This is the third page of your comments on the government's anti-terror plans.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion received so far:
 |  The House of Lords has defeated a bill which went against the most fundamental constitutional principles of this country |
The defeat of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill by the House of Lords shows how Britain's legislature currently works. The House of Lords has defeated a bill which went against the most fundamental constitutional principles of this country, which an over-powerful government was trying to push through.
Ross Sanderson, UK I am an American, I happen to like the current President what I don't like are the laws that were rushed as reaction to 9/11. What I warn my UK counterparts is to be very careful of what laws that your government will try to pass to "fight terrorism" you will lose some amount of freedom if they are not held to account early in the process. Your terrorism bill could be a mild version of the Patriotic Act, which I still wish that someone in Congress had tried to stop, I would hope that no other society would be forced to endure.
Canndice Green, Malibu, CA
I agree that the ultimate human right is to live without fear. However I look at history and that tells me that governments given too much power and never called to account are the biggest threat to be feared. I demand my human right not to live in fear of my own government making a malicious or simply mistaken case against me, which under these rules I can never challenge or prove wrong.
Pat B, London UK
What rubbish - now we're being told there are some 200 terrorists trained by Al-Qaeda roaming the streets of Britain. Yeah, right - and presumably they're all ready to attack within 45 minutes? Stop scaremongering!
Paulina Smid, London
Why should the people of this country have to suffer at the hands of these do-gooders who harp on about the human rights of possible terrorists? The government has the task of protecting its people and must use any means at its disposal to do so. Like most people I am totally fed-up with people who may well pose a threat to our way of life being treated with kid gloves. If they do in fact pose a threat they must be expelled from this country or at the very least restricted in what they can/cannot do.
Ray Walsh, London, England
| If sensitive sources are at stake, the mechanisms already exist for hearings to be held in camera |
Why does the Government think that an MP with at most a few years' Home Office experience is better than a career professional such as a Judge to approve detentions? If sensitive sources are at stake, the mechanisms already exist for hearings to be held in camera. However, I can't understand why properly-authorised and collected wiretap evidence can't be used if the authorities are prepared to revel its existence.
Jamie, UK This is a legal matter and the government should leave the issue firmly with judges that are specialised in this area of law.
Jamie Levy, London
It is well documented that internment without due process causes dissent. It demeans our society, removes respect for individual liberty, and is the best recruiting agent for future terrorists. It would appear that the current government has learnt nothing from history.
Tony Whyte, Cambridge, England
It will be a sad day if this goes though giving up the right to a trial because the government thinks there are 200 terrorists trying to kill us is not a good reason. If there is evidence try them in closed court. But I think the threat is greatly overestimated. If it is not it appears Fathers 4 Justice is much more able to get past security than the terrorists or maybe the threat is not as big as we are being told and the Labour party is not to be trusted on this issue.
Neil Lomas, Barnsley UK
Once again, a rushed and botched piece of legislation rammed through the Commons by the Government has been sensibly altered by the House of Lords - an institution which the Government, unsurprisingly, is constantly carping at. Thank heavens for Their Lordships!
Philip Hobday, Cambridge, UK
| The proposed law is aimed at protecting the people and the country |
It is obvious that those people against the anti-terror plans are largely politically motivated. I am in total agreement with the government. The proposed law is aimed at protecting the people and the country.
James, Saltash, UK The government should realise that on the matter of terrorism there would be no difficulty in getting good legislation through Parliament. The requirement for judicial oversight of any control order is not too much to ask. The real question here is why do the government want to retain their executive powers? This is where the Home Secretary should step back and think.
Andrew Witham, UK
We cannot know the full details of the intelligence work but we do need to know that we are safe. Yet again an unelected House of Lords has failed to recognise that its role is to scrutinise Bills not run the country
Anon, Wales
To Anon from Wales, the unelected House of Lords is doing the job at which it excels; it is scrutinising a poorly-written bill and attempting to turn it into reasonable legislation by introducing necessary checks and restrictions on powers granted by said bill.
Dave, Cambridge UK
I grew up in South Africa. The state had vast powers to gag the press, detain people without trial and even ran death squads to get rid of the really "hard cases". These powers did not reduce the resistance to apartheid by one little bit. Instead they made the situation more violent and left behind a sick residue of torture, missing persons and destroyed lives.
Agnes Clarke, Netherlands
Some interesting comments�. Especially since nobody asks why the threat of terrorism exits? Nobody mentions any of our foreign policies etc.
Dr Hesford
I totally oppose house arrest without trial, curfews and tagging of terrorist suspects. People must be charged, told what the charge is, and given a chance in court to defend themselves against that charge. I am very concerned about the threat to our civil liberties.
Anne Rowing, Colchester, UK Those who complain about liberals and their attitude to this bill should think carefully. What if it was they who were implicated as a result of a false confession made under duress?
Martin Ingram, St Albans, UK
The proposed anti-terror laws are a reminder of how fragile our grasp on freedom and democracy is. The greatest threat to either is a government that believes it knows what is best for the people.
Matthew Thomas Brown, Glasgow, Scotland
Never thought I would be grateful for the House of Lords. Bad legislation that threatens the British way of life deserves to be thrown out.
