The following comments reflect the balance of opinion received so far:

So we didn't need any of this legislation during the IRA years, where there were actual attacks, yet suddenly we need it for some kind of perceived threat that has had no attacks on Britain so far? These plans seek to remove fair trial and due process rights that have been developed over hundreds of years to ensure that an individual is treated fairly by the system. If there is evidence that someone is a terrorist, then we have a system at the moment that is perfectly adequate for dealing with them. Maybe the present government won't abuse such laws, but that doesn't mean someone in the future won't, and that is reason enough to dump this proposed legislation!
Graham, Cambridge, UK

What's the alternative? How do you stop a terrorist who is willing to die to kill others? Ask them nicely not to do it, or do we just accept that UK citizens will die?
Andy, UK

Does anyone stop to wonder why the UK finds itself as a target for terrorism when other countries seem to escape such threats? Is Switzerland a target for Al-Qaeda, for example? Perhaps we as a nation should address these issues rather than focusing our attentions on detaining people without trial.
Brian, Newbury, Berks

It's so difficult to make an informed decision on a subject like this, because you simply cannot trust what you hear. How much of a threat are we really under? How much is government fuelled hysteria, or propaganda, and how much is genuine? It's a sad day when you have to sit here and honestly say you have no idea what to believe and who to support. Purely on ideological grounds, I strongly oppose this disgusting erosion of civil liberties. The trouble is that these plans sit so uneasily alongside other laws and proposed legislation which point towards us becoming a police state. On the other hand, if it works... If it stops a terrorist blowing up innocent people... My parents, my friends at school... Urgh. I don't know what to think. My head hurts.
Kate, London

To those who constantly bash Mr Blair's standpoint I would simply offer you this common sense view. When the terror attack has been and gone, levelled a beloved institution and 1000s of your countrymen. What will your opinions be? In the USA they became that of a safety first opinion. Sometimes you have to relinquish some rights to gain that. Court oversight is where this is checked and balanced.
Wes Young, Arkansas USA (Ex-Pat UK)

We're a hypocritical country strutting the world spreading freedom with our bombs, while we dismantle it at home. These proposals are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Anna Langley, Cambridge, UK

What is the point? All that will happen is they will be given benefits (money, housing and protection) and heaven knows what else, far outstripping what the elderly and the needy receive. It will also allow the lawyers to claim that their "clients" 'human rights' entitlement were trampled upon by the security authorities. Nothing will be achieved until the government grasps the nettle and begins to realise that they are there to protect the country and its citizens, for what they were elected for.
Paul, London

I have to ask whether all this would have been necessary had we not have embarked on a war with Iraq. We are being enveloped by a climate of fear. Fear of bird flu, fear of terrorism, - what next? A people living in fear are easier to control and manipulate and I just don't buy into the hysteria and spin being force-fed to us.
Bob, Cheltenham, UK

The debate rages, but please spare a thought for those subject to regimes where speaking out in the way that is enjoyed here is punishable by imprisonment, torture and even death. A small part of me is proud that we are free to discuss the issue so openly, but another is saddened at the possibly inevitable erosion of these freedoms in the face of fanaticism. Freedoms or restrictions - each way civilised people lose.
Tim, Scotland, UK

When the next terrorist attack occurs and shows that these steps have failed to make us secure will the law be repealed or will our liberties be further infringed? As for denying people access to the internet and the use of phones will they also be denied access to the postal system or to visitors who could transfer messages for them? These laws really are a farce that do not make us substantially any safer.
Joseph Wilkinson, Whitehaven, UK

All of this was tried in the 70s with the troubles in NI with internment. It looks like we haven't learnt our lesson. This sort of draconian policy is not wanted in this country. It will come back and bite us as it always does, followed by the amount of taxpayers' money that will be paid out to miscarriages of justice. Let the professionals get on with their job in keeping this country safe that is what they do best.
Mike Law, MK

I'm very concerned by this bill, not just because of its content but because of the way it is being rushed through Parliament, just like the ID cards Bill. The British public must remember that civil liberties don't vanish overnight, they are gradually taken away.
Jim Backus, Dunmow, Essex

This government is constantly trying to undermine the civil liberties and freedoms that all civilised nations should enjoy. For me it is simple...if someone is suspected of terrorist activity they should be investigated and either cleared or prosecuted.
C. Murphy, Dover, Kent

