How many rebel Labour MPs polled their constituents? In a democracy, the MP represents their constituents not their own view. It is clear that 90 days was the will of the majority of the people. During war, people considered a threat are interned without trial for the duration. These people would be lucky to get 90 days. Chris Stott, Rickmansworth

Detention without trial is the bastion of dictatorships and police states. It is always justified using scare tactics and fear and is always abused and used by the state to weed out those they consider "undesirable" (as proven in Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, various South American countries and South Africa). I was born into a free and democratic society, I do not want this to change. Blair's holy crusade against terrorism has been ill-thought out and badly planned from the start, I wholly support those with the common sense to reject this latest ludicrous government soundbite. I have no time for terrorists or any other body of people who threaten my liberty, whether it be in the name of freedom or religion. Douglas Bates, St Albans

I think that Tony Blair was right in proposing the 90-day potential detention period. Fourteen days is absolutely nothing in investigating a detainee. I think that 40 days would have been a better compromise, though, combined with better efficiency of services from police and better, more sophisticated intelligence prior to arrest. I don't think that the increased length of time will alienate the Muslim sections of the community because the majority of Muslims, who are upright and good citizens of the country, have nothing to fear from any change, whether its 14 days or whether its 100 days. Although I disagree with the killing of innocent people during the attack on Iraq, I think that he is a good leader of the country and the Labour Party. I hope that he continues to be supported by his party. Name and address withheld

Your comments before the vote:

I was on the bombed train at Kings Cross, in the first carriage. Sadly, I expect terrorists to do what they can to attack my democratic society, to destabilise and threaten my liberties, to spread fear, to seek to divide us. I do not expect my democratically-elected Government to do the same. I cannot, and do not speak for all the victims; nor can Tony Blair and Charles Clarke. But I know one thing: to defeat terrorism and hate-filled individuals we need to draw strength from each other, to co-operate and talk with each other, whether white or black, Muslim or Christian, Sikh, Hindu, Jew or atheist. Just like we did went the lights went out and the tunnel filled with smoke and we heard the screams of the dying; we drew together, we held hands, we prayed and we did not panic. I do not see why this ill-thought out macho posturing, which can only destabilise and divide us, by robbing men and women of the ancient and fundamental right of habeas corpus, is going to defeat terror. And I will not meekly accept claims that this is to be done in my name. This is panicking, this is fearful, this is not helpful. I expect better than this, and I deserve better than this. Name and address withheld

I think all are in favour of removing terrorism from our streets, but I wonder how many of the people detained will be non-Muslims? I can only say that detaining someone for 90 days with no charge or little evidence will radicalise Muslim youths in Britain. Riazul Haq, Derby

Let me get this straight. The Government has offered Irish terrorists who are guilty of atrocities an amnesty. On the same day they threaten to imprison Muslims who are yet even to be charged. Does this seem a little odd to anyone else? Luke Foster, Henley on Thames

To approve this 90-day proposal is a no-brainer. France and UK are both subject to the same Human Rights Act. And yet France is able to implement (within 24 hours) powers to stem the current riots. Yet our Government cannot agree to hold those who would kill us all without any regard for human rights. The police will not be using these powers to arrest and detain at their leisure, it is not in their interests to do so. Why are we even debating this? Christine Armstrong, Macclesfield

It always amazes me that those who cry loudest for the protection of sacred, long-established rights such as habeas corpus always imply the fragility of those rights. Anglo-Saxon freedoms have been retained in one form or another despite Norman invasion, the threat of absolutism under Charles I, and more lately, the threat of invasion from Nazi Germany. Our system of democracy is robust and adapts well to the challenges placed before it. Should this Bill be passed, Parliament will be able to ensure against its misuse. With all this talk of the so-called "culture of fear", "control freakery", etc, we risk losing sight of who forms the real threat to freedom in this country. Here's a clue - it's not Tony Blair. Tristan Stubbs, Cambridge

The Government ignored expert police opinion about licensing hours, yet now expects us to follow blindly. It ignored public opinion about the war on Iraq, and yet now says it is in tune with public opinion. This is a measure that has no case in merit and will alienate huge sections of the British population like nothing we have ever seen. The use of existing anti terror-powers against G8 protestors, Walter Wolfgang and Jean Charles de Menezes should be proof enough that these new powers will be similarly misused. W. Shaida, Harrow

I suspect that some of the Labour backbenchers are unhappy about other policies the Government is trying to push through and punishing it by withholding their consent to the 90-day bill. I think this is a dangerous game to play and they are putting innocent people's lives at risk. Anne Bain, Rosewell, Midlothian

Any profession will ask for tools to make their work easier. I suggest a compromise. If a person is held beyond 14 days and subsequently released without charge, they should be compensated: £1,000 a day for the remainder of the first month; £2,000 a day for the second month; £3,000 a day for the third month. The maximum compensation would be around £175,000 – enough to deter the police from over-using the power and also to remedy the bad blood of being falsely accused. Mark Fulford, Southampton

As long as there are safeguards, I cannot see a problem with increasing the detention period from 14 to 90 days. After all, we should not ignore the advice of the experts (police). First, this law should be reviewed by Parliament every year. Secondly, as the police need 90 days to investigate the details of a detainee, he should be referred to as a "possible" suspect and throughout the 90-day period should be held in better conditions than normal. Thirdly, every 30 days the police should go through a review process and justify the reasons for extending the detention. Though this measure is harsh and may seem draconian, we have to balance it against the chances of indiscriminate killing of innocent citizens. Vinay Mehra, Purley, Surrey