Pat Vincent, Milton Keynes
Properly empowered courts must decide on all judicial matters. If the government force through this law, then the terrorists have won. It is that simple.
Mike Illes, Berkhamsted, England
Clearly the House of Lords are right to defeat the government's anti-terror plans. Has there been an increased amount of terror attacks worldwide? I would say not. Have billions been spent on an increasing inflated defence budget? I would say yes. Scaremongering of terrorists around each corner of the street only benefits the defence industry.
Karel Herman, Bristol
I broadly welcome the anti-terror laws as a means of protecting this nation's security. I cannot however support the current proposed legislation, as the power to detain people without trial lies with the Home Secretary and not the judiciary. Whilst politicians are to able to set the laws, their enforcement must remain outside of their control
Ian Jerram, Chesterfield, England
This all seems over the top, this country was under terrorist threat for 25 years from the IRA and we survived without these laws?
Pete Aitch, Manchester
It is wrong to compare so called Islamic Terrorists with the IRA. Members of the IRA did not want to die in their attempts and could be deterred from their acts by the effects of the laws in place. These "new" terrorists must be stopped before they act as no law which depends on punishment after the act is a deterrent for them as most would be dead in the process. Only prevention is the means to stop them. I support the government's attempts which, after all, are to protect us all.
Kevin Joiner, London
When there is a terrorist outrage, and that is when and not if, the naive people who are against the plans will fade into the ether. It's all very well pontificating on the moral high ground until you see the carnage on your own doorstep. We must not wait for it to happen, strong measures must be taken now.
Iain Gordon, Banstead, England All this talk is just Blair taking a leaf out of Bush's tactics. Make everyone live in fear and take away everyone's rights. Make it look like Labour is tough on terrorism and security. But will the UK citizens but as gullible as the Americans?
Vincent Old, Wellingborough
So this ex-commissioner of the metropolitan police thinks the new laws are a good idea. What about the current commissioner, surely his opinion is a little more relevant?
Mark, Cardiff, Wales
I think that judges should be in charge of any detention. How convenient telling today there are 200 terrorists out there: shouldn't we create a "presumption of terrorist conspiracy" crime to allow judges to do the job easy and clean? Politicians are supposed to create the laws, not to apply them: this is the job of judges. And has been for centuries...
JC, Devizes, UK
If Sir John Stevens is certain there are 200 terrorists in this country, then he must have information about them. Why then is he not tracking them down instead of playing politics?
Jim, Kirkcaldy, Scotland
Unfortunately, the liberals in the West are still sleeping, despite the alarm clock ringing ever louder since 9/11. Will my so called "civil rights" protect me and my family from an hijacked airliner or suicide/homicide bomber? This government has had its kid gloves on for too long.
Roger, Whitwick England
| These measures replace one fear with another |
These measures replace one fear with another, the fear of being unjustly accused and being locked up with no charge, no evidence and no way of disputing the detention as a result. I fear my own government far more than I do the bogeymen that the government is so keen to frighten us with.
Sally, Exeter It's unnerving that the government seems unwilling to introduce more reasonable safeguards against the current terror threat. For example, allowing evidence such as wiretaps, appointing judges with high level security clearance etc. I personally suspect the reason the government is against the idea of allowing access to their "supposed" evidence is because their isn't any. Instead, it feels to me like some Orwellian nightmare slowly being drip fed to the nation. Should we win this imaginary "war on terror" what happens to these laws? They stay in place and are used on whom? Political activists? Journalists? Opposition leaders?
Tom Elders, London
I have roots in Northern Ireland. Internment - these laws by any other name - merely caused terrorism, not prevented it. There are far more real threats to people - crime, MRSA etc - which will be tackled only when we get a change of government.
Louise, Reading
The security of the people of this country must come first, second and third before we give an inch to terrorist.
Anon, UK
| All this anti-terrorism legislation is actually eroding our freedoms |
I think the government needs to be careful. It must remember the basis of the 'war on terror' is fighting for freedom and democracy. Therefore it seems somewhat contradictory that all this anti-terrorism legislation is actually eroding our freedoms, and increasingly encroaching on our privacy.
Jon, Birmingham I am 100% opposed to this. I acknowledge the threat, but the measures are completely irresponsible and with no feel at all for the long view.
Paul Chapman, Bideford, UK
The Labour party is playing a very cynical game to win votes. It has proposed this legislation knowing that it will not succeed because it has not allocated it enough time. What it will do is make those that oppose it seem like they are being weak on terror. Shame on Labour for terrorising the electorate into voting for them! "Vote for us or you will be killed"
Alan, London, UK
We constantly hear the term 'human rights' being abused by all those who are unwilling to consider the possible need for conformity to achieve a sense of security in this country. Far from its roots as a noble concept, 'human rights' is now being hijacked by the selfish.
Andy, London
I am indeed very pleased to see Great Britain following in the path of the US in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. The world can only be safer if all countries adopt the same measures to fight terrorism. The safety of the populations in the US and EU depend largely on these measures.