When I think of all those who have fought and died for our civil liberties over the years and then see how easily we are willing to give them up the very second we feel mildly threatened, I feel sick to my stomach and thoroughly ashamed of my countrymen who support this. This law marks the end of democracy in this country, a law that allows politicians to place people under house arrest without trial or evidence makes this a police state. I almost can't believe we are letting a government do this, then again if we protest we'll probably all be placed under arrest as 'suspected terrorists'.
Colin Wright

The government has taken the correct approach Graham, London

It is very easy to say that civil liberties is the bedrock of democracy, but all those who do not approve of these plans should consider that when the anti-terrorist forces have suspicions about individuals that would not stand up in court and these individuals then commit a major terrorist attack where would their position be then? Everyone then jumps on the bandwagon asking why nothing was done about it. It is a difficult choice but I, for one, believe that the government has taken the correct approach.
Graham, London

We are talking here about people who have come to the attention of the security services for good reason, and we are talking about our (generally) very well behaved police force. I would rather a thousand innocent people held/ detained wrongly under our very strictly controlled system here in Britain, than a single person killed by a bomb or similar act.
Howard Hodges, Flitwick, Bedford

To Howard Hodges: Are you really so comfortable with the idea of having 1000 innocents detained who will never ever get a chance to clear their names? Please consider what you are saying. Suspicion is no automatic proof of guilt and since the suspects will not be allowed to know what they are accused of defence is not possible. Do you really think it is a good idea to allow a politician to deprive people of their liberty based on intelligence which might have been obtained elsewhere by way of torture and might therefore be a pack of lies?
Petra, London

To all people who support this ridiculous proposal. If someone is put under house arrest for a period of time and is then found "not guilty", can you imagine the amount of compensation that may have to paid? And who do you think is going to end up paying? Yes, the taxpayers.
Sanjay, London, UK

Freedom from terrorist attack is not a civil liberty. Mr Blair claims he regrets not studying politics at university; perhaps if he had, he would recognise that a civil liberty arises where the state must refrain from interfering in a sphere of its subjects' lives. This is Newspeak gone mad: confinement is liberty.
A, Oxford

This Bill is an unprecedented attack on one of the cornerstones of our democracy and civil liberties Matthew Allen, Coventry

This Bill is an unprecedented attack on one of the cornerstones of our democracy and civil liberties. In other countries people fight and die to achieve basic protections such as "innocent until proven guilty." That we in this country are about to lose our right to a fair trial on the say so of a politician horrifies me.
Matthew Allen, Coventry

These people who are moaning about civil liberties will be the first to ask why nothing was done about terrorists after it was too late. As a proud Brit I am happy to welcome these laws because I am not nor ever will be a terrorist. People are too busy thinking this is some sort of conspiracy instead of realising what it really is, necessary.
Marc W, Burton upon Trent UK

Anyone who has the slightest understanding of history, politics, or constitutional issues knows it is vital that decisions about the fate of individuals are made via a judicial process and not a political one. This is what distinguishes democracies from tyranny. The introduction of these measures would place us in the same position as Mugabe's victims; they are the first fingerprint of despotism.
Martin, Cardiff

As far as I am concerned, the "terrorist threat" has been vastly overblown, mainly for political purposes. The answer here is simple. Either you have the evidence to show that these people are a threat or you don't. If you do, prosecute them and lock them up. If you don't, tough. Politicians should not be making decisions here. The politicians have us all living in fear so that we won't notice the removal of our most basic rights and freedoms.
Ian M, Bolton, England

I am not very keen on these anti-terror plans, but for once I do feel that this government is making an honest attempt at reasonable plans for very difficult circumstances. My concerns relate firstly around the quality of intelligence material - or at least the difficulty of obtaining good-quality intelligence. The 45 minute WMD claim has been conveniently blamed on poor intelligence, so why should we trust the intelligence used to choose who to detain without trial?
Secondly, I do not trust the assurances that these powers will only be used in exceptional and rare circumstances. These assurances are legally worthless. If they are to mean anything, they should be enshrined in the legislation in an enforceable way. Even if we trust our current Home Secretary then how do we know we will be able to trust every future one to use the powers reasonably? I don't believe that we can.
Jon G, Huddersfield UK

