This is the third page of your comments on the government's anti-terror plans.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
In a truly elected democracy the MPs in the House of Commons would follow the wishes of their constituents and judging by the majority of the comments on this page they would allow the amendments made by the House of Lords, but instead the Labour MPs follow the wishes of Tony Blair and follow the party line. Does this country have a truly democratic process or not. I would say not because MPs almost always tow the party line and not the wishes of their constituents.
Matt, UK
No. Peers should not give way. I'm far from convinced as to the extent of terrorist threat. A tiny political elite is attempting to arrogate power to itself. There is no justifiable objection to a 12-month sunset clause. I'm 47 tomorrow and this is the first time I've commented on anything like this!
Roger Dowling, Milton Keynes
The Peers are addressing some fundamental issues which if given way on now could be the thin end of the wedge. This especially crucial when the sunset clause offer seems very reasonable, leaving me wondering as to the real motives of Mr Blair and the Labour Government.
Michael Waddell, Letchworth, Herts
 |  Don't these MPs realise we didn't elect them to abolish our rights |
MPs keep banging on about being the elected house, and having a mandate. Don't these MPs realise we didn't elect them to abolish our rights!
Mike Bond, Warwick, UK
The House of Lords is unrepresentative but so is the so-called elected house. Labour has a huge majority but only represents about 40% of voters. A representative vote would have seen an entirely different result in the Commons, with Liberals and Tories voting against the bill. So Blair can't take the high ground and claim it is the will of the people.
Tony Weddle, UK
Give us a snap election now Blair!
J. Sims, England
Powers once granted are rarely voluntarily relinquished. Our present government may be well intentioned, but who is to say that future less well intentioned governments will not abuse the powers granted. We are engaged in a war of ideas with an ideology that is repressive and totalitarian. Our response to it should not ape the approach of the enemies of a way of life that has stood firm for almost a thousand years.
Emerson Tan, London, UK
This is a timely reminder of how important a second informed and experienced political house is to our democracy. The Lords were active in blunting the worst excesses of Tory misrule in the 1980s and are now creating the same "sanity check" on today's Labour government. Next time we discuss dismantling this second house we should perhaps reflect on the huge democratic benefit it offers.
Gerard, Bristol, UK
We, the electorate, voted for our representatives in the House of Commons, we did not vote for those that sit in the Lords. The Commons has the consensus of the electorate, the unelected Lords should not be allowed to dictate changes to bills.
Martin, Lympstone, UK
Howard and his cronies in the Lords are risking more than the lives of British people in their misguided opposition to this desperately needed legislation. God forbid that there should be a serious terrorist incident following their opposition, if they should prevail.
David Daniels, Evesham, UK
The House of Lords must give way to the democratic/elected House of Parliament. If other parties wish to make an issue of the terrorist law the they can do so in the forthcoming election and the people will decide.
Ian Mackenzie, Glasgow, Scotland The Labour Party was not elected on the basis of a manifesto advocating the removal of liberty for those suspected of crimes, and in turn undermine 800 years of innocence until proven guilty. We are fortunate to have the Lords to prevent a return to the Dark Ages.
Anonymous, London
Having lived once in a country were detention without trial was legal and where the government used an unrealistic fear of terrorism to stay in power, I can only say that the people of Britain must resist this at all costs. To repeat the stupidity of the apartheid government of South Africa would be tragic.
Eric de la Harpe, Reading, UK
Try as I might I just cannot see the logic of the government on this one. On one hand we MUST have this legislation now exactly as it is or all these alleged terrorists will be free to leave prison, on the other we cannot be allowed to re-visit the legislation later since this might send the wrong message?? How rubbish is that argument?
Pete, Birmingham UK
The government should realise that a law with an expiry date is better than no law. The sunset clause is required to allow for more thought out legislation to be passed. Tony Blair must stop using the Commons and Lords as his toys and grow up.
