I think what Max meant was how do you determine when the threat is over and the act can be repealed? Do you envisage it ever being repealed or staying in force forever until it’s superceded by even more illiberal, unconstitutional curtailment of our rights and liberties?

Those doctors who tried to blow up Glasgow airport were taken down to paddington green.

I think you are quite right. I am suspicious that the government’s motives in pressing for 42 days has less to do with the fight against terrorism and is more a matter of resources. It may be that the Police have said to Brown “look we can foght terror but you’ve got to give us more money OR an extension of detention without charge.”

If someone is away for even 21 days, there will be lots of clamour and noise, unless of course we are going down the ‘everyone hates me’ road and think that the media will suppress the reporting of demos outside Paddington Green.

I really do think this is an empty subject of no great worth that is being used to distract us from more worthwhile things.

Look at how many replies this subject has got in comparison with the Irish Constitutional vote. If the government wanted this in they would probably put it up lie the anti terrorist bill that was renewed every year but for this they dont take care, it is a topic that gets us all talking and keeps us distracted

You cannot judge in totality whether any future Prime-Minister will use the law for the purpose for which it was intended. However, I vote Conservative and not Labour because I believe that on the balance of probabilities a Conservative government is better than a Labour government. Better on civil liberty and better on fighting terror.

By the way, much of the Conservative Party and conservative thinking more generally is not in favour of resisting the 42 day detention of terror suspects. Indeed, Anne Widdecombe voted with the government. So too did the UKIP defector. Likewise the DUP. I myself would have voted against the government on the night because I believe Gordon Brown to have shown weakness in the way he appeased his rear guard and by the shabby way in which Labour whips enforced party discipline. They should not have recanted from the position of 90 days if that is what they truely believed and should have made a credible case in it’s favour. By compromise Brown took the easy route – the route that leads to appeasement, surrender and betrayal.

Yet under the Terrorism Act so many people are.

There’s that crystal ball again. How do you know that it won’t become the norm? You’re advocating locking up people who aren’t terrorists up for a month and a half and your party opposes it.

Not regrettable – unconstitutional, unlawful and unacceptable.

By replacing it with the threat of arbitrary detention by any power mad dictator that manages to insinuate their way into Westminster? I don’t trust the Goblin King with this power, you may do but how can you judge whether a future Prime Minister will use the law for the purpose for which it’s intended?

I do not question that Davis is a man of principle and that he has taken a stand for what he believes. And I agree with him on much of his manifesto and in any other circumstance I would concur entirely with him. But on the question of fighting terror and it’s method we appear to part company.

“However Winston Churchill (remember him, George?) took a different view. He thought that no sacrifice would be too great to maintain our freedoms, which we would never surrender.”

Indeed. Do you remember Neville Chamberlain and “peace in our time”? What a false peace it was. The false peace of appeasement. The wages of that appeasement was a world war and the loss of 60 million lives. In these modern times, do we really want the world to regress back to that? Or do we not have at our disposal the means and methods of both dealing and defeating the threat posed by terrorism, by Iran and other state-sponsors of terrorism?

It will take courage and the circumstances we face are not ideal. It is a struggle that we did not solicit. But we must be realistic about this. We face a merciless opponent that would abolish our liberties at a stroke. A terrorist cares not one jot about human freedom or about the value and dignity of human life.

It is time that we began to consider these truisms in place of concern over the “rights” of terrorists. Most people are not terrorists. Most people have not suddenly become terrorists as a result of the Terrorism Act. Most people are not going to be detained for 42 days without charge. That a handfull of innocent people might fall into the orbit of the Terrorism Act and have their liberty inconvinienced for a short time is indeed regrettable. It is not ideal. The Terrorism Act is not an “ideal” piece of legislation. We are not living in an ideal world and the paramount concern must be the freedom of individuals to go about their lawful and legitimate affairs unfettered by the threat of terrorism. I am in favour of any measure that effectively facilitates this – including the Terrorism Act and a detention beyond 42 days for terror suspects if necessary.

Taking away our civil liberties in the name of protecting our civil liberties is just ridiculous.

Max asks a very good question:

I think my taxi driver pal is of the old school and might be advocate of the death penalty. I don’t agree with him myself. However, whilst the language of the individuals I have quoted may not be very subtle, it does express the sentiment of a large body of public opinion – that we must not be soft on terror. Everyone I have spoken to about this subject – in the real world and away from the internet blogs – has expressed, to a greater or lesser degree, precisely the same sentiment.

Only an hour ago someone called me on the phone to say that he has been reading my blog and how the libertarian argument, when applied to the fight against terrorism, is wholly inadequate.

It all reminds of the candidature of the 10-term congressman Ron Paul for the Republican presidential nomination in America. His position on a raft of issues was, in many ways, closer to the conservative and libertarian ideal than say that of John Mccain. Yet Paul was utterly rejected by the mainstream of Republican voters in respect of the presidential nomination. In the post 9/11 world, Paul’s overtly libertarian stance was not seen as viable or credible in the eyes of most mainstream conservatives. This in a country whose liberties are enshrined in a written constitution.

Conservatives in America appear to appreciate the threat they face from terrorism to a greater degree than some of their British counterparts. I understand that. 9/11 was the first major terror attack of a foreign origin to take place within her shores. Britain had faced Irish Republican terrorism for decades. It is right that we adopt a considered and cautious response to these challenges.

But the suggestion that we should not invoke every availiable means at our disposal when confronting the contemporary terrorist threat – including recourse to legislation – is in my view, erroneous in the extreme.

In 1940 the people of these islands could have easily obtained security, health and well being; All they had to do was surrender and join the German plan for co-prosperity in collaboration with the other nations of occupied Europe; they would have kept their own parliament, passed their own laws. No-one would have anything to worry about as long as they were innocent. And not Jewish either.
The European Leader would not have been elected, of course. Neither the Foreign Minister. The armed forces would have been under a command which could deploy them without reference to any of the governments. A paramilitary police force would be available to repress dissent, with lethal force if necessary.
England, like Poland and Czechoslovakia, would have been split into regions, each run by non-elected officials; a reasonable translation of the German might work out as ‘Regional Development Authority’.
However Winston Churchill (remember him, George?) took a different view. He thought that no sacrifice would be too great to maintain our freedoms, which we would never surrender. Lots of people agreed with him, for example, my father. I have his letters to prove it.
That is why David Davis commands my support and admiration. He stands on principle. He’s probably very lonely in Parliament these days.

Not quite sure how that strengthens George’s argument.

They’re all serious I guess … well, apart from Rob who I assume was joking when he said that he’d got a terrorist under his bed but you never know.

George, you are deliberately and nastily messing with the facts. There IS a terror threat. But we are talking about different matter – the law that is designed to give the government power to make a terrorist out of everybody it (dis)likes. There is a difference, isn’t it?

And I repeat – you are using terrorism as an excuse for imposing tyranny upon people. If terrorism didn’t exist, it surely must’ve been invented!

And could you please answer the simple question? You are advocating that law saying that is serves the purpose of combating terrorism. OK, but how are you going to judge that it is about time to abolish it? How do you imagine a victory over terrorism? Will it be occupation of Iran? Or Bin Laden will have to sign surrender and hand it over to the White house? Answer please!

We shouldn’t forget his human (right) should we?”

Personally I don’t think that guy should be out and about but the reason he is has more to do with the balls-up that’s been made of his prosecution up till now.