The terrorism I've seen in recent years is no worse than we've seen in recent decades. I believe that Al-Qaeda is not the global network as described by the US - there are many terrorist groups around the world all with their own aims. Always has been and always will be. The current law is enough to deal with the threat. Let's not end up living in Oceania, 1984.
Si, London

We should remember what sort of society the terrorists would like to impose on us and ensure we do not lose all we hold dear and hand them that society by default. The principles that stand us out from the terrorists are; innocent until proven guilty, the right to trial by our peers, separation of the application of law from party politics and the visibility of evidence. Even one little inch away from those fundamental principles upon which any decent democracy operates should be resisted.
Ian, High Wycombe, UK

Tony Blair (2005): "There is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack". Benjamin Franklin (1755): "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Harry Erwin, PhD, Sunderland, UK & Fairfax, USA

The terrorist is the most cunning and devious being who will feel no remorse for killing non-combatants given half a chance. By this virtue the suspected terrorist should not have the civil liberties afforded to the honest citizens whose own liberties are affected by the fear generated by terrorists. In countering terrorism you need to eliminate any chance of success for a terrorist seeking an opportunity to attack, and if this does mean imprisoning a suspected potential attacker then so be it.
Dave, Edinburgh, UK

How long before people who raise their voices in protest are imprisoned without trial for supporting terrorism? Won't happen! Really, neither will imprisonment without trial! Goodbye democracy and hello police state.
Steve, Fleet UK

We have just gone to war possibly on the basis of flawed intelligence at the cost of many thousands of lives, yet we are now told that we should accept intelligence that would not be admissible in a court of law as sufficient to deprive UK citizens of their liberty on the whim of a politician. I understand it is inconvenient to fight terrorists through the court system, but it is also inconvenient to fight murderers, rapists and drug traffickers when the police know someone is guilty but just can't prove it. This is the slippery slope towards a police state.
Steve, High Wycombe

These new terror laws are definitely a retrograde step in a supposedly civilized, democratic country. By not allowing judges to determine what should happen to so-called terrorists demeans one of our greatest planks of justice and fairness. I would rather allow people freedom than hold them in any form without trial or the prospect of one, thereby causing embarrassment and ridicule for my country.
Michelle Gillham, Ryde, Isle of Wight

The UK's impotence in dealing with terrorism is the flawed Human Rights legislation that is incompatible with security realities Ken, England UK

Blair is trying to square the circle and will fail. The root problem with the UK's impotence in dealing with terrorism is the flawed Human Rights legislation that is incompatible with security realities. The Belmarsh detainees should be deported if they are a threat to this country to wherever they came from.
Ken, England UK

To those who keep repeating the mantra: You'll be moaning that the govt should have done more if we're attacked. No, I won't. A close friend of mine was killed in New York on 11 September 2001. I wouldn't have endorsed these proposals before then and I still don't now. The terrorists who made that attack did not destroy democracy in America.
Chris, Birkenhead, Merseyside

The way this is being portrayed makes me cry, which is inconvenient in a college library. This isn't "Namby-pamby" liberal whining, this is the basic cornerstone of freedom recognised by every philosopher who has ever written on the subject.
AH, UK

One would have thought after the Gilford 4, Birmingham 6 etc. there is a need to think creatively about anti-terror laws rather than rehash old ones.
Dermott, Edinburgh, Scotland

The common sense solution is to be able to deport people who are not citizens of the UK at any time if they are felt to be dangerous. It would appear that you have signed up to a lunatic treaty preventing deportation. You should withdraw from that treaty. You probably will eventually, but it would be a shame if you first wait for a massive loss of life to occur in the UK.
Dave M, Tonopah NV USA

If only one life is saved by these laws then the small infringement on the civil liberties of people far from "civil" is not a heavy price to pay.
Ian, Oxford, UK

Ian from Oxford says "If only one life is saved ....... That is the very argument that leads directly to a police state and laws restricting everything.
Les, Morpeth, England