JPD, London
I think that there is a general under-estimation of how genuinely worried the government is that a terrorist incident will occur sooner or later. The BBC's Andrew Marr has said as much when reporting from Downing Street on at least one occasion. It's not a question of "if" but of "when", and it is interesting how the people who were against the war because, among other things, participating would make the UK a terrorist target, are now claiming there is no real threat that would warrant this legislation.
Steve, Bristol, UK
There is a certain irony that it is the Peers of the realm, who won the right of Habeas Corpus for us 800 years ago, who have to defend that right against a so-called democratic representative chamber. To my surprise, the House of Lords has just demonstrated its relevance in this present time.
M.A. Howley, Wirral England
Absolutely the Peers should stand their ground. How ironic that hard won democratic freedoms are being defended by the unelected chamber against the elected one. What have we come too? Our society is at more risk from our own rulers than from any external threat.
Ollie Killingback, Wellingborough, England
The Lords should now give way. They have improved the Bill, but the elected chamber only should decide, once revised.
John McQuiggan, Bromley Kent, UK
Tony Blair is PM and it is for him to find a workable compromise that satisfies our parliamentary processes. If he cannot do that he should not be in the job.
Ian Royston, Saddleworth, Yorks
It is a pity the government has wasted so much time on debating fox hunting when clearly time was needed for debating a serious issue. We appear to be heading for a situation where a fox will have more rights than I have.
Chris Palmann, St. Neots, UK This bill undermines the very things that it purports to protect. How do you demonstrate "innocence" if you are not entitled to know why you have been detained? Why should it be permissible to deprive someone of their liberty on the basis of "reasonable suspicion"?
Katy, London
If we are so much 'in immediate danger' as the Government says, Tony Blair would accept the bill with the sunset clause, instead of playing politics with the safety of the country
Carol Sobhan, Halesowen, West Midlands
The views of the elected house should take precedence over the unelected house. End of discussion.
Andrew Leslie, Sandhurst, UK
I am not sure that discussing legislation of such an important nature is a good idea at night when everyone must be exhausted. Surely it would make more sense to at least allow everyone a bit of breathing space and possibly extend the current laws for a week!
Gordon Lawrence, Cambridge
Doesn't this whole episode highlight the pointlessness of the House of Lords? The House of Commons, an elected body by the people of the UK, can't pass vital legislation because of an unelected group over whose selection the people of the UK have no say. Madness. Why do we need the House of Lords?
Stuart Marriott, Leicester, England
I'm sure if there is a attack on London like 9/11, people would say the government was not doing enough. They want to kill us by any means so we must stop them by any means.
Dave, St Albans
The actions of the Lords increasingly demonstrates the need for urgent reform. They have no mandate to prevent government implementing legislation. The Lords should be scrapped.
Harry Taylor, London
I understand that terrorism may be more of a threat than it has ever been, but by removing our civil liberties aren't we just eroding the constitutional rights of the British people - what will there be left to protect?? Thank God for the House of Lords!!
Andy, Bristol
| Where is this terrorism that we're being protected from? |
No way should the plans be passed. Thank goodness for the Lords who can influence the system without personal interest and side with the people. Where is this terrorism that we're being protected from? And why should we give up our liberty for it anyway? I'd rather die free.
Woody, Dar es Salaam I am sure if terrorists attacked London on the same scale of Sept 11, people would radically change their mind about the anti-terror plan. Habeas Corpus or human rights is not the issue but national security is. It seems everyone got the Big Brother syndrome, they are all afraid of something they can't see, but the truth is this bill would affect only a handful of suspects. It is your decision!
Ralph, Surrey
What concerns me over and above this hideous violation of civil liberties is the feature creep of it. This law could equally be used to stop legitimate protesters, the government has no oversight on who it detains.
Paul T, Chippenham, Wiltshire
Labour proposes a referendum on the new EU constitution but is prepared to throw out 600 years of civil liberties overnight. I know which I'd rather vote on.
