Its publication is set against a backdrop of widespread protest, however, as opposition politicians and campaigners warn the "disproportionate" measures will endanger civil liberties and act as a recruiting sergeant for extremists.

Among the most contentious of the proposals, to be debated by Parliament later this month, is the extension of the period police can detain suspects without charge to three months, from 14 days now.

Pressed on the plans in Parliament Wednesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair said there was "absolutely compelling" evidence the new power was necessary to protect the public. The nature of modern terrorism meant the police often had to arrest people relatively early in a conspiracy to carry out terrorist acts; they therefore needed a longer period of detention to obtain the evidence necessary to charge them, he said.

Blair called for a "sensible debate" on the proposals, on which, he acknowledged, there were "different views." But such debate had to take place within the understanding that more than 50 people had died in the July 7 London bombings, he said.

He stressed: "I have to do my best to protect people in this country and make sure that their civil liberty (of) life comes first."

Liberal Democrats Leader Charles Kennedy said there was no consensus even within the government on the proposals, some of which were simply "wrong."

The government will now face a tough fight to get the bill through Parliament and will likely have to compromise on several of the measures.

The Lib Dems have signaled they will oppose the new police powers while the Conservatives say they have not yet heard a case for such a lengthy extension. Several Labor parliamentarians also expressed concerns over the plans; and with the government's majority much reduced, preventing defection is essential if the plan is not to be defeated.

Lib Dem Home Affairs Spokesman Mark Oaten said Wednesday a three-month detention without charge would be "radically out of step" with Britain's European and Commonwealth partners. He has previously warned the move would amount to "internment" and undermine the fundamental principles of British justice.

The bill also faces widespread opposition from human rights and legal campaigners, judges, and senior figures in the Muslim community.

Liberty, Britain's foremost human rights group, says detention without charge for three months -- a period equivalent to that normally served by someone on a six-month prison sentence -- will be counterproductive in the fight against terror.

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabarti said Wednesday: "This new mutation of internment, like previous versions, will be disastrously counterproductive to each of the ideological, social and operational counter-terror efforts.

"Holding suspects for 90 days without charge will alienate the very communities who we need to work with."

Liberty also expressed profound concerns about plans to outlaw the "glorification" and "encouragement" of terrorism and ban organizations who do so.

The definition of terrorism in British law -- violence against persons or property intended to influence a government -- is extremely broad, they argue, meaning those expressing support for struggle against oppressive regimes would be criminalized.

Chakrabarti said: "As currently drafted, it may no longer be lawful to express the view that the Zimbabwean people will only enjoy democracy after the overthrow of Robert Mugabe."

Questioned on this point by Parliament's Home Affairs Committee Tuesday, Home Secretary Charles Clarke argued that in the modern world, using violence to effect political change could never be justified, even against the most oppressive regimes.

The precarious nature of the government's definition was highlighted by Committee Chairman John Denham, who said: "Two years ago you invaded Iraq to bring about political change. ... You may want to look more closely at the definition of terrorism that is in our current law, home secretary."

Asked by the committee whether anyone who supported Nelson Mandela's African National Congress -- which used violence in its struggle against the Apartheid South African government -- would have been prosecuted under the legislation, Clarke replied that people would not have been guilty merely by not condemning the ANC.

Senior judges have also voiced concerns over the proposals.

Two former law lords, Lord Lloyd and Lord Steyn of Berwick, said in the BBC's "Panorama" program broadcast Sunday that certain measures would almost certainly be found unlawful under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Blair warned judges not to interfere with the will of the government, and has threatened a legislative battle if they do so.

"Be aware there's a proper role for the judiciary and a proper role for Parliament," he said at his monthly press conference Tuesday.

The most senior judge in England and Wales, Lord Phillips, had earlier warned the government not to interfere with the judiciary or browbeat judges.

It was their role, not politicians', to interpret the law, he said.

It is certain to be a protracted fight, concerning as it does the critical principles of the right to safety and security, and the right to liberty under the law. The government says it will not rest until it has done everything in its power to protect Britain from another terrorist attack on the scale of July 7.

The bill's opponents say they will not allow Britain to become a state in which injustice and alienation feed the very extremism that must be defeated.

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express
The Long War - Doctrine and Application

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News