<em>Dr. Denis MacEoin wrote:
The problem is whether we exalt the rights of the killer above those of the victim. </em>

As an expat looking on, it seems we (the UK) have a government which protects the interests of everyone EXCEPT law abiding citizens who are part of mainstream British society.

Kevin Howard, Melbourne, Australia

This is excellent. More of this and you can be sure that when the day comes, and Islamists take control, the implementation of Sharia law will be so much easier.

If some of you had your way, you would live under it anyway - you seem to love all aspects of it with the exception of the Prophet Mohamad.

I love the references to the war as well - all those people who fought and died for liberty and human rights and now their grandchildren are so scared of dying themselves they will throw away those rights just to live a bit longer.

Bravo people. You make me proud.

Ahmed ibn-Haver, Tehran,

When the eight IRA terrorists who were killed whilst attacking a Police Station in Loughall in 1987 can be said to have had their 'Human Rights' abused in the action (despite happily attempting to permanently conclude the human rights of those they were attacking) then it's fair to say that the interpretation of Human Rights by some senior members of Judiciaries and by the more extreme elements of the Right's groups can safely be disregarded as dangerously daft.

Therefore I'm glad we have a Government and Parliament to protect us from the Judiciary and Rights groups who do not wish to see Human Rights associated with pure common sense.

I vote for an MP. I do not vote for Judges or members of pressure groups who undermine those who legitimately provide for my protection. Therefore the final say will be that of Government, and not of self-important figureheads sharpening their own agendas.

Unless Ms Chakribati et al wish to stand for Parliament. If not, 'NOT IN MY NAME', Shami..

Tony Miller, Southsea,

Good article. There is clearly a significant threat to the UK from Islamic extremists, but a small group of lawyers and self appointed defenders of 'liberty' seem determined to thwart the attempts of the government to deal with it.

A clear example is the crazy situation where we cannot deport convicted terrorists to other countries because of the possible human rights abuses they might face. At the same time we are happy to deport people back to Zimbabwe and Christian converts back to Iran!

The human rights of those who seek to commit crimminal offences have to be balanced with the right of the rest of us - their intended victims. On balance I would suggest that the human rights of the rest of us should take precedence. When someone seeks to commit a terrorist act against innocent people I would suggest that they forfeit some of their rights.

Andrew Brown, Derby, UK

Good to see someone say it as it is. This country has got to wake up to what is happening and quick!

B Bastow, Stalbridge, UK

Lee of Leeds, they may not be suicide bombers, but I think you will find that there are a number of fundamental Christian terrorists (and groups who give them succour) who have bombed family planning clinics in the US. Is Lee suggesting that it is necessary to "pen" all of those fundamentalist Christians who oppose abortion so that doctors, counsellors and patients at those clinics do get blown up? If not, why not, if he is so opposed to those motivated by religious mania committing terrorist acts that cause death? The reality is that ignorant and illiterate rants such as Lee's are precisely why lawyers and the judiciary need to be eternally vigilant to ensure that civil liberties continue to be protected

David, London,

"This is the backdrop to the debate about anti-terrorism legislation."

I guess it was pretty necessary for the author to sketch out a 'backdrop' - since without this concocted frame of reference, his wannabe fascist leanings would appear completely unbalanced. Still, it is hard not to be amused by someone who teases out the worst tendencies of other nations ... and then wonders wistfully why the UK cannot match them in each of their failings. He does not grasp that the terrorist objective is to expose 'human rights' as a veneer of hypocrisy; and would hand them their victory on a plate.

iman, watford,

So the BNP were right all along. You are now printing word for word what they have been warning the British public about for years, Keep it up.

M. Brown, Newcastle, England

A superb article that talks nothing but sense.

Obviously our political "elites" will ignore it.

Richard, Essex, UK

To Jim McDonald:
The article was about British laws to protect British citizens. Israel's actions are completely beside the point.. until they start blowing themselves up in London and espousing a barbaric medieval death cult to rule our country of course.

Dan, London,

Miltant Islamism is one very dangerous enemy. The State is potentially another. I don't want to live in an Orwellian nightmare whether its presided over by Brown or bin Laden.

As for whether this is what 'real Britons' want or not, I don't care. It doesn't matter what the government says. It doesn't matter what the press or the mob says. A country that was once the greatest in the world (and will be again) was founded on the requirement that everyone stood their ground for what they believed to be right for everyone. Everyone shood judge matters like this for themselves, and if they find reality to be lacking then its their job, their obligation, to do something.