Gilbert Miles, USA
I do not support the government's plans. Our security services are good at catching terrorists using the laws and evidence gathering systems we already have. Detaining people without charge will weaken the supply of evidence, increase militancy and make terrorist attacks more likely and easier to justify by the perpetrators. It is amazing after all the bitter lessons of Northern Ireland that the government will not see this. What's more the government will create irrational responses in the public in which the remote theoretical risk of being killed in a terrorist attack is seen as much worse than the much more likely risk of being killed in a car accident, on a building site or even in a hospital. The fact is that the preservation of our civil liberties is more important than the theoretical prevention of a terrorist attack.
David Birley, Broxbourne, Hertfordshire It is time people got a grip and woke up to reality. The truth is that every human on this planet regardless of their nationality are equal. It is not, as some seem to think, a fight between the British and their European and Anglo-Saxon allies and the rest of the world. The question the politicians need to tackle is what drives someone to the point where they are willing to commit terrorism. It is time world poverty was tackled, diseases such as Aids received funding to find a cure, this is the age for tolerance and it is time people had the strength to see that terrorism is a by-product of our own, and I shamefully admit I deserve some of this responsibility, selfish and shameful living.
Charlotte Harris, London, England
Mr Clarke asks 'will the Tories take responsibility for not putting a control order on someone who was dangerous and then went on to commit a terrible act', but at present after being freed from a jail sentence murderers, rapists, paedophiles, etc are not subject to such strict controls and sometimes go on again to commit 'terrible acts'. Any plans to control these Mr Clarke?
Joan, Leeds
I'm incredibly disappointed with the British government for not only altering the laws last year to allow evidence obtained under torture to be used (basically sanctioning it as an interrogation technique) and the indefinite imprisonment of 'suspects' at Belmarsh prison, and now this. Even with the small step down the government are still proposing to hold people indefinitely without allowing them the chance to know, let alone prove or disprove, the charges against them - how is that just? Anyone supporting this should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, we're slowly becoming as bad as the dictators and regimes we profess to hate.
Cath Tomlinson, Bucks, UK
There is no question that there are individuals whose unrestricted freedom poses a threat to the greater public. Perhaps the human rights legislation is not the universal panacea, or indeed a proper bench mark, for these situations. Over 4000 occupants of the twin towers would have supported the prevention of terrorism bill
Neal Inwood, Wallingford, Oxon All decent people are prepared to sacrifice many "human rights" in return for a secure nation.
Paul Mason, Buckhurst Hill, UK
The distinction between who makes the orders, judges or politicians, is a complete red herring if none of the normal characteristics of a trial are present. I can see judges refusing to administer these proposals. If the government really thinks they are necessary, it should take all the responsibility on itself, and not risk bringing the judiciary into disrepute.
Matthew Duckworth, London, England
No, I don't support the anti-terror ruling. Time and again since 9/11 our civil liberties have been diminished by scaremongering about things that we know nothing about that may be a threat to our way of life. The only threat that I can see is this stupid legislation. Soon there will be no civil liberties left to protect. Then what? It's neo-conservative at best.
Fraser Irving, Sheffield, UK
The government has had over a year to come up with some decent anti-terror legislation but have decided to leave things to the very last minute and have produced, in my view, a complete dog's breakfast. If the government is so concerned about terrorism how come they wasted so much time debating the Hunting Bill?
JB, London, UK
In general I support the measures insofar as they are intended to promote national security. I'm concerned, however, that the proposals further blur the separateness of the legislature and the judiciary. I am a strong supporter of the method whereby the legislature, i.e. the government, makes policy and statute and the judiciary interprets that policy and statute and makes judgement on each case on its merits. Judges have a vast amount of experience and knowledge and the idea of such power in the hands of the home secretary who has nowhere near such experience I find abhorrent. All decisions pertaining to the liberty of the individual should be made by a judge, never by a politician.
Kevin Bennett, Newton Abbot, Devon The proposed laws do not go far enough! The ultimate human right is to live without fear. Those who complain of the erosion of civil liberties are the first to complain when the government fails to protect them from crime. These suspected terrorists are always free to return to their home countries.
Carol Turner, Barry Wales
I can only imagine that those who are in favour of the new laws are not envisaging them being applied to themselves. The problem is not the application of such powers to guilty people, it is the risk of them being wrongfully applied to innocent people, who will have no way to defend themselves as they will have no right to ever be tried, or even to know what the case against them is.
Imagine that it happens to you, perhaps because you gave some money to a charity in the street, and the charity turned out to be indirectly funding terrorism. You would never know this was why you had lost your freedom, you would keep protesting that there must have been some mistake, and your protests would get you absolutely nowhere. And how will the public ever know if the powers are being used reasonably or not, when the grounds for a control order will never be made public?
Steve Irwin, London
I can only reiterate the points put so eloquently by Chris, Amanda and others here. I, like the vast majority of people, don't believe these anti-terror plans are the answer. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? They take away fundamental human rights - rights to which we are morally entitled no matter whether or not they are enshrined in the latest European court ruling. I noticed today's news story that the Appeal Court has decided to protect the rights as they see it of the schoolgirl who wished to wear her special gown. But who's protecting the rights of our citizens as a whole?
