Bugging of terror suspects or even prisoners who are convicted of crimes should be common place rather than a cause for outrage. These people meet and plot in secret, they hide behind laws and rules which are designed to safeguard the public and not the minority that choose to live a life that is against society. I'm all for it and while that may leave the power open for abuse it would lead to a higher conviction rate and is a much prefered way of gathering intelligence over some of the methods that other governments gather information from terror suspects.

Simon, Singapore,

You can bet your life this MP has not visited any other constituents held in prison, yet he chooses to visit one held on terrorist charges. Good one to the security forces, keep up the good work.

Keith, Portsmouth, England

So far we havent heard what was said. That could be revealing. Then maybe 2 deportations?

Mike, Sydney,

I agree with Alice Adams. If there is suspicion of crime, then the police should investigate it, regardless of who the supposed perpretators are and who they are talking to. Members of Parliament are the representatives of the people within our state. Their role is to protect the state through the proper organs of state . That does not mean they are above those organs of state.

John, Kenilworth,

So politicians are happy to create a Surveillance Society but less happy to live in one.

Hmmm.

One law for them and another for us yet again...

Mike Carter, Bristol, UK

It seems like that the modern day MP wants to be exempt from most things these days - freedom of information act - Bugging - and having to justify there expenses , I think that they should remember that we the tax payers pay there wages.

Mick, Norwich, england

Why is the extradition of Babar Ahmad so controversial that it has been going on since 2003 and his friend, the MP for Tooting is supporting him.

If the USA authorities have sufficient evidence to charge Ahmad he should be handed over immedietely - we are supposed to be fighting terrorism - British soldiers are being killed!

or

They have little or no evidence (or may use torture to obtain evidence) in which case he should be released.

Justice delayed is no justice at all.

IF - IF Ahmad is found guilty of terrorist offences is Sadiq Khan then guilty of supporting terrorism??

R Bingham, Lauzun, France

The key issue could, yet again, be forgotten. It is irrelevant if this MP is muslim, christian, male, female, gay or straight etc. Instead it might be better to focus on whether this act is (1) legal (2) in the demonstrable public/security interest. It seems some what strange that MP have a 'convention' of not allowing appropriate surveillance. Again these two points should apply otherwise it becomes one rule for us and one for them. In this case, too, perhaps the conservatives would be better to focus on policy and their values rather than scoring political points.

James Stanworth, Tainan, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Given that last year Parliament passed a law to allow over 700 public bodies to access our telephone records, from the security services (understandable) right down to the Food Standards Agency (disgraceful), whilst conveniently making themselves immune from this law, can we really feel outraged that an MP is bugged whilst talking to a man suspected of links to terrorism?

Why should MPs be protected by convention whilst the rest of us are subject to such obscene intrusion via legislation? Especially in light of recent cases of plain, old-fashioned political corruption on the part of our elected representatives. In my view, if anyone needs to be bugged its 'them' and not 'us'.

Bravo to the spooks for putting public safety before a Parliamentary privilege.

Anon, London,

When spy agencies suspect that a person is a terrorist, spy agencies should have the right to bug that person, through the use of listening devices, even though the person is talking to an M.P or Prime Minister and even in their private lives. In the interests of national security, spy agencies should be given the powers to bug M.P's, including Prime Ministers. M.P's including Prime Ministers and Presidents are not immune to trading information of a national security nature with other leaders from different countries who may themselves be spies of that country. Isn't it the role of a spy to build up friendships with people to get information? M.P's and Prime Ministers can and do behave corruptly. The Profumo Affair, where Christine Keeler had an affair with the Minister for War, John Profumo, while also having an affair with russian naval attache Eugene Ivanov is an example. JFK's sexual affair with a russian spy is a further example.

HELEN, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA

If this guy is meeting those suspected of terrorist offenses and those suspects are being bugged, it is entirely reasonable to expect that 5 won't switch off the tape recorders just because an MP has walked into the room. This is an issue of national security. He is a Muslim after-all and all Muslims are suspect because as we know, there is a very strong correlation between a particular cult of bronze-age superstition, suicide and death (Islam) and suicide bombings, both in this country and abroad.

Christopher Mitcins, London, UK

Get real! We are fighting Al-Qaeda the world's most insidious, ruthless and bonkers terrorist organisation. Leave the Wilson Doctrine back in the 1960's where it belongs.