Bill, Tervuren, Belgium
I think people should watch the solemn services commemorating the Madrid bombings of a year ago and ask themselves if they want to risk suspected terrorists being released among us.
Anonymous, Harlow, UK
I have just been watching the Parliament Channel on TV. The attempts of Labour politicians to justify their position have provided more laughter than Monty Python. This legislation throws away hundreds of years of our civil liberties, defies all precedent of common law and will in no way reduce the potential threat from terrorists. It is time for Tony Blair to admit that he is wrong and to allow proper debate and fair and just legislation, rather than the authoritarian knee-jerk reaction to imagined threats supported by so-called "intelligence" which no one but he is allowed to see.
John W., Beverley, England
The government must not be pushed around and buckle under to the holier-than-thou-tendency. Tell them forcefully that they will not take any risks that fanatics be given the opportunity they crave to kill and maim the innocent. The people of this country are sick of the doughty defenders of liberty implying that realists are fascists.
Ron Reece, Ingatestone Essex
In my view the Terrorism threat has been blown out of proportion. All one has to do is watch the excellent BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" to see that the threat is a fantasy. Like the GM food issue the government will try and have this approved and they won't stop until it is forced on us.
Brian Grayley, London, UK
Liberty is not a light bulb to be switched on and off at will. It is more akin to a sputtering candle in a howling gale. It's flame, once extinguished, cannot easily be relit. This bill, like so many authoritarian plays by this government, is part of a pattern of command and control. It should be resisted and I am proud that the House of Lords is fighting so hard for our real, long-term good.
Thomas Murphy, Crowthorne, England I'm not sure why we vote, when the elected goverment can be overruled by the unelected Lords
Brian, Tyne& Wear
How can the Government so brazenly flout its own Human Rights Act - Article 6(1) of the Convention provides for the right to a fair trial - surely this proposed legislation is contrary to that with its provisions for house arrest and indefinite detention without trial.
Pauline Fothergill, Halifax, West Yorkshire, UK
| The sunset clause will allow people to sit back and be objective before new legislation hits the statute books |
The sunset clause will allow people to sit back and be objective before new legislation hits the statute books yet again under this government, but I fear that Mr Blair is too proud to allow another initiative raised by a Tory to solve the issue.
S, Kent We did not need these powers during the wars. We did not need them during the IRA bombing campaign. We certainly do not need them now. There are a lot of people getting rich and powerful on the nightmares being created for us.
Gary , Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands
Is it me or am I missing the point? Is this government actually intending to erode our civil liberties with one hand yet with the other signed us up to this ludicrous Human Rights Act which has spawned a huge "gravy train" for lawyers who should know better. Forget about the anti-terror plans just repeal the "Act" and send all these terrorist suspects back from whence they came.
Sue, London
I agree Blair should be strong on this legislation, but properly to prove it is necessary rather than political posturing. Blair needs to secure the Bill's passage through Parliament - even if that is in amended form. Surely that is better than no legislation at all. It can always be amended by subsequent legislation.
Rod, London
The "security moms" in the American presidential election, through a mixture of fear and ignorance elected George Bush to the highest office in their land. I gain the distinct impression that all this is an attempt to pull off the same trick by Tony Blair, using the same excuse as he did with Iraq. Namely that the security services say it is necessary for our protection. I wonder how many caveats they are adding to the recommendations they make this time. All of which will not be made public until the election is well and truly over?
Dave, England
The blue print for current legislation is the internment rules applied to Northern Ireland. What happened there? More innocent than guilty arrested (and that's according to the police), riots among those targeted and subsequent violent suppression (will the next Bloody Sunday be in Bradford?), as well as a minimal effect on levels of terrorism.
Ben, London
Three thousand people died in New York on September 11, tens of millions didn't. Even on 9/11 the average New Yorker was at more risk crossing the road than they were from Al Qaeda. So let's stop this hysteria. The terror threat is not even scary, let alone terrifying and definitely not worth giving up freedoms for.
