John Wadham, Director of Liberty:
The internment proposal is by some way the worst proposal in a generally alarming and ill-conceived Bill. The Government is smuggling in other illiberal measures under the cover of proposals to deal with the events of 11th September.

Internment:
The Government intends to jail people not for anything they have done, but for what the Home Secretary thinks they might have done or might do in the future. This punches a hole in our constitutional protections - and the Government can only get away with it because they're using it against foreigners. Why is it that none of the other 40-plus European countries that have signed the Human Rights Convention feel they have to do this? As soon as people are detained, Liberty will seek to challenge these unnecessary and unjust proposals in the European Court of Human Rights.

Overall:
as a package of measures, this is not a considered response to the real issues of countering terrorism. The Government has ample powers to tackle terrorism already and should concentrate on using existing law before creating sweeping new powers and vague new offences that undermine basic principles of justice and freedom. Too many of these measures will not make us safer but will make us less free.

Fingerprints for identity:
The power to take fingerprints from more people at the point of arrest (rather than charge) to prove identity risks becoming a back-door route to a national fingerprint database. It will only help establish identity if someone is already on the database (ie has prevously been charged with an offence), so its effectiveness is questionable. We would be very concerned if its ineffectiveness subsequently became a justification for requiring everyone in the country to have their fingerprints taken and logged on police computer.

Data gathering:
To require or allow this information to be stored does in effect mean that millions of innocent users of communications systems, including email and the internet will have their private communications information stored on the off-chance that it might be of use in the future.

The police should need a judicial warrant before accessing this information - to ensure they only access information where there is reasonable suspicion. The absence of stronger safeguards before this material can be accessed by the police and others creates real threats to privacy.

Police getting access to passenger manifests:
now that aircraft are being used as weapons, it's justified. (It has also been common practice on Northern Ireland flights for many years). We are however concerned that information gathered for one purpose should not be used by police for less serious purposes.

Faster extradition, curtailed process:
We have no objection to speeding up the process, as long as standards and protections are maintained. Before people - who after all may well be innocent - are taken away from their homes to a foreign prison, under foreign laws, our British courts should continue to be able to assess the strength of evidence against a person.

Stopping the asylum claims of 'terrorist suspects':
The key question for asylum is whether someone has a well-founded fear of persecution. If their fear is well-founded - with all that may imply about the quality of justice in the country they have fled - then they should not be sent back. But if there is evidence they have committed serious offences, they can be prosecuted. It's vitally important that people who arrive in Britain are treated fairly and that those who are likely to be persecuted in other countries are protected, and not put on the first plane back. Asylum seekers' experience of the system shows how necessary it is that there are adequate safeguards - and judicial review is an essential part of that process.

Religious hatred:
Protecting Muslims and others from attacks requires leadership from our politicians and needs to be more of a priority for the police. There are already laws which could be better used to protect all of our communities. Given the discrimination that exists in the police and criminal justice system and in the current climate it is more likely that Muslims will be prosecuted than those who vilify them. What we need is stronger anti-discrimination laws to protect that will prevent anyone from being sacked or harassed on the grounds of religion alone, not more criminal offences.

Conclusion:
It's hard for politicians always to protect the minority from the majority when they need the majority's votes to be re-elected; that's why we have human rights and judges, to ensure that in times of panic and fear, impartiality and fairness survive for everyone. Too many of these new proposals risk falling short of the highest British standards of justice.