Michael, Wrexham
This just proves the point that it isn't terrorist attacks themselves that destroy our civil liberties. It is the government's insane and paranoid reaction to possible attacks that does the terrorists' job for them. This is not the way to win the war against terrorism. If we let our government do this, then the terrorists have won the day already, not us.
Lloyd Evans, Brighton, UK
I'm somewhat unnerved by the comment "terrorist suspects have no basic rights". Surely a suspect is just that, a suspect. The law should come down heavily on anyone involved with terrorism, but only after being proved guilty by an appropriate judiciary process.
F Felipe, London
Under the apartheid regime in South Africa, we had detention without trial which was campaigned against even back then. When, finally, this was overturned, we looked back on those days in amazement. How could the government have got away with such an infringement of human rights? This is 2005 in a country running under what is supposedly the ideal form of governance (We went to war with Iraq to instil "democracy") and these laws are seriously being considered. I can't believe it. Another parallel that frightens me is: Pass book (SA 1975)/ ID card (UK 2005?) Way hey! Progress. It is Orwellian. If people can't see that this is the State trying to control them, I'm very afraid of where this country's going.
Andrew Lee, UK/South Africa
The threat of terrorism is not a new thing. Since explosives were invented, people had the opportunity to blow themselves or anyone else up. Why not bring these measures in 10 or 20 years ago when the IRA was at its most militant? We, as a nation, condemn countries such as Iraq and Syria for detaining "suspects" without trials while we bring laws in to enforce the same measures
Joe, Middlesbrough, UK
We need tougher laws to deal with these terrorists before, not after they attack. The ultimate human right is to be able to live without fear of being murdered by extremists. Terrorists rights groups like Liberty and Amnesty constantly try to give the men of violence more rights that the law abiding citizen.
Paul, Stourbridge, England
Paul of Stourbridge - the whole point is that these people are law-abiding citizens, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. There is already perfectly adequate legal provision for trying and convicting those who conspire to commit acts of terrorism. As in any civilised society, this requires proof. Confining indefinitely, without telling them why, people who you just think might possibly be disposed towards committing them - that's not a matter of law at all but of hysteria.
Patrick, UK
This is a free country. Any attempts to dilute our liberties for some short-term security are wide of the mark. Britain already has some of the most wide-ranging (and some might say draconian) anti-terror laws in the West. Don't these laws say to al-Qaeda that we have lost?
Tony, Birmingham
The problem with this Bill is the powers it will give future governments. The Nazi party rose from obscurity to power in less than a generation - we need to ensure that the Rule of Law is respected and that adequate separation of powers are maintained. Terrorists must be dealt with, but must not be able to destroy centuries of freedom from arbitrary "justice".
Jason Good, High Peak, Derbyshire
If it is unlawful for a person to be incarcerated (in Belmarsh) without due process, as determined by the law lords, how will it be any more lawful for a person to be incarcerated in their own home without due process?
Donald McNicholl, Scotland
I thought that in this country we had a separate Legislature and Judiciary? How then can politicians claim judicial powers? It is only a matter of time before it is used for political point scoring.
Gavyn, London, UK
Why were these measures not introduced during the '70s and '80s at the height of IRA action? If they weren't needed when we were actually under attack why do we need them now when the government merely suspects they are required?
Philip Buckley-Mellor, UK
| Anything is allowable in the interest of public safety |
I think anything is allowable in the interest of public safety and no law abiding citizen would worry about any measures taken such as ID cards etc only those who choose to break the law.
Barbara Hill, Wigan
Barbara Hill of Wigan, and any others who claim those who are innocent have nothing to fear, please read one of the other headline stories on this web site, namely the 'One in four affected by ID fraud'.
Chris, UK
Terrorism targets freedom and it is defeated by refusing to give up freedom. The British public has never panicked or given in, and accepts that this freedom sometimes carries a heavy price for a few. Liberty should not be surrendered, even if it is meant to be directed at terrorists.
Peter Guberg, Southampton, UK
I think the reigning in of civil liberties under the guise of protecting our security is one of the saddest days in the whole of British history and makes me ashamed, but, more to the point, will the new powers be rescinded at sometime in the future when the threat is judged to have abated, or is this the first step on the road to an Orwellian style police state ?
Chris, Dundee, Scotland
Blair's eager involvement in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have engendered terrorism, not deterred it; and increased the likelihood of the UK becoming a target, not lessened it. Now the citizens of the UK are being expected to pay the price with their freedoms and rights. Had Blair and his ministers been placed under house arrest, and denied communication with the outside world, 3 years ago the UK would be a far safer, and more pleasant, country to live in.
Nikki Sullivan, Northampton
| Another nail in the coffin of liberty |
These new laws are just another nail in the coffin of liberty, they have nothing to do with terrorism, and they will be used in the future to suppress people and groups that oppose the mainstream political parties.
Charles, England Removing people's liberty without fair trial is an erosion of one of the very freedoms which Blair and Bush purport to be defending. If this bill passes without significant amendment it will be a victory for the terrorists - not for democracy.
Martin, Bromley, UK
If this proposed anti-terror law passes and there is no judicial over sight, what is to stop Blair and Clark putting all Tory and Lib Dem supporters under house arrest, so they can not vote in the next election?