Colin Simpson, Workington, Cumbria
Charles Clarke states that it is critical that MPs agree the new anti-terror laws this week. Surely it is most important that the government gets it right, rather than just push through their hastily-created ideas? I totally agree that it would be wholly sensible to debate the issue again later in the year when MPs have time to give this important issue the time it needs.
Clive Henly, Chippenham, Wiltshire, UK
In the 1970s and 80s we suffered a massive number of terrorist attacks on the mainland of Britain, and defeated the terrorists. We kept the rule of law then and we can do it now, without these fascist rules. I have lived in four foreign countries where the same standards do not apply and invariably politicians use their power to imprison their opponents wrongly. I do not believe that our politicians are any better. The government needs to learn how to think through laws before trying to impose them.
Stephen Griffith, Newcastle, UK
If Mr Blair was prepared to use the Parliament Act over fox hunting, why, if he believes this bill is so important, does he not invoke the Parliament Act now? Obviously saving foxes lives is more important than potentially saving his citizens lives.
Roger Cope, Burton on Trent, England
Roger Cope. The Parliament Act cannot be used here because the bill needs to be proposed and rejected in three separate Parliament sessions. The Parliament Act is the only defence we need against the Lords "sticking in the mud", and a very good one it is too - it means that ill-thought-out, knee-jerk legislation like that which the Government is trying to push through is given years to be thought out properly and that appropriate concessions will be made in an effort to avoid having to use the Parliament Act.
Andrew K, Bracknell, UK
| Following yet another comprehensive drubbing, this government should resign at once |
Following yet another comprehensive drubbing, this government should resign at once. Their arrogance, failure to hear public disquiet and proposals to remove our core freedoms are a disgrace fit only for the authoritarian one-party state that we have almost become.
Graham, Oxford, UK Would it not be better for the government to spend the money on improving our police service with more recruitment, new technology, etc. This will not only improve police relations with community, but also the economy as a whole.
Anon
I think most people are agreed that politicians should not have the sole decision making power to impose control orders without the consent of a judge. But with the latest amendment proposed by Charles Clarke, do we not now have the best of both worlds, whereby in emergencies, the Home Secretary can make an instant decision on a control order, but has to be ratified by a judge in seven days? Suspected criminals/terrorists can be 'locked down' immediately. Then a judge has a full seven days to mull over the merits of the imposed control order. Sounds good to me.
Kevin, Uxbridge, UK
One thing I haven't heard mentioned in all this is whether the government could use the Parliament Act to force the legislation through, like they did with the anti-hunting bill. Is this an option? If so, it seems to me Blair effectively has a "get out of jail free" card: he can extricate himself from the mess quite easily, with probably very little political fallout.
David Hazel, Fareham, UK
This Bill proves the terrorists are already winning - we're restricting our freedoms and rights through fear of an attack which has been promised since 9/11. So much for "innocent until proven guilty�. What I find most shocking is that the supporters of this bill see nothing wrong in locking these people up without even telling them why, or letting them have a chance to defend themselves.
Sarah, Bristol
There are plenty of known criminals free and engaging in their unlawful activities in this country. Why? Because for too long the hands of the police are tied by the inability to provide evidence to satisfy a court. The police know they are criminals but cannot meet the rigorous standard of evidence required to get them off the streets. They remain a danger to the public however. Now, the wishy-washy Tories and Lib Dems are happy for known terrorists to join them! True democrats know that this must not be allowed to happen. The government may have its faults, but handing a carte blanche to terrorists is not one of them!
Peter Walsh, Havant, Hampshire
| Are we really going to allow unlimited arbitrary detention to happen here - if so, the terrorists have already won |
These new measures go much further than that in curtailing the right to a free trial which has been an essential tenet of British life for hundreds of years. We cannot allow the executive to award itself the power to detain individuals indefinitely without trial or access to evidence which has led to the detention. If a Briton abroad was treated in this way by a foreign government there would be public outcry. Are we really going to allow unlimited arbitrary detention to happen here - if so, the terrorists have already won.
