The new home secretary should not be looking at new laws to subvert the criminal justice system but should be looking at how to improve it so that there are more successful prosecutions of terrorist suspects (Freed Britons sent home, January 27).
The basic principles of justice should not be tampered with. Any defendant should be allowed to see the evidence against him or her and be given the opportunity to respond. It must be right that if a person cannot be prosecuted for a terrorist charge, it means that either there is not enough evidence to convict that person or that the evidence cannot be relied upon.
Charles Clarke is arguing that the evidence that would convict these so-called terrorists cannot either be used or disclosed to the defendant, as it would cause difficulties between nations and disclose sophisticated investigation techniques.
Therefore, the home secretary is eroding the criminal justice system by bypassing it and creating a new system under the new proposals which will allow him to effectively put a suspect in the same position as a convicted terrorist (under house arrest) without having to go through the criminal justice system to do so. Despite the law lords' comments, Clarke seems intent on the new proposals, to once again move away from justice.
Julian Groombridge
Christian Khan Solicitors
Not only does the present government want to introduce apartheid-style "dompasses", it now wishes, effectively, to introduce into the UK the concept, also stolen from the former apartheid regime, of a "banned person". This is someone who is not allowed, without permission, to leave home, to receive visitors, to make phone calls, to send or to receive emails, to write and post letters, to publish books, to give interviews, or to stand for public office, and so on. And the whole process of thus declaring somebody to be a "banned person" will be an administrative decision that is not judiciable.
This will fail to reduce the amount of "terrorism" endured. It is likely to engender extra terrorism, especially so-called "home-grown" terrorism, if that is what the government insists on calling violent acts on the the part of those of its own citizens to whom there remains no peaceful means of striving to achieve freedom for all.
Repression of dissidents has never succeeded indefinitely in discouraging militancy. It has always created or increased the perception on the part of those dissidents that militancy is their only remaining option.
John Allman
Knaresborough, N Yorks
So the government is considering a switch from Guantánamo-style indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial to the Burmese model of indefinite house arrest without charge or trial. Might the inmates later pick up a peace prize?
Nigel Longhurst
Liverpool
Am I to understand that the same intelligence sources that brought us, irrefutably, word of WMD in Iraq are now to be relied upon in the politicians' choice of which of our citizens should or should not be allowed their fundamental liberty?
Frank Wallace
Tadley, Hants
Rather than back down in the face of the law lords' ruling, Clarke has merely tried to circumvent it by substituting house arrest without trial for detention without trial, missing the point that any form of detention without trial is anathema to the very spirit of democracy. And they say it's the Americans who don't get irony.
Bruce Paley
London