Satinder Singh, London
As a Muslim living in the UK I am aware that the government has labelled a whole section of the community terrorists. It is now open season for malicious sneaks and troublemakers to hide behind the curtain of 'national security' to make false accusations about neighbours and colleagues, knowing that they will never have to justify themselves, but make a heap of trouble for their victims.
Kauser Ahmed, Exeter, Devon
No-one and no plan is perfect. People should stop acting as if the government can solve all problems but isn't. They're doing their best in a bad situation.
Chester Baggley, Workington, UK
| The main aim of the government should be to prevent terror attacks |
It's pretty hard (and much too late) to bring a suicide bomber to trial. The main aim of the government should be to prevent terror attacks, not jail those responsible afterwards. Proving someone guilty of a crime they haven't committed is impossible. It's equally impossible to prove beyond all reasonable doubt what someone is thinking. Control orders are a humane and reasonable solution to the problem. After all most governments would just make the suspects "vanish".
Peter, Nottingham Do the speeding laws stop speeding? No! Do the murder laws stop murder? No! Do the rape laws stop rape? No! Should we therefore scrap these laws? No! Most laws are designed to control, limit or deter an activity. Just because these measures don't guarantee the prevention of terrorism (no law could) it doesn't mean we shouldn't introduce it.
Kevin, West Midlands
Terrorism is a massively exaggerated threat and one we are being asked to sacrifice democracy for. The real threat to our way of life comes from our own destruction of the environment and increasing corporate power, but nothing is being done about these things. Supporters of the 'control order' should ask themselves why that is and why there has been no attack in Britain yet and very few convictions.
Paul, UK
My family is mixed race - my wife is a British Asian but I am white - and we have three mixed race kids under 5-years-old. We have noticed that when returning to the UK from holidays my wife and I are now routinely stopped by passport control officers while other (mainly white) passengers are invariably allowed through without problems.
There is clearly racial profiling taking place in the Home Office, and Hazel Blears seems to support it - which is why I'm voting for the Conservative Party at the next election.
Ian Jackson, Manchester, UK
| Terrorism will strive, unless there is a law that squarely deters it |
Terrorism will strive, unless there is a law that squarely deters it. If we are concerned of the rights among terrorists, then how about those lives lost in bombings. Let justice be served for all, and that is by putting more edges on terrorism laws.
Ruby Go, Molave, Philippines
I am amazed and frankly scared at how quickly people jump from suspected terrorist to convicted. Most of the suspected British terrorists that were held in Guantanamo have been released but people still see them as convicted terrorists. I do sincerely wish that all those in favour of those laws become innocent victims of them... then we can discuss the issue again.
Anthony, London, UK
| What type of country do they want to live in? |
As a lawyer I am against this bill. Yes I accept that there is a threat, but there has been for a long time. What has changed? Those who are for the bill must ask themselves: what type of country do they want to live in? One where the government can lock people up without trial, without providing one piece of proof (and this could be you, not just some 'other' person, think at the least of mistaken identity or identity theft)? Government do not easily give up such powers (income tax was a short term measure).
Chris, Sheffield, UK Detaining people without evidence on the say-so of our politicians is an absolutely appalling idea. If we're going to have a police state, can we at least have it managed by people with some measure of competence?
Colin, Cardiff, UK
I grew up in Apartheid South Africa, where our male family members were called-up to fight the various threats of "terrorism" against the republic's borders and from within. The fear for their loved ones generated by this kept normally sensible people in check while the government quietly continued to erode the civil liberties of its population. It's a real shame to see the beginnings of the same thing happening here.
Caz Thomson, Kincardine, Scotland
I can understand why many people think differently to me, but when it comes to the safety of the British people, there is no room for being easy going or reasonable. I believe we should do whatever we have to in an attempt to rid the country and world of terror.
Dave Peters, Reigate, Surrey, England
| Terrorism can only be controlled by vigilant policing |
We have been threatened by the prime minister with an increase in terrorism if these laws are not passed. This is scare-mongering. Terrorism can only be controlled by vigilant policing and good well-used intelligence while these laws give the government more power over us.
Bill, London Will these laws stop terrorist attacks - no! Did ID cards stop the Madrid bombings - no! In short there are no guarantees that restricting our liberties will reduce terrorism; the politicians want to be seen to be doing something. Let phone tap evidence, sensitive intelligence information etc be heard by a judge in a closed court, not by a politician whose agenda has to be always questioned.
John, Northwich, UK
Surely once the suspects are known, the threat is effectively neutralised. Let them know they are being watched and arrest if the evidence is strong enough. I'd doubt whether a successful terrorist attack will come from someone known to the authorities, whether they carry an ID card or not.
Adam, Wales
The problem is the need to prevent someone who is about to commit an act of terrorism. As 911 showed, such an act could kill 1,000s of people. So although I agree there needs to be a change in the law, where I do not agree is that it is a politician who has the power to decide. It should not be the job of a politician to get involved in individual cases, leave it to the judges who have the training, experience, time and impartiality to deal with these cases.