Harry, London, UK When only 20% of crimes get a conviction and evidence such as phone taps, is inadmissible, it's hardly surprising that serious threats are going to be dealt with outside the judicial system. There should be no such thing as inadmissible evidence.
Dave, Oxford
Generally I have been against the existence of a House of Lords that can interfere with our democratically elected government. However, we now see a case where they are doing a valuable job to protect the civil liberties on which our society is based. Judges, not ministers, should make judicial decisions. The evidence behind these decisions need not be made immediately public, but it should be made available as soon as it is not a security risk. Don't allow our country to go the way of the USA and its Guantanamo Bay mentality.
Conrad, Ashford, UK/Stuttgart, Germany
Imprisonment, house or otherwise, on the suspicion of the security services, while it may lead to some terrorist offences being stopped will also lead to many wrongful imprisonments, this will not make the country safer and will breed anger amongst those targeted.
Adrian Bray, Guildford, UK
Now is not the time for stupid posturing and adversarial politics. It is the duty of all politicians (and others) to ensure that this legislation is, as far as is possible, just and appropriate. I am not impressed with the government' performance thus far.
John Mayhew, Sheffield UK
We have a PM who continually attempts to frighten us into getting his own way, Iraq, MMR and now control orders. We, as a nation have been under the threat of attack all my adult life and when we have attempted such anti-terror legislation in the past it has not worked. I value the right to a fair trial in this country and certainly don't want the likes of Blunkett, Blair or Clarke to have the power to detain anyone without substantial evidence.
John Walker, Chesterfield, England
| I believe Mr Blair promised these measures to George Bush to obtain the release of the last British Guantanamo inmates |
How can our government, which is supposed to be running the country in a responsible manner, have brought in such a cack-handed and unpopular piece of legislation which only the credulous and the naive could possibly accept at face value? And Tony Blair says it would be irresponsible to not accept the demands of the security services - the same ones who got it so wrong over Iraq? I believe Mr Blair promised these measures to George Bush to obtain the release of the last British Guantanamo inmates.
John M, London, UK Though not a Labour voter, I'm usually a supporter of Tony Blair, but in this instance I think the loss of fundamental rights we've had since the Middle Ages is too heavy a price to pay. However, looking through the strongly polarised comments makes it clear what an impossible job the government has; they would be vilified whatever course of action they took.
Tim Warren, Chobham, UK
I have just heard a so-called expert say that the Home Secretary should be allowed emergency powers if a terrorist act is committed (on World at One). It seems that the law as it stands can do nothing to protect the public until somebody is killed or maimed in a terrorist act. Sure, as a duty of care, the government should be allowed to protect the public before something happens. Shut these do-gooders up and let the government get on with their job. I have never voted Labour in my life, but I will now.
Steve Burman, Eastleigh, UK
The news agenda focuses on the claims that the legislation currently before parliament is designed to protect the nation from hundreds of Al-Qaeda trained terrorists in waiting and the debate centres on the marginal questions of whether judges or politicians should have the right to order severe restriction of movement and personal activities without trial or whether reasonable suspicion alone should supplant proper testing of evidence because the threat is so grave and sinister.
Meanwhile the true threat to deprive us all of our fundamental rights fought for and won over centuries of struggle is revealed by Tony Blair who when asked if the Home Secretary would use new anti-terror laws against protesters at the G8 summit in Scotland later this year said "I couldn't rule it out". This is a wake up call to recognise and oppose the real assault on the fundamental principles of our democracy.
Paul Harper, Bracknell, England
Over the past week or so, the clear consensus of opinion on these pages has been against this hastily prepared legislation. The sunset clause is an obvious requirement. Blair should accept the clause, see how the law works, then return to the debate in November.
