a home constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation and that the fact the suspect invited the intrusion cannot be held a waiver when the invitation was induced by fraud and deception.

Both petitioner and the Government recognize the necessity for some undercover police activity and both concede that the particular circumstances of each case govern the admissibility of evidence obtained by stratagem or deception. 4 Indeed, it has long been acknowledged [385 U.S. 206, 209] by the decisions of this Court, see Grimm v. United States, 156 U.S. 604, 610 (1895), and Andrews v. United States, 162 U.S. 420, 423 (1896), 5 that, in the detection of many types of crime, the Government is entitled to use decoys and to conceal the identity of its agents. The various protections of the Bill of Rights, of course, provide checks upon such official deception for the protection of the individual. See, e. g., Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964); Trupiano v. United States, 334 U.S. 699 (1948).

Petitioner argues that the Government overstepped the constitutional bounds in this case and places principal reliance on Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298 (1921). But a short statement of that case will demonstrate how misplaced his reliance is. There, a business acquaintance of the petitioner, acting under orders of federal officers, obtained entry into the petitioner's office by falsely representing that he intended only to pay a social visit. In the petitioner's absence, however, the [385 U.S. 206, 210] intruder secretly ransacked the office and seized certain private papers of an incriminating nature. This Court had no difficulty concluding that the Fourth Amendment had been violated by the secret and general ransacking, notwithstanding that the initial intrusion was occasioned by a fraudulently obtained invitation rather than by force or stealth.

In the instant case, on the other hand, the petitioner invited the undercover agent to his home for the specific purpose of executing a felonious sale of narcotics. Petitioner's only concern was whether the agent was a willing purchaser who could pay the agreed price. Indeed, in order to convince the agent that his patronage at petitioner's home was desired, petitioner told him that, if he became a regular customer there, he would in the future receive an extra bag of marihuana at no additional cost; and in fact petitioner did hand over an extra bag at a second sale which was consummated at the same place and in precisely the same manner. During neither of his visits to petitioner's home did the agent see, hear, or take anything that was not contemplated, and in fact intended, by petitioner as a necessary part of his illegal business. Were we to hold the deceptions of the agent in this case constitutionally prohibited, we would come near to a rule that the use of undercover agents in any manner is virtually unconstitutional per se. Such a rule would, for example, severely hamper the Government in ferreting out those organized criminal activities that are characterized by covert dealings with victims who either cannot or do not protest. 6 A prime example is provided by the narcotics traffic. [385 U.S. 206, 211]

The fact that the undercover agent entered petitioner's home does not compel a different conclusion. Without question, the home is accorded the full range of Fourth Amendment protections. See Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313 (1921); Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 151 , n. 15 (1947). But when, as here, the home is converted into a commercial center to which outsiders are invited for purposes of transacting unlawful business, that business is entitled to no greater sanctity than if it were carried on in a store, a garage, a car, or on the street. A government agent, in the same manner as a private person, may accept an invitation to do business and may enter upon the premises for the very purposes contemplated by the occupant. Of course, this does not mean that, whenever entry is obtained by invitation and the locus is characterized as a place of business, an agent is authorized to conduct a general search for incriminating materials; a citation to the Gouled case, supra, is sufficient to dispose of that contention.

Finally, petitioner also relies on Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (1960); Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960); McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451 (1948); and Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948). But those cases all dealt with the exclusion of evidence that had been forcibly seized against the suspects' desires and without the authorization conferred by search warrants. A reading of them will readily demonstrate that they are inapposite to the facts of this case; [385 U.S. 206, 212] and, in this area, each case must be judged on its own particular facts. Nor is Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961), in point; for there, the conduct proscribed was that of eavesdroppers, unknown and unwanted intruders who furtively listened to conversations occurring in the privacy of a house. The instant case involves no such problem; it has been well summarized by the Government at the conclusion of its brief as follows:

"In short, this case involves the exercise of no governmental power to intrude upon protected premises; the visitor was invited and willingly admitted by the suspect. It concerns no design on the part of a government agent to observe or hear what was happening in the privacy of a home; the suspect chose the location where the transaction took place. It presents no question of the invasion of the privacy of a dwelling; the only statements repeated were those that were willingly made to the agent and the only things taken were the packets of marihuana voluntarily transferred to him. The pretense resulted in no breach of privacy; it merely encouraged the suspect to say things which he was willing and anxious to say to anyone who would be interested in purchasing marihuana."