Geoff Payne, London, England
When I was a young law student in the 1980's I read an article by the late Lord Hailsham, sometime Lord Chancellor and distinguished judge, entitled "The Elective Dictatorship." The point Lord Hailsham made was that our ancient unwritten constitution, with its "checks and balances" based only on precedent and convention, is vulnerable to the whims of an over-mighty executive. Despite the fact that we elect our governments we could end up with one which rode rough-shod over our rights, hence the title of his piece. I recall reading this and thinking, how very interesting but this could never happen because we are such a reasonable people and have a long tradition of respect for the rule of law. Well, it's here, now, that dictatorship we elected. Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, all out of the window. The fact that Clarke says that control orders will be used sparingly in the most limited of circumstances should be of no comfort.
Amanda Benham, Thame, Oxon These plans are the real threat to our society, more so than the terrorists.
Mark Calvin, London, UK
A politician lacks the necessary training and objectivity to make good legal decisions. Why then should they take this particular area of decision away from the judiciary? Don't they think our judges can be trusted with the sensitive material concerned? Or is the government making bad law on the hoof again?
Anon, Stratford-upon-Avon
Since 9/11, we as young British citizens, have been brought up surrounded by global terror. We understand the importance of civil liberties but we are not naive enough to think that another 9/11 could not happen on our doorstep. Why are we trying to defend people who would happily kill us and all our families in a vicious attack? People who bang on about civil liberties need to wake up and get tough on terror.
Roger and Brian, Oadby, England Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? And if a person is found guilty, they should be punished and sentenced, not put under house arrest. However, if they are innocent, they should be set free. A new law should not be necessary to carry out something so simple.
Anna Malik, London
I am in favour of "control orders" but not by those being imposed solely by Charles Clarke, Tony Blair, etc. I am well into my 70s and "fought" in many ways more than one to keep this country free from a dictator, so why should we surrender now?
Eric Rowlands, Telford, England
Putting people under house arrest because you think they are up to something is self defeating. If they know you are watching them they are going to be very careful not to do anything suspicious. How will you ever get evidence against them then? If you want to catch them they shouldn't be aware you are watching them.
Yvonne, Stockport, England
I do not understand the mentality of those who put the civil liberties of suspected terrorists above the lives of fellow UK citizens. The next time they are sitting on a plane, going on their annual holiday to the US, they should consider that there may be another shoe-bomber on their plane who couldn't be arrested because the police have the wrong type of evidence against him.
Tim, Birmingham, UK
| I don't understand what people think they are losing by shoring up anti-terrorism laws |
As an American who lost friends in the attack on 9/11, I fully agree with the British government's anti-terror plans. Look at the amount of British terrorists that were captured in Afghanistan. Plus, the recent terrorist who was in court and admitted his involvement in the shoe bomb attempt. I don't understand what people think they are losing by shoring up anti-terrorism laws. To me if you are not a participant in terrorism what do you have to worry about?
Jack, Arbroath, Scotland Happily those laws stop at the border. The UK had been envied for their civil liberties but that is now fading away. A pity.
Raoul, Luxembourg
Is it really the opinion of the people in the UK that British politicians should have the same powers as, for example, the Burmese government? That is effectively what is being asked. It is only the protection afforded to the individual that prevents oppression to the majority.
Mark, Brisbane, Australia
Too many concessions have already been undertaken. We appear to be making laws that pander to the left and are not in the interest of national security. House arrest, ridiculous, if there is any evidence that suggests an individual is involved in terrorist activity they should be behind bars. I would however, like this to be policed by the judiciary and not by a politician as long as this does not mean delays in processing these cases.
Martin, Stoke, Staffs
I grew up in a Communist country, so I know what I am talking about when I say that the arguments and actions of this Labour government evoke a queasy sense of d�j� vu. I also know a few things about risk assessment, and that I am daily in a greater risk from a drunken motorist, than from an evil terrorist. If this country comes to believe otherwise, the terrorists will have won.
Mike Arnautov, Flackwell Heath, Bucks When the war on terror ends will these laws be repealed? I doubt it, but then I doubt the war will ever end as it will be in the politicians' interest to keep us in this continual state of fear. Today's politicians might not use these powers to their ultimate conclusion - but the ones in twenty years time might.
Dave Wright, Birmingham, UK
Whilst I support the detention of terrorist suspects for long periods if deemed necessary, it would seem that much of this legislation is needed due to weaknesses in the criminal justice system. The government seems too ready to adopt legislation which favours criminal suspects. The human rights laws seem to have become something of a "criminal's charter". Would they be signing up to the European Convention now? I doubt it somehow.
Ian Bannister, Burton-on-Trent, Staffs
People should not be naive by thinking that civil liberties should apply to terrorists. These are people that are ready to commit mass murder, for example, by way of suicide bombings. The problem is that if a suicide bombing had occurred in London, all this talk of civil liberties would not even arise. And yes, we do have British citizens who are also ready to engage in terrorist activities. These are people who have no allegiance to the UK. Their allegiance is to foreign terrorists and governments. For them, a British passport is nothing but an opportunity to maim and kill innocent British citizens. People need to wake up. Times have changed since 9/11. Charles Clarke needs to be tough.