David, Winchester, England
The Prime Minister and some commentators on this page believe that the role of government is to protect its citizens from physical harm. Wrong! It is to protect the freedoms and liberties of its citizens - how many citizens were conscripted and killed (physical harm) in WWII, rather than capitulate to a system of government where these proposed anti-terror would not look out of place. This clearly indicates the cost of defending of our freedom outweighs the danger to any individual - people moaning about terrorist threat should display some backbone - if your time is up, its up!
Iain Herd, Maidenhead, Berkshire
| Just what does it take to shake some sense into you people out there |
Just what does it take to shake some sense into you people out there I must admit I have trouble trusting this government but that in this they are right. Clear your heads people it can happen to you. The thousands of people killed in the twin towers the twin towers would be able to tell you how it cost them.
Sharon, UK Dangerous to let politicians decide on imprisonment. You don't know what sort of government we could have in the future. No imprisonment without trial. Judges not politicians should decide.
Barbara Wilbourn Smith, Hertford, UK
I don't see what all the fuss is about. If you are innocent then the bill isn't even going to affect you. It just makes it easier to catch people before they commit crimes. And as for the argument over civil liberties...what about the civil liberties of all those people who perished in the twin towers? Every person who argues that the bill would restrict their civil liberties would certainly think otherwise if this bill were to save their life in the future, or the lives of loved ones.
Kieran, Edinburgh, UK
The American Patriot Act, which is similar to what is proposed in the UK, was passed unanimously soon after 9/11 with little opposition, and now many of us regret supporting it. The Patriot Act has been used in cases that have not involved terrorism in the least. The British have imported "The Simpsons" and Starbucks, they should not import the Patriot Act.
John, Miami, USA
I say thank goodness for the House of Lords. We have not had a terrorist attack on this country in years, the height of which was during the worst years of the IRA actions. We did not need these types of laws then and we do not need them now. Firstly, a lot of this is hype to get motions passed that any normal government would not dare to try. Many of our ancestors died for the rights they are trying to take from us, and bring this "democracy" back towards something that can be controlled. Secondly, if we bow to this kind of pressure then any threat, even a perceived one, has won. The bottom line is I simply do not trust politicians enough to give them this kind of power over the lives of friends, family and fellow nationals, whoever they are.
Jocelyn Godbold, Bristol, UK The anti-terror bill is not perfect but all those people opposing it should ask themselves if they would maintain the same position if a major atrocity like 9/11 was committed in this country.
Martin Wanger
Looks like time for the arguably unelected Lords to replace the definitely undemocratic Commons
Stephen Brooks, York, England
These plans will be no more effective in preventing a terrorist attack than ID cards will. The danger to our civil liberties comes from this government more than terrorists.
Mike B, Bristol
One must forego a certain amount of civil liberty to live safely. Security is very important and inconvenience is a small price to pay for safety.
P. Bradley, Wrexham, N. Wales
I'll feel safer if this bill fails to become law. The clear lesson of history is that injustice isn't the answer to any human problems but it is the cause of most of them.
MT, London, UK
Whilst I believe that the government are acting in good faith, I question whether any major terror incident to date has been carried out by an individual that has already been identified. I do not think the proposed legislation will neither protect against a 9/11 or Madrid level of incident nor against a suicide bomber type of incident.
Bob, Ayr
This is a disgrace; combined with determined attempts to implement the National ID cards. Does anybody else notice the Orwellian 1984 parallels? If Blair cannot accept amendments to the policy due to his own arrogance and pride he is not fit to rule over us and should either resign or be booted out.
Ben, Cambridge
If the police and security services are advising the PM and government that these measures are necessary to prevent terrorist acts, surely it would be very foolish of the government to then ignore such advice. If any government were to ignore such advice and there were a major act of terrorism in the UK doubtless Howard, Kennedy and the Lords and many others would have a great deal to say!
Revd Graeme Hancocks, Yorkshire
Those who oppose this proposed bill seem more concerned with The Law than our safety. Nice little earner for the Lawyers who defend their domain above all else.