In reply to Ian, Oxford. If the saving of a single life is enough to justify a law of this kind, why not go much further? Why not electronically tag everyone? Why not introduce curfews for everyone, and restrict where we can travel? Why not introduce martial law? Somewhere along the line such measures would probably save a life or two - but they would obviously be unacceptable.
Those here who support the plans keep claiming that the rest of us would suddenly be clamouring for them if there was a terrorist outrage here. I doubt any opponent of Clarke's bill has failed to ask themselves how they would react in such an event. I don't accept that these plans will make us safer, but even if they will - and I doubt it could be by much - then personally, I would far rather accept that very slightly elevated risk, than see Britain cease to stand for anything, even if that slightly heightened risk meant I would be one of the unlucky few to be killed in a terrorist attack. I would rather die in a free country than live in a police state.
Sophia, London

If the terrorist's aim is to attack our long held freedoms they have already won, our politicians are ready to abandon them at the drop of a hat. First reducing the right to trial by jury, then home detention - what next internal exile, being sent to the Gulags? Tony Blair might be more right of centre than left but in this approach his government has become positively Stalinist.
Simon Lambert, Northampton, UK

Clarke says we should lock up terrorists. I can't disagree with that. But his argument is based on the assumption that the person actually is a terrorist, and he provides no way to test that assumption. How does an innocent person defend them self when there are no charges, no evidence, no lawyer, no due process?
Norman Paterson, St Andrews, Scotland

Charles Clarke's proposed anti-terror plans are the greatest attack on our liberty in modern times. Can he really not understand the basic error of principle in having politicians make such decisions? The arrogance is breathtaking.
Micky, Cambridge, UK

Anyone who opposes the government's plans clearly has something to hide and must be put under house arrest.
Richard Lafferty, Farnborough, Hampshire

There is too much importance placed on rights of the individual Dave Rampling, Norwich, UK

The first task of the government is the safety of the population. If a terrorist, or someone suspected of involvement in terrorism, is held in house arrest, then so what if he is deprived his liberty. There is too much importance placed on rights of the individual, it is the greater community that should always come first. Let the liberals complain when their families are murdered in terrorist outrages, human rights have gone too far.
Dave Rampling, Norwich, UK

If Europe or the UK has its own 9/11 tragedy those who pooh-pooh the necessity of anti-terror plans now will be demanding to know why more wasn't done sooner. A healthy dose of reality and good education rather than media generated sentiment and left wing propaganda is required in a successful democracy.
Gary Alles, Bristol, USA

To Gary Alles, The UK has suffered massive terrorist attacks in the past from the IRA. A large lorry bomb may not be as dramatic as an airliner but it can be equally devastating. As a former London police officer who had to deal with regular bomb scares I am neither influenced by the media, nor am I left wing. Elsewhere in the world you may be prepared to give up your freedom as a result of government inspired hysteria, we will not.
Chris Parker, Buckingham, UK

Some of the arguments here are unbelievable. We can trust the government to look after our best interests and never abuse their powers? Have we learned nothing from history?
Peter Hughes, Oxford, UK

No, never. In the end, this law will deprive a human of their liberty on the instructions of one politically motivated individual. Even if Mr Clarke knows himself to be reasonable & fair, he cannot know what the next home secretary will be like and yet he is proposing to leave him or her with powers that are open to appalling abuse. This government has got to create laws that are fair and enforceable for the future, not just for the life of the current incumbents. To date they have failed to do that.
Kathy, Marlborough, UK

Separation of power is a must. In a democracy you cannot have a member of the executive also acting as part of the judiciary. It is a very dangerous precedent. The very people who praise democracy around the world are eroding it in their very own countries. This is a step back into the middle ages before the Magna Carta.
Ralph, London

This government has proven time and time again it simply does not understand what it is dealing with. Knee jerk panic legislation will do nothing to put an end to terrorism. I cannot support these plans because I believe in democracy and human rights, unlike this government it seems.
Jennifer Hynes, Plymouth, UK

Unfortunately the people who want to attack our way of life will use every freedom and right our society holds dear against us. Adrian Haken, England