Further elaboration is not necessary. The judgment is

Affirmed.

[For opinion of DOUGLAS, J., dissenting, see post, p. 340.]

Footnotes

[ Footnote 1 ] In the illegal narcotics trade, an average "bag" of marihuana contains approximately five grams of marihuana. The five bags transferred to the agent by petitioner, however, contained a quantity of marihuana measuring 31.16 grams.

[ Footnote 2 ] The six bags transferred in this second transaction contained 40.34 grams of marihuana.

[ Footnote 3 ] Compare Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 (1958), and Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932). See generally Mikell, The Doctrine of Entrapment in the Federal Courts, 90 U. Pa. L. Rev. 245 (1942).

[ Footnote 4 ] In oral argument before this Court, counsel for petitioner conceded that information obtained by the agent in the course of his [385 U.S. 206, 209] general undercover investigation, together with the subject matter of the first telephone conversation between the agent and petitioner, provided probable cause for believing that a narcotics offense would be committed in petitioner's home and, therefore, would have supported the issuance of a search warrant. According to counsel, the agent's misrepresentations would not have vitiated a magistrate's determination of probable cause. Counsel further suggested that, if the agent had arrested petitioner at the latter's home and then had conducted a search incidental to the arrest, no constitutional problems would be presented.

[ Footnote 5 ] Former Chief Justice Hughes commented as follows upon the use of official deception in combating criminal activity:

"Artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises. . . . The appropriate object of this permitted activity, frequently essential to the enforcement of the law, is to reveal the criminal design; to expose the illicit traffic, the prohibited publication, the fraudulent use of the mails, the illegal conspiracy, or other offenses, and thus to disclose the would-be violators of the law." Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 441 -442 (1932).

[ Footnote 6 ] "Particularly, in the enforcement of vice, liquor or narcotics laws, it is all but impossible to obtain evidence for prosecution save by the use of decoys. There are rarely complaining witnesses. The participants in the crime enjoy themselves. Misrepresentation by a police officer or agent concerning the identity of the purchaser of [385 U.S. 206, 211] illegal narcotics is a practical necessity. . . . Therefore, the law must attempt to distinguish between those deceits and persuasions which are permissible and those which are not." Model Penal Code 2.10, comment, p. 16 (Tent. Draft No. 9, 1959).

See also Donnelly, Judicial Control of Informants, Spies, Stool Pigeons and Agent Provocateurs, 60 Yale L. J. 1091, 1094 (1951); Note, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1333, 1338-1339 (1960).

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE FORTAS joins, concurring.

While I concur in the Court's judgment, I vote to affirm solely on the reasoning on which the Court ultimately [385 U.S. 206, 213] relies, namely that petitioner's apartment was not an area protected by the Fourth Amendment as related to the transactions in the present case.

The Fourth Amendment protects against governmental intrusion upon "the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 . However, the occupant can break the seal of sanctity and waive his right to privacy in the premises. Plainly he does this to the extent that he opens his home to the transaction of business and invites anyone willing to enter to come in to trade with him. When his customer turns out to be a government agent, the seller cannot, then, complain that his privacy has been invaded so long as the agent does no more than buy his wares. Thus the corner grocery with the living quarters in the rear would not be protected with respect to the area set aside for the purchase of groceries, although the living quarters to which shoppers are not privy retain the constitutional immunity. Cf. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 .

The petitioner in this case opened his apartment for the conduct of a business, the sale of narcotics; the agent, in the same manner as any private person, entered the premises for the very purpose contemplated by the occupant and took nothing away except what would be taken away by any willing purchaser. There was therefore no intrusion upon the "sanctity" of petitioner's home or the "privacies of life." [385 U.S. 206, 214]

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Never mind.