Fred Sage, Surbiton
| It is often virtually impossible to gather sufficient evidence that would guarantee a conviction |
I welcome the proposed terror plans. It is often virtually impossible to gather sufficient evidence that would guarantee a conviction, based on the naturally underground and furtive lives that these characters live. I trust the security services to be sure enough that they have made the right call, despite not having enough to convict once lawyers get involved. They could always offer the detainees the option of detention or deportation if it would make it fairer.
Richard, Herts, UK
This is real 'banana republic' legislation. When you consider the miscarriages of justice which occur when there is due process (Birmingham 6, Guilford 4 etc). This bill should be stamped on straight away. What hope for the voice of freedom and democracy when we have such sinister individuals both in power and in opposition?
Michael Pigeon, Stoke, England
I fully agree with those who want their civil liberties. I want the freedom to walk down the street, visit public buildings, places of entertainment and culture, etc, etc without the fear of some terrorist driving his bomb laden car at me. Remember, or look it up if you are too young, even the Nazi's had their 'sleeper agents' along with the IRA. The first time a bomb or other attack happens out of the woodwork all the do-gooders will come wringing their hands saying why didn't the Government do something!
Mike, South Yorkshire
To Mike, South Yorkshire: The freedom to walk down the street without being at risk of a terrorist attack is worthless if the government can take away your freedom to walk down the street at all.
Martin, England, UK
Like everything this government has tried to push through - headline grabbing, ill conceived, ill thought out and badly presented. This was always going to be a subject for debate so why didn't they do that properly instead of being arrogant. There are certain issues to do with the running of this country which should be above point scoring and politics and this is surely one of them.
Tim, Bradford, West Yorkshire
The fact that the government can even consider allowing the legislation to fail and have nothing in place rather than allow the sunset clause shows how shallow their concern for the security of the nation really is. How can we allow anyone to be locked away, possibly forever, without ever knowing what they are accused of, I thought the Count of Monte Cristo was fiction!
Francis Stevens, Horley, UK Our tradition of 'aristocratic consensus' in which habits, attitudes and manners form the basis of our governance, is not appropriate to stand up against present threats. This is why we need anti-terror laws. The rest of Europe already has such laws and they view us as a very soft touch, to the extent that we are accused of harbouring terrorists. It is time to make a stand before it is too late.
KJ, Swindon, UK
This government should be ashamed. It's yet another attempt to control the masses using scare tactics and bullying through the media. Yes, the country needs protecting, but throwing away a rule book that's served well for many generations and is the envy of the world is not the answer. I don't honestly know how this lot can stand up and argue that it is right without blushing. Maybe we should put the politicians under house arrest to give us all some peace.
David, London, UK
The government's anti-terror plans are good because they present preventive - counter-prior - action plans to suspected terrorist activities. I also agree with the Lords' amendments to the legislation, as I'm certain they critically evaluated legislation put before them and ruled impartially to close all loopholes in the law. The sunset clause is wise in the context of the fluid nature of terror environment, that need swift situational management approaches aimed to reduce/curb the occurrence of terror insecurity in the country.
EW
Here in Zimbabwe there is a piece of legislation that says that the police may arrest - anybody - on suspicion of fraud and hold them for seven days without trial, even if there is no evidence. If there is primae facae evidence, then they can be held for a maximum of 31 days without trial. In Britain there is a piece of legislation (not yet passed) that says that the police may arrest - anybody - on suspicion of terrorism and hold them indefinitely without trial even if there is no evidence. Based on these two facts, which is the more democratic country?
Andrew, Harare, Zimbabwe
True to form the government's anti-terror plans are in total disarray. Yes a sunset clause would be good news, especially if it were tagged to this shambles of a government and ended in May.
John, Derbyshire
| The opponents of the Bill are volunteering others to die for their principles |
As any one individual is unlikely to be killed in a terrorist bombing, the so-called defenders of liberty are relatively safe. They can parade their holier than thou attitudes relatively safely. The accusation that the supporters of the Bill would not volunteer to be detained is entirely fatuous. The opponents of the Bill are volunteering others to die for their principles.
