Can't speak for the other nations but here in the UK
Under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (ATCSA), the home secretary can indefinitely detain, without charge, a foreign terrorist suspect
One MP's views quoted from BBC website
"Most people agree that global-reach terrorism presents a very real, and daily, threat to us all.
Few demur from the view that the home secretary's principle role is to preserve our democracy by defending us against that threat.
While no measures can remove risk altogether, these measures, albeit in extremis, will play an important part in ensuring that risk is kept to a minimum.
The question for us all is whether Charles Clarke's new anti-terrorist proposals strike the balance he himself seeks, between assuring our individual freedoms and protecting our lives.
It is fundamental that we should all be concerned about that balance - get it wrong and we risk the very democracy we're trying to protect. And of course there are no easy answers.
But the facts are that Mr Clarke's proposals are neither out of whack with our historical responses to grave national threats, nor disproportionate in their effect on our liberties.
And crucially, while no measures can remove risk altogether, these measures, albeit in extremis, will play an important part in ensuring that risk is kept to a minimum.
World War II internment
Let's consider where we are now, and how we got here.
Facing Hitler, we introduced internment. It was harsh and inevitably involved detaining perfectly innocent ice-cream salesmen from Streatham and teachers from Truro.
It was very sad for all who knew them, but most people at the time, and even reflecting upon it now, accepted it as a necessity. Frederick Forsyth has forgotten all of this.
Indeed, so tough were we then on refusing entry to the UK to those we considered possible threats, many of whom were running in fear, that we subsequently signed up to the very 1951 United Nations convention at the heart of our present dilemma.
Charles Clarke's solution [is] humane, accountable and measured. Not nice, for sure - but necessary.
Eric Joyce
All sovereign states today have the right to refuse entry to, or remove, anyone they think may harm their citizens. Trials don't come into it.
Equally, we agree that we can't extradite our own citizens. But many states, like the UK, also agree not to extradite anyone to anywhere they may be mistreated and the small number of Belmarsh detainees all come from such places.
The House of Lords has ruled that while citizens have rights non-citizens do not. In effect we are bound by our own constitution not to extradite the detainees, so we are therefore breaching the convention not to discriminate and must find a new solution.
Trials 'not an option'
So what next?
Judges have accepted that the present detainees present a serious threat to us but that the intelligence which convinces them of this is inadmissible as evidence in court.
Trials, ideal of course, are therefore not an option.
We could dissent from our present agreements and extradite people we believe to be dangerous anyway, and leave them to their fate. But that would be inhumane and wrong.
So should we therefore simply let these people go unchecked and accept the risk they pose - the direct consequence of Frederick Forsyth's position? Of course not.
That would be a dereliction of the government's most profound duty.
Our only practical options are therefore to work with some of the possible countries of destination to secure a safe return for some detainees, and to ensure we know exactly where those who remain in the UK actually are, and exactly what they're up to. "
I would say that detention without trial and surveilance is pretty tough! Wouldn't you?
I think the point is that to defeat terrorism Govts need a sophisticated approach. One that looks at threat wherever its from not just focussing on Islamic terrorism.
In addition you need to make a real effort to understand what motivates the terrorist and seek to try and remove the conditions that motivate such action. Tackling poverty in Africa and other continents. ( something the UK govt is commited to but the US seems to have rejected ) Working to broker a real middle east peace settlement. One that recognises the Palistinians very real plight. To name two causes of terrorism.
Going in guns blazing is not the solution. Seems even Condy Rice recognises this as she's just been on the radio saying diplomacy is the answer re Iran, not military strikes.