Edited February 22, 2012 by wife_of_mahmoud

[luckytxn 2,264]

Testing, testing, 1...2...3...

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Where was there an intrusion on a home in the OP? Oh that's right, there wasn't, but keep impressing us all with an argument over an issue not in the OP 5.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

But since you brought it up let's look at a fresher Supreme Court ruling on undercover sting operations which happens to also be FAR more relevant to the OP shall we?

Supreme Court decides conspiracy case with terrorism implications

SUPREME COURT

January 21, 2003|William Mears CNN

In a victory for prosecutors around the country, the Supreme Court Tuesday upheld broad government power against suspects in conspiracy cases, a ruling with potential implications in the fight against international terrorism.

The Court ruled 8-1 that the government can charge suspects with conspiracy in undercover sting operations, even when the alleged crime has been discovered and prevented from occurring.

The case involves two men arrested and charged with a drug trafficking conspiracy after a 1997 sting operation. Nevada law enforcement had discovered a truck loaded with $10 million-$12 million worth of cocaine and marijuana. With the help of a passenger, police set up a sting operation and allowed the truck's voyage to continue.

The two suspects, Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza, were arrested after they showed up to retrieve the truck in Idaho and had driven it away. They were convicted in federal court with drug possession and conspiracy to distribute, and given ten-year prison terms.

A federal appeals court cleared the men, ruling there was insufficient evidence they were involved in a conspiracy prior to the drug seizure. The court decided the men would likely not have been involved in a conspiracy had they not been lured into it, and said the government did not prove any other involvement in a conspiracy.

But in its ruling, the Supreme Court justices disagreed. "A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government has defeated its object," said the opinion. Citing precedent in an earlier Court ruling, the justices said, "The agreement to commit an unlawful act is a 'distinct evil,' which 'may exist and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues.'"

Because of its broad interpretation, conspiracy is popular charge for prosecutors to file when building a criminal case. In arguments before the Court in November, justices sought clarification on just when the alleged "conspiracy" in this case was discovered by police, and who among the suspects could subsequently be charged under that conspiracy.

The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to quickly take on the case, saying it has implications for the government's war on terror. Attorney General Ashcroft has said the FBI has retooled its mission to terror and crime prevention, and that it needed all the legal and investigative tools necessary to meet that goal, including the use of sting and undercover operations.

"Similar legitimate law enforcement tactics are crucial in violent crime, terrorism and other contexts," said Solicitor General Ted Olson.

The case is U.S. v. Recio, No. 01-1184.

Source: http://articles.cnn.com/2003-01-21/justice/scotus.conspiracy_1_conspiracy-case-sting-operation-court-ruling?_s=PM:LAW

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Where was there an intrusion on a home in the OP? Oh that's right, there wasn't, but keep impressing us all with an argument over an issue not in the OP 5.

You do not need to be in your house, for the Constitution to apply. Wiretaps are not done in the home but you still need a warrant.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

But since you brought it up let's look at a fresher Supreme Court ruling on undercover sting operations which happens to also be FAR more relevant to the OP shall we?

Supreme Court decides conspiracy case with terrorism implications

SUPREME COURT

January 21, 2003|William Mears CNN

In a victory for prosecutors around the country, the Supreme Court Tuesday upheld broad government power against suspects in conspiracy cases, a ruling with potential implications in the fight against international terrorism.

The Court ruled 8-1 that the government can charge suspects with conspiracy in undercover sting operations, even when the alleged crime has been discovered and prevented from occurring.

The case involves two men arrested and charged with a drug trafficking conspiracy after a 1997 sting operation. Nevada law enforcement had discovered a truck loaded with $10 million-$12 million worth of cocaine and marijuana. With the help of a passenger, police set up a sting operation and allowed the truck's voyage to continue.

The two suspects, Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza, were arrested after they showed up to retrieve the truck in Idaho and had driven it away. They were convicted in federal court with drug possession and conspiracy to distribute, and given ten-year prison terms.

A federal appeals court cleared the men, ruling there was insufficient evidence they were involved in a conspiracy prior to the drug seizure. The court decided the men would likely not have been involved in a conspiracy had they not been lured into it, and said the government did not prove any other involvement in a conspiracy.

