The ruling is seen as a blow to emergency government legislation introduced in the wake of the attacks. The suspects were all held under the emergency powers put in place by Home Secretary David Blunkett.

The nine men took their case to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and persuaded it that their detention under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act was unlawful.

Committee chairman Mr Justice Collins said the Act was "unlawful" because it "allowed the detention of foreign nationals only, even though British citizens may have been equally involved with al Qaeda or other terrorist organisations".

Was the government's emergency anti-terrorism legislation wrong? What are the implications of this ruling?

I would not like to be held without charge. We should make laws which stand the test of time and uphold freedom, not respond to knee-jerk reactions. Every time such issues dominate the media, the government of the time has tried to force through harsher ways of controlling the population, such as ID cards. Each generation must ensure that they remain OUR servants and not the other way round. States have only been around for 150 years. People - and there struggle for happiness and freedom - have been around a lot longer. Vote, people.
Frazer, England

I'm appalled by this ruling. There is a huge amount of evidence showing that terror groups have bases and active connections in Britain yet our government seems powerless to do anything about any of this. Foreign nationals with appalling records of militant activity in other countries are allowed to live here with impunity and when our elected government attempts to clamp down on the situation, our unelected legal system, aided by unelected NGOs, uses the law to ride roughshod over any attempts to protect British citizens from these people in their midst.
NK, UK

The judges have made a terrible mistake

JM, England

It is all very well to talk about preserving our 'cherished freedoms' - but if we don't have the guts to protect those freedoms by removing potential terrorists from our midst, then they will amount to nothing. The judges have made a terrible mistake.
JM, England

The law that really needs to be abolished is the one that places EU meddling above our own democratically elected parliament.
Guy Hammond, England

It's high time people woke up and realised one thing. Criminals don't care about the law. They'll find ways of bypassing or ignoring it. The only people who really end up paying the price with their civil liberties and freedoms are innocents. Gradually everyday people have had their freedoms and liberties eroded by governments here and in the USA, and these "new measures" in reality can do nothing to stop a determined criminal anyway. Wake up to what your Government is doing!
J D, UK

Internment did not work in N.Ireland, it just multiplied the number of people with anger towards the state, hence created a recipe for further terrorism.
Chris Black, N.Ireland

We must not permit persons considered high risk to walk around Britain unobserved

Baz, UK

Everyone here is missing the point. This act was debated in both the Commons and the House of Lords, and was set up in such a way that any detainee was free to walk. Providing they are leaving the UK and returning to their country of origin, or any other country that will accept them. In fact two of the original 13 detainees have already exercised this right. We could not and must not permit persons considered high risk to walk around Britain unobserved.
Baz, UK

I think Baz has missed the point because the point is that if these people are criminals they should be charged and allowing criminals or terrorists to climb an airplane to go to their country or any country is a criminal act in itself. You either charge these people and put them away or you allow them to live freely with dignity. If they are terrorists you do not let terrorists leave to return so that they can start and kill innocent people maybe in the airplane they board!
Tamzin, France

All those who put the 'rights' of a small number of potential terrorists before the right of millions of innocent people to live their lives without fear of being murdered for some political cause need to think of the potential repercussions of this ruling.
Darren, England

Darren, England: We could all be potential suspects, therefore the rights aren't merely those of suspected terrorists, but of every UK citizen.
Mark Mackey, England

There is no point in removing freedoms in order to protect those same freedoms

Bob Harvey, Lincs, UK

Of course the law was wrong. Anything that allows indefinite detention is wrong. It all sounds so like the wretched "prevention of terrorism act" that it is close to the thin edge of the totalitarian wedge. There is no point in removing freedoms in order to protect those same freedoms!
Bob Harvey, Lincs, UK

I feel that this ruling like so many human rights rulings have given the criminals the right to do what they want. It makes me so angry that since September 11 all we have heard is the do-gooders going on about how badly the US and Britain is treating these terrorists. It's about time America stood up and countersued all the countries harbouring suspected terrorists.
Rob, England

Locking people up without evidence or trial makes our government no better than the Taleban

Richard, UK

If the intentions of the terrorists on September 11th were to destroy the 'free' West, then it looks like they are already succeeding. Locking people up without evidence or trial makes our government no better than the Taleban.
Richard, UK

I believe the judges made the right decision. The UK Government has time and again introduced draconian laws as a reaction to some event, gradually eroding our freedoms. If we continue to react to the 'terrorists' in this way then they are winning. One of their main goals is to destroy our way of life and our freedom and our governments (both here and in the US) are obliging them!
Lee H, UK

The making of law is a serious business and shouldn't be driven solely by the latest crisis or banner headline. We need better laws that protect citizens without imprisoning them in a stockade of hastily constructed laws.
John Brownlee, England

Measures such as those the government imposed are necessary

David, UK

The debate in the UK revolves around the rights of a few above those of the majority. But if we are to safeguard the rights of the many then measures such as those the government imposed are necessary.
David, UK

I have yet to see one single terrorist be stopped by strengthening the anti-terror laws. However I have seen numerous innocents detained unnecessarily. Highly trained terrorists will not have any problems in getting around any security measures.
Adam Taylor, UK

I know people were scared after September 11th but to take away a person's liberty without trial is wrong. I am ashamed that a country such as the UK could lock away people for months without trial or hard evidence just because they fit a profile. Set them free or charge them but do not imprison people for no reason.
Karen, UK

In short yes. I have been disgusted at the way this Government has repeatedly abused its powers (From PPP on the tube to detention without trial and right to appeal) and seen itself above both the law and democracy - not to mention common decency! And that's coming from a life-long supporter.
Joseph Denne, UK

Isn't the war on terrorism to promote freedom rather than destroy it?