So many people are against this proposal, yet none seem to understand or listen to who this action will be directed at. Everyone seems to think the government will be free to use these powers on any UK citizen, which is not what the government has proposed. Firstly the people being detained in Belmarsh, which this would apply to, are not UK citizens and so do not have the right to a trial in a UK court (although we should if possible put them on trial). They all have the option of leaving the country, which I personally think does not solve the problem because if they are deported that just pushes the problems onto another country to solve. Our government is trying to find a balance between protecting the public from people who would gladly kill as many UK citizens as possible and the freedoms and rights our nation has always tried to uphold. Unfortunately the people who want to attack our way of life will use every freedom and right our society holds dear against us. So we must be prepared to react to their efforts and safeguard our way of life, as we have always done in the past, e.g. World War II when ID cards where introduced.
Adrian Haken, England

Since other 'anti terror' regulations have already been used to stop legitimate and peaceful antiwar and animal rights protests, and now anybody can be arrested and sent to prison to handing out leaflets in public, or deported to the US to face torture on an incontestable extradition warrant, I feel it is certain that these new laws will be used by politicians to lock up anybody they don't like or feel might be in any way a threat to their 'democratic' power. This is a police state. Freedom of expression is dead.
Ralph Williams, Cambridge UK

'Damned if they do, damned if they don't' seems to be the operative phrase here. Paul, Brighton, UK

Much as I'm outraged by this government's pandering, once more, to the tabloid view that foreigners are bad, I can also see that the government is just covering it's rear. If they did not detain 'suspects' or take some visible measures to counter terrorism, they would be inundated with compensation claims if an attack did happen and would be vilified for not taking preventive measures. 'Damned if they do, damned if they don't' seems to be the operative phrase here.
Paul, Brighton, UK

Many of the people participating in this discussion comment on the 'lack of evidence' for trials that will result in the implementation of house arrests etc. I would like to know how they are aware that there is not, for example, evidence that is suppressed by the security services to infiltrate larger terrorist networks. Those who have no idea what information security services possess should not speculate as to the existence of such information. Surely we can trust those who have access to the wider picture to uphold the best interests of the U.K. and to only utilise such powers where they are necessary. Liberal, theoretical speculation by is healthy and beneficial but it should remain in the realms of theory: let practicalities dictate what measures are taken against threats to the nation.
Al, Coventry, U.K.

This is a disgrace. The situation is hardly "unprecedented" as Charles Clarke puts it. Terrorists have attacked the UK many times in the past and we've never had to resort to these extremes. The British people are more resilient than Clarke gives us credit. I'd sooner take my chances than live in tyranny.
George, Sheffield, UK

If the threat of terrorist attack is so great and so imminent that we have to push through ill-considered legislation in two days, why were MPs on holiday last week?
Andy, London

To Clive of Reading: I think you'll find that judges go through a rigorous selection process of applications and interviews before being sworn in by the Lord Chancellor. We can easily trust judges to decide what is best in terms of the law. In this country the legislative makes the law, the judiciary interprets the law, and the executive acts upon the law. The anti terror plans blur the lines, and are potentially a threat in themselves, in addition to being totally futile.
Rob, UK

I agree 100% with the proposed new anti-terror legislation. My only regret is that we in Great Britain are giving in to the European Human Rights convention and not actually keeping the foreign terrorists in prison. Beirut, Kenya, Bali, Madrid, Twin Towers, Pentagon etc.. Anyone who thinks London couldn't join that list of devastation any day without recourse to these harsh restrictions on the freedom of a certain few individuals is totally misunderstanding the danger this democratic nation faces. Our democracy is not under threat from the Home Secretary. Our democracy is threatened by those refusing to acknowledge that this fundamentalist terrorist threat is unlike anything Britain has previously faced. The Home Secretary is trying to deal with a ruthless, vicious, cunning and dedicated long-term Islamic terrorist movement.
R. Muggeridge, England

I am outraged that a British home secretary should seek the power to detain anyone he wants without trial. Did we really fight two world wars for this? If this was proposed in an African or Asian country we would condemn them as being fascist. And to force the law though in two days - does anyone think that is a recipe for good successful legislation?
Richard, Reading

I would rather support moves which when a person is highly suspected of terrorist links or as a threat to this country, they are simply deported. Not here? Not a threat.
Joanne Edwards, Leicestershire

Immigrants deemed not fit to live in our country should be deported back to where they came from Mark, Manchester

Absolutely ridiculous! Our immigration policy is much too soft. Immigrants deemed not fit to live in our country should be deported back to where they came from. We should not have to compromise our civil liberties and pay through our taxes for the misdemeanours of those who pose a threat to us and do not belong in our society!
Mark, Manchester