James, Newcastle, Great Britain

Well I am A BNP member but I am finding that we don't have to say very much about Islam these days because thankfully so many others are now saying it all for us. I just hope it will be in time!

Derrick, Nottingham,

Fooled into thinking that Chakrabarti speaks for the ordinary person, the British authorities have taken the position of passive voyeurs to watch the exponential growth of active British jihadis, recently estimated at 2000. It would now seem easy for the jihadis to overwhelm the police by making simultaneous attacks.

michael clarke, london, uk

I find some of the arguments used by Mr Burleigh a bit far-fetched. He should/could have mentioned that:
(1) the 'Caliph of Cologne' was expelled from Germany for advocating a pan-Islamic Caliphate (=a state w/in a state), not for terrorism, there ist still a difference between secessionism and terrorism, methinks,
(2) Schäuble was attacked by a nut, not a terrorist
(3) he also advocated the introduction of targetted killings in Germany, and
(4) was, quite rightly, criticized by politicians and the German Association of Lawyers
Germany has dealt with the RAF, but it prizes the methods of the 'Rechtsstaat' (=rule of law) more than anything, due to its history. It would be a sad thing if people in the UK would advocate anything else and lose their humanity. Then the terrorists would have won.

Sibylle, Heidelberg, FRG

This kind of article makes me think that the UK needs a big shake up of its legal system. Maybe the answer should be to go for the European system of investigative trials rather than the expensive (in terms of lawyers anyway) UK adversarial system.

The legal profession seems now to be dominated by the cohort from the 1960s who while having hidden away the Che Guevara posters still hold leftist ideas close to heart. You have to ask who choses the judges who let these people off. Maybe they chose themselves?

Personally I don't see any problem in letting the intelligence services bug peoples phones and e-mail in the national interest. Freedom is all well and good but there are times like in WW2 when national survival takes precedence. If the European Convention prevents effective anti-terrorist measures then just withdraw from it. If the UK govt claims they can't withdraw from the Convention from the govt needs to be removed from power and replaced with one that can.

Ben, Auckland, NZ

Sorry did I misread this. For a moment it sounded like you were suggesting that Britain adopt a European attitude to the rule of law and the rights of a citizen. It's odd if you were. All my schooldays I was told that it was this that made Britain a beacon of freedom and the general European scant regard for habeas corpus and other such matters was why they had such a poor record. You can only be properly British if you understand that we do think such things matter. Once you compromise your standards downwards for an easy or safer life you can't really claim to be British any more.

Samuel Gee, Farnham, UK

An overdue article in respect of it's critisism of the more sanctimonious facets of the self-appointed - allegedly 'Human Rights' - groups who appear too often on the wrong subjects.

Liberty, and Amnesty do some invaluable and honorable work to bring assistance to those who would otherwise have no meaningul recourse to justice. I speak, for example, on the efforts some of their most public members to win justice for those who have been victims of Rail disasters (and to whom the Rail Companies have shown public and abject contempt) or to people who have been denied life-saving medical treatment. Boris Johnson, hardly a limp leftie, is a well-known member of Liberty.

However, where you are most certainly correct is the disastrous handling of some causes which show these groups in the worst light. Liberty in particular has no mandate to speak for the British people, frequently Shami talks complete twaddle, and a firm reality check needs to take place within this charity.

Dave Chapman, Portsmouth., UK not EU

The trouble we are experiencing comes from an ethnic minority. A dear lady from an ethnic minority, albeit another, is defending their human rights. If they hadn't been so determined to kill us in the first place they wouldn't be where they are at the moment! Its costing the taxpayer £40,000 a year to keep each of them where they are now. Perhaps the good lady thinks that is money ill-spent. I could suggest a way to save it all. The fact that one of them is treated by fellow prisoners in the way he wanted to treat us is sad but hardly surprising. Does the Chakrabarti woman whine when a paedophile or some equally despised character is roughed up by fellow inmates - haven't heard! Or is it because I is 'ethnic'?

Tariq, ashford,

Jim MacDonald shows why we here in the US loathe a large portion of the Canadian population so we will just ignore his uninformed, factually incorrect and historically inaccurate comment. I like the idea of secular "madrassas". I like your idea of preventative incarceration. Sadly, the lawyers run the US too and we are unable to take the proper steps to secure our population from violence. Heck, we aren't even allowed to deport drug dealing, gang-banging illegals without giving thousands of dollars in free healthcare, housing and legal assistance. And to you Lee, as the Marines say, HOORAH!

We here just love a Brit with a strong backbone.

Erik, Houston, TX/USA

Bravo. The liberal intelligentsia ( a term rapidly approaching the status of an oxymoron in today's Britain) and the BBC have certainly sapped my will to continue living in the UK.