Tony S, London, UK Charles Clark says that control orders should be imposed if there is "reasonable suspicion" that a suspect is involved in terrorist activity. As Tony Blair says there are hundreds of Al Qaeda terrorists on the streets now, are they all to be locked up? No, says the Home secretary, he only envisages using the proposed control orders in 10-20 cases. Does no-one in this government speak to one another?
Dan, Blackpool England
Looks like an ideal opportunity for the democratic government to get rid of the House of Lords.
Steve, UK
Steve UK, your comment highlights your ignorance, the Lords through rejecting this bill protect our democratic rights which, in my view, the Labour party are systematically trying to destroy. You obviously wouldn't mind being locked up without trial or hope of release. This was in fact many oppressive regimes do to get rid of political problems rather than real terrorists.
Stephen, UK
The government should back down otherwise they will have proven that they are not fit to govern us.
Phil, UK
For a government that came into power as great advocates of human rights, I find it so incredibly sad that they seek to erode our civil liberties in such a manner. What happened to the role of the judiciary? Does the separation of powers mean so little to Mr Blair now?
CH, UK
| These laws are a product of paranoia |
These laws are a product of paranoia. We are undergoing a period of history that will, in years to come, be compared with the anti-communist hysteria that dominated US headlines in the 1950's. Been there, done that. Let's move on.
Barry Walton, London, UK It's ironic that we've had to depend upon an unelected body to defend the hard won rights that we have in this country against our elected representatives' injudicious and hasty actions. I am frightened by this government's attitude to the freedoms that we enjoy. In opposition they were quite happy to criticise the oppression of other regimes that deny the right to trial by jury and imprisonment without trial. Yet, here they are doing the self-same things and maintaining that they believe in democracy. Hypocrisy is an understatement!
Mike, Warwick
Previous anti-terror legislation did not prevent terrorist organisations from continuing their terror campaigns in N. Ireland and mainland Britain and I fail to see how this legislation will prevent a willing terrorist from carrying out their plans. The legislation will merely stiffen the resolve of the most willing and able terrorists.
Karl Lynch, Belfast N. Ireland
I assume that I'm not the only person to have realised the extreme irony that the unelected House of Lords have looked after the interests of ordinary people, whilst the elected House of Commons have abjectly failed to do so. It is a very sorry state of affairs, but thank God for the House of Lords!
Oliver Adams, Godalming, UK
Terrorists wish to attack our way of life, our freedoms and our rights. It seems to me that the Government plans to do this job for them with this UK Patriot Act. Sorry Tony, but throwing out the Magna Carta is too high a price to pay - think of another way.
Damian, Newcastle, UK
The government's policy is about power. The power it wants to control every aspect of our lives. Although one recognises the need to prepare us against potential terrorists, removing anyone's fundamental rights on the whim of a politician is clearly wrong. Assurances that the legislation would only be used in rare circumstances should be ignored. Why should we believe any politician?
D. Lowde, Churchdown, Glos, UK Well, Tony Blair did promise to make the House of Lords more democratic.... and now it's certainly more democratic than the House of Commons.
Joe, Brussels, Belgium
The proposed anti-terror plans seem entirely reasonable to me. The first duty of any state is to protect its citizens. We elected the government and we can remove it. Why then do you not trust the people you voted for? The detention of terror suspects has to be in the public interest and we should applaud the plan as well as the safeguards in place.
Keith Bird, Bexhill-on-Sea, England
Bearing in mind the fact that "rushed legislation is bad legislation", the sunset clause should be accepted, thus allowing all politicians the time to thrash this whole business out, and preserve, above all, the basic democratic rights for which so many generations have fought over the centuries.
David Stephenson, Edinburgh, Scotland
The real question we should all be asking is why do the government want to take away our civil liberties? What is their real agenda? They know full well that the terrorist threat is manufactured by their own policies so what are they really up to? Come on Britain, wake up!
Jamie Warne, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