Who will stop any potential abuse of the law by this government? In the event that they feel that someone is a thorn in their side they could declare that they are a terrorist and place them under house arrest and who is going to stop them? This government is untrustworthy and giving them this type of power without adequate safeguards is madness.
Chris Parker, Buckingham

Very important question: Would you prefer to live next door to someone who is under house arrest for being a terrorist or would you prefer them to be locked up safe and given a fair trial?
Richard, London

To Richard, London: Would you rather be given a fair trial or be under house arrest for something you haven't done?
Graham, Leeds, UK

No, no, no. This government has lied and lied to the British people. It has created a state of fear in order to suppress our freedoms whilst giving more rights to aliens. How can we believe anything we are told. These laws are a dangerous step towards a totalitarian state.

Having nothing to hide and speaking the truth is guarantee of anything in this country, witness all those wrongly jailed for terror attacks in the 70s and 80s. When we stop attacking foreign countries for the sake of it maybe we will have less to worry about.
Charlie, Scotland

Why do people put so much faith in the decisions of judges rather than politicians? Clive, Reading, England

Why do people put so much faith in the decisions of judges rather than politicians? The politicians in this country are democratically elected and can be removed in a 5-year period by the people. They are subject to the authority of parliament, which used to be supreme in this country.

Judges elect themselves (effectively) and cannot be removed easily even by parliament. The majority of us complain that the judges are too lenient on common criminals. Are they really up to the task of dealing with psychotic suicide bombers?
Clive, Reading, England

The people being detained barely make the grade of suspect. They are held because there is not enough evidence for a trial. Therefore, they are being held on grounds that they may do something. Is this civil? Hardly liberty either!
John Robinson, Crawley, Sussex

What I would like to see is every man, woman and child who are truly by their right as a human being born free, march upon Downing Street, the Houses of Parliament and overthrow the corrupt leaders who are running not just the country, but our very freedoms. Our freedom belongs to no-one - it is free to all. We must stop this totalitarian leadership before its too late!
Chris M, Victoria Mews, UK

Whether in Belmarsh or at home, this remains detention without trial, and that's the fundamental objection. Our civil freedoms rest on the principle that none of us can be imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned without a fair trial. If there's evidence against individuals let it go to trial and be weighed up properly by a jury. Otherwise how is this any different from house arrests and political imprisonment under totalitarian regimes?
Ben Drake, York, UK

The control order signals the final death knell for the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". If a case against a suspected terrorist cannot be proven in law then it cannot be proven at all. This is supposed to be a society of freedom and democracy and these measures will not protect that - but simply debase our society and turn it into exactly what we are supposed to be opposing.
Jim, Birmingham

As with ID cards, the government shows it has no interest in democracy or civil liberties, and sees an Orwellian society as a vision for the future. If there is a case to answer, it is for the judiciary, not for politicians to decide who they have fallen out of favour with.
Adrian, UK

These plans are far from perfect, but then so are the alternatives Ferdinand Moe, Telford

These plans are far from perfect, but then so are the alternatives. We are unable to deport foreign nationals who pose a threat because their country of origin might torture and kill them; we can't keep them in jail without charge; and we can't charge them for fear of compromising sensitive intelligence methods.

This is an imperfect solution for an imperfect set of circumstances, but Charles Kennedy has a point when he calls for judges, not politicians, to impose the orders. As for civil liberties - I don't seek the violent and unlawful overthrow of democracy in the UK, so I have nothing to fear. Those that do intend to do us harm should be worried, and why that is a point of controversy is beyond me.
Ferdinand Moe, Telford

What terror threat? They have not convicted anyone from the hundreds they have arrested as there is no evidence, the same in the US. The government has not once produced anything that even smacks of a terror threat to this country. It's all about getting your retaliation in first.
Jeff, London

We live in an unstable world so what makes people think that what happens abroad cannot happen here. Quite a few people involved in terrorism abroad seem to have come from this country. We cannot afford to be complacent.
Lena, Cardiff, UK

As in most cases the only people who should be worried are those that it will apply to. I am a law abiding citizen and therefore have nothing to fear from these proposals. Would people shy away from these suggestions after another September 11.
Andy, Lancashire