Ivor, Salzburg,

Is that the Jim Macdonald who used to be on Coronation Street? you talk as much sense (very little) as he did. Israel is the only democracy in the area. If they weren't threatened by other states with being wiped off the map they might have a different attitude/ At least in Israel the people can vote out a government which doesn't do what the people want, which is something not possible elsewhere in the region.

Dave Proctor, Leeds,

I think at this juncture, I would prefer to take my chances with the Jihadis as opposed to a bureaucracy that could imprison me without charge, beat any sort of confession out of me that they might be looking for and then imprison or kill me for the crime my confession shows me to be guilty of.

Purhaps Mr. Burleigh should move to Zimbabwai where the government is able to take the steps needed to remedy any situation that arises.

Jim Walton, Washington, DC

Mr Michael Burleigh,

This is the most truthful article I've read on Islamic Terror and Britain's failure to take tough measures. I wish the Times could produce more such articles- but alas!

Some of these "human rights" lawyers have destroyed the beauty of the concept.

Psalm, London,

Why would an otherwise sensible country like the UK not just quietly dispose of terrorist suspects. The gentle approach would be for them to wake up one morning with a bad hangover in Pakistan/Afghanistan wherever with no proof of British residence or citizenship on their person and their existence expunged from any official UK records.
The hard line would be just disappear them and kill them...

I never quite understood why the latter approach was not used more often on the IRA

tim L, Canada,

Excellent article, wake up everyone!

Caz, Merseyside, UK

Brilliant article which shows exactly how the inmates manage so successfully to run the asylum. All this talk of human rights is laughable in this context - human rights are not much use to you when you have been blown to a million bits by a terrorist bomb.
And a note to Jim Macdonald of Canada: In light of the never-ending hate-filled behaviour of Hamas, and their continuing refusal to recognise or consider peace with Israel, (not to mention the continual rockets fired into Israel in an attempt to kill innocent Israelis) your reference to Israel as a terrorist group is quite amazing. You need to learn to be a little less biased - although I admit, that is hardly likely to happen. Sometimes people want to believe certain things, and they refuse to see anything else. Sad but true!!!

Miranda, Lincoln,

An obvious solution: can we exchange Sarkozy for Brown?

Neil, Brighton, England

Clean out the judiciary and allow those who support this country and its citizens to get on with punishing and/or excluding those who intend to end our way of life and impose on us the oppressive and totalitarian way of life beloved of followers of sharia. There are countries where sharia is practised, at least in name although probably not in private. Encourage sharia adherents to emigrate to those places and deport those who want it but will not leave voluntarily.
Allow al the methods used to stop terrorism used by our European neighbours.
Failure to act will result in the UK being ruled by sharia within about fifty years. Are you happy for your children and grandchildren to t be subjected to this?
If we are not for ourselves, who will be?

G Bernstein, London, UK

“The US warned UK that it may introduce visa requirements for Anglo-Pakistanis on the ground that you don’t stop Jaguars when a Toyota has been stolen”. This statement epitomises the common-sense approach to fighting terrorism, which most right minded citizens would agree with. Yet the politically correct government puppet who masquerades as the Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary, Paul Kernahan, stopped his Officers from stopping & searching people, whilst in designated areas, who conformed to the Islamist profile (which is clearly allowed under the Terrorism Act) & insisted everyone should be treated equally & stopped & searched regardless of their ethnicity or appearance. He also didn’t want a nationally circulated video dealing with Islamic Terrorists Fund Raising Activity to be seen by his Force. He deemed these activities to be racist & anti Islamic. The Police Officers of Hampshire are not only fighting the terrorists & their solicitors, but their own Chief Constable also

Ida Letugo, London, uk

Very well put. At last somebody arguing for the rights of the population at large rather than a small coterie of lawyers making a lot of money from their chosen class of client.

The Judges also have a lot to answer for, their actions have been entirely politically motivated, the legal branch of the official opposition.

Carl, London,

Why don't we have more articles with such clear thinking good sense?

John, Notting Hill,

What a great article & a spot on demolition of the repulsive Shami Chakrabarti & the terrorist supporting liberal lawyers whom our television channels routinely invite on the airwaves.

>>One of the puzzles of our time is why Britain scrupulously adheres to the Human Rights Act

Indeed & it makes absolutely no sense. Either this Govt is utterly clueless or there is something behind the agreement that is not being shared with the British people. It's probably the latter.