But in its ruling, the Supreme Court justices disagreed. "A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government has defeated its object," said the opinion. Citing precedent in an earlier Court ruling, the justices said, "The agreement to commit an unlawful act is a 'distinct evil,' which 'may exist and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues.'"

Because of its broad interpretation, conspiracy is popular charge for prosecutors to file when building a criminal case. In arguments before the Court in November, justices sought clarification on just when the alleged "conspiracy" in this case was discovered by police, and who among the suspects could subsequently be charged under that conspiracy.

The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to quickly take on the case, saying it has implications for the government's war on terror. Attorney General Ashcroft has said the FBI has retooled its mission to terror and crime prevention, and that it needed all the legal and investigative tools necessary to meet that goal, including the use of sting and undercover operations.

"Similar legitimate law enforcement tactics are crucial in violent crime, terrorism and other contexts," said Solicitor General Ted Olson.

The case is U.S. v. Recio, No. 01-1184.

Source: http://articles.cnn....uling?_s=PM:LAW

Yes, but the NYPD exceeded their powers by having no probable cause nor did they obtain a search warrant. They followed around INNOCENT students mining information on the basis of religion; they were Muslims and that justified it in what way? What distinguishes this case is the stretch from a drug case which is the same as what I posted to foisting that same argument on this fiasco. No one is doubting drug stings. This is different. This is people, USCs, who were guilty of nothing, they were being spied on. The NYPD overstepped their authority, they completely ignored the 4th Amendment. No search warrant, if they had probable case the Court would have given them a search warrant in a heartbeat. They know it, a vague suspicion just won't do. Evidence is needed and without it a Court will not issue a warrant.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

You do not need to be in your house, for the Constitution to apply. Wiretaps are not done in the home but you still need a warrant.

Did the OP indicate any use of wiretapping without a warrant? Oops! No again!

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Yes, but the NYPD exceeded their powers by having no probable cause nor did they obtain a search warrant. They followed around INNOCENT students mining information on the basis of religion; they were Muslims and that justified it in what way? What distinguishes this case is the stretch from a drug case which is the same as what I posted to foisting that same argument on this fiasco. No one is doubting drug stings. This is different. This is people, USCs, who were guilty of nothing, they were being spied on. The NYPD overstepped their authority, they completely ignored the 4th Amendment. No search warrant, if they had probable case the Court would have given them a search warrant in a heartbeat. They know it, a vague suspicion just won't do. Evidence is needed and without it a Court will not issue a warrant.

They weren't searching beyond public domain, at least the way I read the article. I have asked you to point out exactly what in the article you felt was a direct violation of the Constitution and really you just seem to have an emotional aversion to what happened, not really a firm 'this was what I meant.'

The 911 hijacker's were foreign students with student visa's. Surely it is not beyond your powers of comprehension to understand a few students in the surveillance operations in the OP might also fit that profile? The OP also noted something like 13 persons to date have been both members of Muslim Student Associations and been arrested on terrorism related charges?

You also might be confusing when exactly police need a search warrant. From the OP I don't think many of the instances of investigation required search warrants which are generally obtained after police develop probable cause, the surveillance operations are used to develop said probable cause. Most searches in fact take place without any search warrant at all, and most survive challenge in court after the fact if the issue of the legality of a search is brought up by a defendant.

So I guess from your two last posts you might be backing down from your allegation I have no clue what I am talking about?

Now it could reasonably be your opinion this operation by NYPD was a stupid waste of time, perhaps even an issue of profiling based on religion, but that would be an opinion on the merits of the operation. Certainly reasonably debatable. I think there was some basis for the investigation, although I could agree in the end it turned out to be pretty much a waste of time and resources.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8478975/University-campuses-are-hotbeds-of-Islamic-extremism.html

University campuses are 'hotbeds of Islamic extremism'

Islamic fundamentalism is being allowed to flourish at universities, endangering national security, MPs and peers say.

