The UK government have published a discussion paper in response to the Newton Report which recommended that the Part 4 powers in the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act, which allow indefinite detention of foreign terrorist suspects, should be replaced with new legislation. Lord Newton recommended new powers to apply to British as well as foreign nationals, to avoid having to opt out of a part of the European Convention on Human Rights. I doubt most people will be interested in purusing the full 123 pages but it would really be worthwhile for you to read the main principles and conclusions on pages 8 and 9 of the Newton report. The principles state that the report recognises that the individual has the right to liberty and privacy and that the authorities have a duty to take the necessary steps to protect society from terrorism. It explicitly recognises the need for special counter terrorism legislation but says it should be kept distinct from mainstream criminal law and limited to dealing with terrorism. And it implicitly criticises the David Blunkett approach of introducing emergency legislation supposedly to deal with terrorism but having the provisions so broadly drafted that they apply to petty crime. "The enactment of mainstream legislation using emergency procedures undermines the consensus for the use of such procedures in justifiable cases." Our Home Secretary won't have liked that. At the other end of the scale pure libertarians won't be overly enamoured with "the blanket ban on the use of intercepted communications as evidence in court should be lifted to make it possible to prosecute more terrorists (and other serious criminals) and the government should examine the scope for more intensive use of surveillance to prevent and disrupt terrorism."

All very topical this week in the light of the dropping of the prosecution of Katharine Gun and Claire Short's attempts to take revenge on Tony Blair with allegations of illicit spying on the UN.