Gbenga Williams, London, England
| Supporters of this bill must yearn for the good old days of the witch-hunts |
Inevitably the far-right are bleating their traditional the innocent have nothing to fear mantra. They should ask the Guildford 4, the Birmingham 6, or the MacGuire family what they think about that. If there was any truth at all in such nonsense then why bother with any system of justice at all?
Why not just lock up anybody, at anytime, for anything; based solely upon whim, hearsay and rumour, rather than by due process of law involving awkward things such as evidence and proof, with guilt or innocence being established beyond reasonable doubt? Supporters of this bill must yearn for the good old days of the witch-hunts.
Paul Wilkins, London
Terrorists and terrorist suspects have no basic rights, once they take up arms to bring down a legitimate government, or take human lives in the name of their cause. Must we wait for another 9/11 here in the UK before we get those do-gooders asking why this government didn't do something to prevent it.
Thomas Paterson, Muscat, Oman
| It is about time that the 'civil rights' campaigners and the other do-gooder types realised the real and present danger posed by these evil people |
It is quite amazing that, on a day when over 100 innocent citizens of Iraq are murdered by terrorists, and another terrorist admits, in a British court, his guilt of attempting to destroy a passenger aircraft, there is opposition to proposals to strengthen the anti-terrorism laws. It is about time that the 'civil rights' campaigners and the other do-gooder types realised the real and present danger posed by these evil people.
If the professional services (police and security services) have determined that certain individuals are involved in terrorism (and its support), then it is essential that they are given the necessary powers to intervene and prevent any attack upon our society.
Trevor, London, UK
Curtailment of civil liberties would adversely affect everyone in the country. However, if there was a terrorist attack, the chances of a specific person being affected, either themselves or by knowing someone affected are very small. On that basis doesn't it make sense for individuals to be against the proposed new laws just in the basis of self-interest?
Ian, London, UK
When a person can be imprisoned based on some 'secret evidence' that we can't see, we have all lost our freedom. This won't remove the threat of terrorism, it will just create a new threat of losing our liberty without trial.
Mark Tully, Nottingham
Terrorism is an ideology not a small group of people. Lock them up and there will be more. We are trying to fight symptoms not the cause. Its nonsense. Let's remember there is no evidence and the claims are being made by the same government that brought us the WMDs that never existed, its just so sad.
Tom, York, UK
| I think the fear is exaggerated, orchestrated and extremely divisive |
Luckily (for me) I do not subscribe to the politicos and media-reinforced fear of terrorism. Sure, it can happen, but I believe that - as was ever thus - I think the fear is exaggerated, orchestrated and extremely divisive. But who cares eh? As it makes good headlines.
David, Reading, UK This is a judicial decision. No political influence should be allowed to enter it. If we allow terror, or its threat, to justify overturning years of habeas corpus, the terrorists have already one. After the law is passed, what kind of system are we defending?
Mike Forth, Reading, UK
I have a horrible feeling that this is exactly what the terrorists want. Fear breeds oppression, which in turn breeds more fear...we're becoming a paranoid nation.
Rob Stone, Stafford, UK
There might be some justification in this fundamental attack on our civil liberties if there were a shred of evidence that it would make the country safer. But so far, I haven't seen any.
Adam, London, UK
The last time a British Government tried to remove the right of habeas corpus was during Internment in Northern Ireland, in 1971. I seem to remember it did nothing to reduce the terrorist threat, rather it increased their activities.
Mark Blackman, London
All of those people who are arguing that opposition to this bill is being "weak on terror" miss the point. The difference between the government and its critics is that those who rightly oppose the bill think that justice can only be dispensed by fair, honest and impartial judges, whereas the government wants politicians to have that power.
Alex, UK
| Better to arrest and detain a suspect than risk the possible carnage of terrorism |
Why is it that all you people who bleat on about 'human rights' and 'civil liberties' never stop to consider that a person secreting a bomb in a public place really couldn't care less about you, me or any of your relatives or children. We have human rights and civil liberties. Terrorists forfeit those in most sane people's thinking. Better to arrest and detain a suspect than risk the possible carnage of terrorism.
KT, UK A policeman on the doorstep, one in the garden - at least two more to cover coffee, and toilet breaks, lunch breaks, four more to cover the 24 hrs. Without this amount of police there is no security. This in itself makes it a non starter and ill thought out, that's before you even have to think about the civil liberties of anyone! Did I forget to mention neighbours!
Pat, West Sussex
Too many people are living in la-la land when it comes to the terrorist threat. We have been lucky so far, that's all, and if, God forbid, the terrorists succeed in their attempts to attack the UK, I bet my house that all discussion about civil liberties will go out of the window. Wake up Britain!
Ferdinand Moe, Telford
| There must be some judicial review of such powers |
It cannot be right that the Home Secretary can imprison anyone he sees fit. There must be some judicial review of such powers. The government has been forced down this messy road because European law now has primacy over domestic law and the judiciary take more notice of Strasbourg than Westminster.
Ian, Bradford UK As far as myself and associates are concerned, and they are many, and various, the vigorously proclaimed, unanimous opinion is that the only people that are in a position to know the facts in any of these cases is the responsible government ministers. Responsible for ensuring, as far as humanly possible, that we can go about our lawful pursuits knowing that what has to be done, will be done to protect life and limb of the innocents. Opposition parties make a grave mistake if they think their current stance on this matter reflects favourably on their electoral prospects. Are they seriously suggesting that we British do not fully appreciate the awful gravity of the desperate choices that have to be made?