By Duncan Gardham10:04PM BST 27 Apr 2011

Islamic fundamentalism is being allowed to flourish at universities, endangering national security, MPs and peers said yesterday.

Academics are turning a blind eye to radicals because they do not want to spy on students, a report claimed.

Despite "damning evidence" of a serious problem, little progress had been made in tackling the unsustainable situation, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Homeland Security said.

They urged the Government to tackle the issue on campuses with "utmost urgency".

Such extremism "endangers our security at home and has international implications that are serious enough to threaten our alliance relationships", said the group, which includes the former home secretary Lord Reid.

Secret files obtained by The Daily Telegraph and WikiLeaks disclosed this week that at least 35 terrorists held at Guantánamo Bay were indoctrinated by extremists in Britain.

The leaked documents, written by senior US military commanders, illustrated how Britain effectively became a crucible of terrorism over the course of two decades.

The parliamentary group was set up two years ago to carry out research into homeland security issues.

Its inaugural report comes after a separate inquiry by the umbrella organisation for universities earlier this year said animal rights extremists posed a greater problem than Islamist radicals.

Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, said it could do very little about extremism on campus. Instead it issued new guidance on the importance of freedom of speech. Their report followed the attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a former student at University College London, to blow himself up using a bomb in his underpants as a flight came in to land at Detroit on Christmas Day, 2009.

Abdulmutallab, an engineering student, was the Islamic Society president from 2006 to 2007.

The parliamentarians' report said Britain's homeland security strategy failed to address in sufficient detail how to tackle the threat of extremism at universities, how to strengthen businesses' ability to deal with a terrorist attack and how to ensure security over the internet.

The report said some universities and colleges had become sites where extremist religion and radicalism could flourish "beyond the sight of academics".

They also noted that there was a "reluctance to co-operate with the police on the part of some universities that did not want to be seen to be 'spying' on their students".

The MPs and peers said universities presented a "unique challenge". However, "in some cases [they] evidently struggle to establish the correct balance between academic freedoms and university authorities' responsibilities as part of ensuring homeland security."

In the report, entitled Keeping Britain Safe, the MPs and peers said the problem of universities as places of radicalisation required "urgent and sustained attention by the new Government".

Several witnesses had flagged up "serious problems" evident in universities and the issue was of "grave concern." The problems they cited included examples of extremist preachers being invited on to campuses.

Abdulmutallab was only one in a long line of university students to become involved in terrorism.

A recent survey found that 31 per cent of those convicted of terrorist-related offences had attended university and 10 per cent were still students when they were arrested. Two of the July 7 bombers had been students.

Think tanks have highlighted a succession of extremist speakers invited to deliver lectures unopposed at university Islamic societies, including UCL.

Westminster University recently elected students with links to the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir as president and vice-president of the student union.

The report also raised “significant concerns” over unregulated foreign funding of universities. It said that, in many cases, the funding had a political purpose and could have direct effects upon the institutional structure, curriculum, appointments and the schedule of events.

The London School of Economics was among the controversial recipients of foreign aid, accepting a donation of £1.5 million from a trust controlled by Col Muammar Gaddafi’s son, Saif.

The report quoted one witness, Prof Anthony Glees, of Buckingham University, who said Arab and other foreign governments had ploughed £240 million into Islamic studies courses at universities over the past 10 years.

The report said the role of businesses in preparing for emergencies such as terrorist attacks was “highly problematic”.

The Government’s new counter-terrorism strategy will aim to “prevent the import and dissemination of extremist written material and speech which promotes hatred” on campus, the report said.

“These are welcome initiatives which must be implemented forcefully,” the MPs added. “This complex subject requires further attention. It has been an obvious and neglected problem for too long and must be tackled as a matter of utmost urgency.”

The report also found that the processes behind the National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) were “deeply unsatisfactory”.

“Too much was done in too little time, consultations were not extensive enough and it presents a lost opportunity for a sophisticated debate about internal and external defence,” it said.

Bernard Jenkin, the group’s chairman, said: “The NSS and SDSR are not a satisfactory basis for the UK’s homeland security strategy for the next five years.”