By reducing our civil liberties and quality of life, our government are doing the terrorist's work for him! Why are these extra measures needed to deal with some vague threat when we didn't need them when dealing with the IRA (a clear and obvious threat) for years? It is clear that the government wishes to exert more control over the population, and is using terrorism as a scare tactic to force new powers through. Farewell democracy.
Neil, Glasgow, Scotland

Are they really just transferring these to the home secretary? Alan Davidson, London

In a modern democracy, neither the legislature nor the executive should be the judiciary. I thought the government was doing away with the triumvirate of powers invested in the Lord High Chancellor. Are they really just transferring these to the home secretary?
Alan Davidson, London, UK

I shall be voting against Labour. They are using a massive majority to put ill thought out legislation through. They are doing it as quickly as possible in order to avoid necessary scrutiny. Even their back benchers shouted "rubbish" when Peter Hain said that a terrorist attack would be the greatest threat to our civil liberties rather than the recent legislations (ID cards, civil contingencies bill, indefinite detention, suspension of habeas corpus).

If our liberties are curtailed, it will breed terrorists at home, never mind terrorists from abroad. Blair, stop criminalising people and concentrate on real criminals, you know, the ones you seem to release early.
Oliver

Firstly we go to war on the basis of unaccountable intelligence without any actual evidence, then the police and senior political figures publicly accuse the IRA of carrying out a bank robbery on the same basis. Now the home secretary wants to give himself the power to lock up anyone he so chooses, again without even a shred of evidence and on the basis of intelligence.

It seems we are moving into trial by hearsay rather than by fact and occurrence. These proposals, like so many of the actions taken by the government, are an offence to the democratic principles we so hypocritically preach to the rest of the world.
Joe, Newcastle-Under-Lyme, Staffordshire

Every anti-terror programme that we create is more evidence that our way of life and what we are doing around (and to) the planet is actually making things worse. It is a prime example of self righteous governments not examining themselves properly.
Shane, Portsmouth

Absolute loony. Why not put them on trail or deport them. Who is going pay to feed them, provide security etc? They are either guilty or innocent.
Richard, London

Considering the lack of oversight in the proposals. I wonder how long it would be before the word democratic will appear in the name of our country? (For those who don't get the reference think of the Democratic Republic of Congo or East Germany's formal name under the communist regime.)
Francisco, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

If you think that detaining someone and stripping them of their civil liberties when there is not enough evidence against them to take them to court then yes - just ask the question; how would you react if it happened to you or one of your family?
David, Edinburgh

These are the plans of a government which has either surrendered our freedoms to terrorism or is intent on using the climate of fear it has shamelessly created in order to use arbitrary and unchecked powers to control its subjects to its own ends. Either way they make the state far more dangerous than any terrorists.

Can anyone really trust what the Labour Party says about intelligence and security matters? Charles Clarke was happy to maintain the pretence that there were WMDs in Iraq. There appears every likelihood that he would be happy to pretend that there is intelligence evidence against people he would like to have locked away too.
Tom, London

Is a fox more important than your children and your family? Apparently so Mark H, UK

Labour rushes through unworkable and totally pointless legislation to protect a fox. You all applaud. Then Labour try to bring in laws to combat terrorism, to protect human life. You all boo and cry "foul". Is a fox more important than your children and your family?

Apparently so. Civil liberties peddle their nonsense from the safety of a society kept safe by the very methods they despise. I would be very interested to see exactly what the so-called civil liberties would do to deal with crime and terror.
Mark H, UK

I want terror suspects foreign or home grown neutralised. The rights of British people are paramount. It is impossible to take risks with these suicidal maniacs whose intention is destroy. Do we have to wait for a 9/11 or a Madrid before the waverers realise what we are up against?
John, France

The plans are an unacceptable attack on civil liberties. Inevitably people are going to be framed and there'll be damn all they can do about it. No - it must be resisted and power given to judges.
David Ball, Wokingham, UK

This new terror plan along with the combination of controlled immigration should see the UK develop into a safer place to live giving us all peace of mind that the future's bright.
Mark Blackburn, Brentwood, Essex

I don't see it stopping a potential suicide bomber walking into central London and simply pressing the button - do you? It terrifies the life out of me.
Gavin Male, London