Ronald Reece, UK
Live in fear by your own choice and yours alone. And when those around you tell you to be afraid, question not only their motives, but their very understanding of what it is to be alive and free.
Dave, Milwaukee, USA
Would I surrender my civil liberties for a guarantee of personal safety? No I would not and that's not the question. We are being asked to grant our government these authoritarian powers that thousands of us (including now Labour MP's) supported opponents of in South Africa, at direct risk to their lives. We are now prepared to gift away our freedom for what, maybe a tiny bit more safety?
Nathan, Lancs
So house arrest was wrong in Apartheid South Africa, is wrong in Burma, but ok in the UK because we can 'trust' our politicians?
Christian, Liverpool
| These plans are not guaranteed to prevent future attacks |
There is an argument that we need to give up some of our liberty in order to prevent a terrorist attack. The problem with this position is that these plans are not guaranteed to prevent future attacks. If we follow the logic to its conclusion then after the next attack we will be expected to give up even more liberty to increase our "safety" while still not guaranteeing that there will be no attacks. Not only does this progression not eliminate the risk of terrorist attacks it also leads to a police state.
R Read, London, UK In a sense the war against terrorism has already been lost. We are forced to give up some of our liberty to improve our chances of survival against an implacable hidden enemy who moves freely and secretly among us and who has or may acquire weapons of unimaginable destruction. Those who will not resign themselves to this reality would put all of our lives in grave jeopardy. That cannot be allowed to happen.
Mark, USA
In Robert Bolt's play "A Man for All Seasons" Sir Thomas More debates this issue with Roper, his son-in-law. Roper suggests that if you are chasing the devil across fields you should tear down the fences of the law in order to catch him more quickly. Sir Thomas More disagrees, making the point that if you tear down the fences when you are chasing him, there is nothing left to protect you when he spins round and chases you in turn. But then of course Charles Clarke as Education Secretary sneered especially at the study of history in universities.
Martin Ternouth, UK
| The protection of human life must always take priority over theoretical issues of "human rights" |
Yes, I do support the Government on this issue. As a lawyer myself I am deeply embarrassed at the reaction of their Lordships and my professional representative body, who have not taken sufficiently into account the very serious actual threat posed to the country by terrorism. The protection of human life must always take priority over theoretical issues of "human rights". I do feel I have a right to speak out on this - terrorism affects lawyers too - my uncle's brother-in- law was a judge in Northern Ireland who was murdered by terrorists on his doorstep in front of his young daughter.
Maurice, Oxfordshire I don't know if any of the contributors supporting the plans have any experience of criminal intelligence, but I do. It is made up mostly of unsubsubstantantiated allegations, uncorroborated hearsay and a fair amount of gut instinct. These are all very useful for identifying potential targets for further investigation and evidence gathering but nothing more. The most important thing to understand is that intelligence is not an exact science and is frequently incorrect
JT, Chester, UK
These plans are Orwellian in their inspiration and justification. If we are 'at war' - what of the years of the IRA threat when attacks were real and not just possible? I believe that we are being placed in a position of fear to enable this legislation to be introduced. Replace Oceania with NATO or G8 or the EU, read daily of military struggles in far away lands for which sacrifices are necessary, and realise that Orwell was unnaturally prescient. The great irony is that we have all accepted the screens into our lives and houses by popular demand. They do not watch us, they do not need to. We applaud Big Brother and Newspeak is here and now.
Richard, Wales
Those that complain we are losing liberties should go live somewhere like China, Saudi Arabia or even Russia. Then come back to the UK and claim we are living in a "police state", "1984" or whatever cool buzzword they are employing today.
Tony S, UK
Tony S - It's precisely because we don't want to be like countries such as China and Saudi Arabia that people are so opposed to these measures. ID Cards, Detention without trial what next - maybe suspending elections because of a terrorist threat. This government terrifies me.
Pete, UK
No one wants a terrorist strike in this country, but it is hypocritical to say that in order to protect our free way of life, we're prepared to lock people up without trial. Whether this is within their own homes or in Belmarsh prison is frankly irrelevant. The ideal of 'innocent until proven guilty' is an absolute. We cannot and must not start making exceptions, whatever the circumstances. If there is enough evidence to issue a Control Order, then surely there must be enough evidence to put someone on trial.
Stuart Davis, Redhill, Surrey
The solution to the terrorist threat is not to be found in removing our civil liberties, but rather by being tough on the causes of terrorism. No one seems to be asking why we are facing a threat, and what has caused these people to become terrorists.
Graeme , Aberdeen UK
Are the pro lobby who would rather see a thousand innocent people detained wrongly rather than a single person die at the hands of a terrorist going to volunteer for wrongful detention or are they willing for a thousand others to make that sacrifice on their behalf? Don't forget though that wrongful detention would be forced upon you and they will not be asking for volunteers. I would not trust the judgement or the sanity of any man, woman or child who would willingly give up their own freedom to win an argument.
Matthew, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