Neil Slater, UK

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? It seems now that anyone can be locked up almost indefinitely without facing a trial. Isn't the war on terrorism to promote freedom rather than destroy it?
Neil Slater, UK

The lives of the general public are ten times more important than the human rights of potential terrorists. In the climate of fear and threat that prevailed post Spetember 11th the government was absolutely obliged to incarcerate people with links to terrorist organisations without trial in order to protect the public. I feel incensed that for the sake of political correctness we would put people's lives at risk.
Tom de Zoysa, London, UK

"The lives of the general public are ten times more important than the human rights of potential terrorists." I believe the problem with this particular statement is that everyone is a *potential* terrorist. Or should we bang up everyone in a turban/with an irish accent/who owns a balaclava/"looked at me funny guv" just on the off-chance ?
Gordon, England

We already had some of the toughest anti-terrorist legislation in the world due to the activities of the IRA. Nobody seemed to stop to think whether we actually needed anything more they just had to be seen to be doing something in the post-September hysteria that seemed to envelop the politicians. Now they have been made to look foolish as one by one the innocent people they locked up without due process are being released on the orders of the judges. All this just proves that rushed legislation is bad legislation - something the more enlightened elected members said at the time.
Dave Whyte, UK

The Government was right. Desperate times call for desperate measures!
Tom B, England

If it is "unlawful" because it "allowed the detention of foreign nationals only", even though British citizens may have been equally involved with al-Qaeda or other terrorist organisations", change the law to include British nationals. Why were they not included in the first place? What bearing this has on the guilt of the individuals I do not know.
Fred, England

Desperate times do not 'call for desperate measures'. Desperate times are when you find out if your society is worth preserving because of the value it places upon freedom and the rule of good law.
Milton A, UK

Our "habeas corpus" law is centred around the principle of being innocent until proven guilty. That means no imprisonment without fair trial. The government's new law seems much more like the continental "corpus juris" system, which doesn't have these safeguards for innocents. This wouldn't be a stealthy attempt to cede our law to Europe, would it?
Russ, UK

We cannot allow the state to arbitrarily imprison people without any good reason

James Warwick, UK

If people are suspected terrorists then by all means let's try them on the evidence available. But we cannot allow the state to arbitrarily imprison people without any good reason, or we lose all right to criticise regimes like the Taleban or Saddam Hussein.
James Warwick, UK

I am quite pleased that they have won their case. Even suspected terrorists must not be held arbitrarily without trial.
Tom, UK

Many people will say that the government is wrong, but I disagree. If anything these measures are not strong enough and should include nationals as well as non-nationals. Unfortunately, only an act of terrorism by suspects will prove this legislation to be justified, and no one wants that.
R Callister, UK

This is what happens when you put American laws in place in a UK court. This was never our government's law but America's. Our existing laws were more then capable of dealing with terrorists - but Tony had to go and make a public to-do out of it just like everything else he hasn't done in the last five years.
Richard, Leeds, UK

Some of you think that our government does all it can to protect us. Well maybe in the short term with draconian anti terror laws. How about they try to protect us long term by removing the reason for future terror attacks. How about putting pressure on the USA to stop funding $3 billion to Israel, or taking troops out of Saudi Arabia. Or maybe we could stop selling arms to every country that comes up with the money, e.g. India, Sierra Leone, Iraq. Some people have the blinkered idea that terrorists do what they do because they hate us for no reason. They have plenty of reason and they will continue to bomb citizens of the west. No leader in their military hideout will ever get bombed.
Rahul, UK

I thought there was a war against terror, hence draconian laws .
Francesca, Italy

Have these people really been imprisoned for no reason. Surely the police have some grounds for arresting them, or are some people on this forum suggesting the police pick foreigners off the street at random and imprison them. I think the most out of touch people in this country are not the government but the courts.
Paul, uk

If the politicians won't stand for freedom then thank Heaven the judges will.

Tim Green, England

Despite the much-touted separation of powers in the USA, the American judiciary has been powerless to prevent flagrant human rights abuses since September 11th. In Britain, on the other hand, their independence is assured, and it is a great relief to see the judges put their foot down in this way. If the politicians won't stand for freedom then thank Heaven the judges will.
Tim Green, England

Yes of course it was wrong and hypocritical. We're (i.e. the UK) always critical of other countries for interning Britons, or for holding them for months without charging them; when we're holding foreign nationals without any trial, and obviously without any evidence, or they'd have been charged and put on trial! I thought these human rights are some of the things the war on terror is supposed to be fighting for!
Alex, England