A great number of MPs as we all know are scumbags. Just look at the number of them that have been involved in allegations of misdeads ... If Mr. Khan has nothing to hide then he has no worries! If Mr. Amed has done wrong then the full force of the world's justice must come down upon him.

How predictable that Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, described the allegations as “simply appalling” ! Can anyone spot any similarities between The Muslim Council of Great Britain and Muslim Fundamentalism AND Sinn Fein and the IRA??

Todd, Lancs,

If there is reason to believe that bugging an MP will produce information important to national security or prevent a crime, then the police should go ahead.

The thing that is wrong here is the notion that MPs should be exempt from the rules governing all other citizens. This is yet another example of MPs creating one rule for themselves and another for everyone else, along with employing family members and refusing to reveal or substantiate their expenses claims.

Alice Adams, London, UK

I'm puzzled. You keep printing "the Wilson Doctrine" - and mentioning it was repeated by Blair and Brown - so what?

Even if Harold Wilson did promote himself to president 30 years ago - well ahead of President Blair - why does anyone care? Self appointed 'presidents' do not (yet) have the power to make laws without submitting them to Parliament.

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU

When this government tramples over the rights of ordinary people who have done nothing wrong, they shrug their shoulders and talk of difficult choices - missing the point completely, that those choices are about protecting the freedoms that these fascists hate, not destroying them.

Yet when one of their own is simply listented to - yes listened to, not swabbed for the DNA database, arrested for walking past parliament, questioned by MI6 for blowing the whistle on government corruption and shot in the head for looking a bit brown-skinned - there are emergency statements to parliament and immediate political consensus.

The breathtaking arrogance and complete lack of insight from these people is reaching crisis point and I fear for our democracy, though in a different way to the backbench mediocrities rolled out across the media today to wring their hands.

These people are not representative of the people and that's how revolutions happen. Beware the democratic deficit Gordon

Andrew, london,

One is a suspected terrorist, the other an MP. Sounds entirely rational to bug them to me, if only to make sure they weren't colluding over explaining"expenses" claims! I put £5 on Ahmad "working" as a "researcher" in the House of Commons.

Perhaps a wake up call for this Labour MP - you reap what you sow. Perhaps if this Labour Government had spent more time worried about our (i.e. the ordinary people's) privacy we might have sympathy, but at the end of the day you were on government property engaged in government business with a suspected terrorist so as far as I am concerned the security services can bug anyone they like in those circumstances. MP's think they are above the rest of us, but as we have seen they are barely above the criminal fraternity in many cases.

Tony, London,

MPs need to get a reality check.

It is they who have given more and more powers of surveillance to the state and they surely must have understood that those powers will be fully used and, eventually, used in ways that were never anticipated, e.g. local authorities / fly tipping.

One wonders to what extent the surveillance files being built up in the UK are now starting to look every bit as invasive as those kept by the Stasi.

Are we losing our sense of perspective and our liberty through a lack of vigilance?

MarkS, Leeds,

If only MPs were as concerned about our civil liberties as they are about their own.

Sean, Surrey, UK

Don't the police need Home Office authorisation to do things like this? I can't imagine they acted without "higher authority"...

Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, England

Why on earth is it taking so long to reach a decision about this extradition? If the guy is innocent then he is being disgustingly deprived of his liberty. If he is guilty, the course of justice is being disgustingly delayed.

Both disgusting delays are, of course, at the taxpayer's expense. And who profits - why, the disgustingly greedy legal profession, of course.

British "Justice" does not exist anymore. The blindfold on the statue on top of the Old Bailey serves only to hide from her view the self-serving, and profitable antics, of the judges and lawyers dancing on the pans of her scales.

It is, well, disgusting.

Bill, Suzhou, China

Sadiq is going to be one of two things;

1. Very angry

or-

2. Very apprehensive.

Jez W, Leeds,

I do not agree with the surveillance state, but why should MP's be above the vile laws they themselves have happily foisted on the rest of us? Perhaps to be made accountable to the draconian laws the rest of us live under may give them pause for thought.

John Hartley, redhill, England

The Wilson Doctrine has reached it's sell by date.

MPs might have thought twice before giving hundreds of groups including councils, fire brigade etc. the right to intercept our post, calls and email, if it would also apply to them.

Mo, London,