Dave, London, UK

Here we go again. Another paranoid opinion former of this country expresses his opinion and seeks to justify the grave and ever growing attack by government on the basic freedoms of this country which have been so hard fought for, for centuries. Can't these people see that we are simply playing in to the hands of the so-called terrorists? Many many more people in the UK were at risk during the Irish terror, yet no government ever felt it necessary to bring in such draconian laws, which are so open to abuse by law enforcers - and which have, already been so abused by them - see the book "Taking Liberties".

These measures are not benevolent. Government has declared war not just on terrorism, but on its own citizens. Perhaps the Gov't feels that giving draconian new powers to HM Revenue & Customs is part of the war on terror. Every new power sought by Gov't is justified as part of the "war on terror".
We are walking into a nightmare - Germany did the same in the 1930s.

Michael Greet, Bristol, UK

Yes. Fabulous. Silence those who stand in the way of the state's abuse of power. What a marvellous idea. While we're about it let's just suspend Parliament too and let the bureacrats do what they want to us.

Alternatively, rather than destroy what millions of people over at least a 1000 years have dreamt of and fought for (all of my family for at least 3 generations and more included), why can't those in favour of a more authoritarian state simply move somewhere more in keeping with their beliefs. How about Russia, or Zimbabwe, or China, or Burma, or North Korea for some? I'm sure there are plenty of places more suited to you than Britain. You obviously aren't worthy of the sacrifices others have made for you.

Alasdair, Glasgow, United Kingdom

It's very refershing to hear a dialogue like this coming out of the U.K. In my part of the world, all we get is the BBC, and comments like these are the last thing you'll hear.

"Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is working to destroy it."

--Jean Francois Revel, "Why Democracies Perish"

Christopher, Edison, New Jersey, USA

Britain does not scrupulously follow the Human Rights Act, nor did it previously scrupulously follow the European Covention on Human Rights which preceded it and of which it was a signatory - Britain has always obtained derogations from the rights set out in the Convention - initially these were justified by the threat to the United Kingdom posed by Irish terrorism and now by the nebulous "War on Terror". The derogations have always covered the right to imprison without charge on suspicion of committing a criminal offence pending evidence collection, and the proposal from Government has always been to extend the period in which suspects can be held without charge. I hardly think that holding suspects in custody for up to 5 years as, allegedly, the French do, is something we in Britain should seek to emulate, and the question is not what others do, but rather whether it is right to do as they do. Is it really true that other EC states don't enforce EC law - where is the evidence?

MAEM, London, uk

Thank God for Michael Burleigh and his excellent article, one of the few prepared to face the truth and put it into print. Over tolerance and appeasement under the misguided intention of democracy will be the downfall of the English as a nation. This has been proved in the past over the last century where well nigh all the crisis to hit the nation have been caused by apathy, do gooder lawyers happy to feather their own nest under human rights, and our unwillingness to face the facts.

donald brookes, Penrith, England

Andrew could also have mentioned the Canadian who was falsely arrested and interned because of incompetence on behalf of the Royal Mountain Police and of the American agencies to whom he was passed.
There is also the case of the British resident who was interned in Guantanamo bay for five years. He was accused of attending terrorist training camps in Pakistan over the summer of 2007. In fact, he was working as a chef in London then, and, had he been allowed access to a lawyer, could easily have proved so. Instead, no one bothered to check, even though he told personnel at the camp where he had been.
Terrorism is a crime. It is a terrible crime, but it is still a crime. You would not refuse at trial to someone accused of murder, would you? Because he might be innocent. The point of a trial, and a legal process, and all the rights associated, are to prove guilt or innocence. A suspected terrorist is just that - suspected. And in this country we believe in innocent till proven guilty.

Rowan, Oxford,

If it's any consolation, the USA suffers from the same kind of the "well-meaning" journalists, politicians, and lawyers. i prefer not to die for their ideals. so, maybe we can combine the US and UK branches and re-think the advantages of their exile.

josil, california, USA

As a lawyer, I disagree. The article fails to comprehend that lawyers are obliged to use all their powers, within the ambit of the law and subject to their overriding duty to the court, to achieve the best result for their client (whether the client be the local shoplifter or Osama Bin Laden).

If society does not wish for certain avenues to be open to defendants, then parliament need only legislate that entitlement away, in which case, if the legislation be clearly expressed, that right will be taken away and no court may reinstate it, unless some constitutional irregularity is observed.

Bottom line - if the law is there, lawyers will use it. If you don't like the law, then speak to your local MP.

A vigorous, independent legal profession is a sign of a healthy democracy. Mr Burleigh knows as much - his book on the Third Reich (which is excellent) discusses Nazi defence lawyers calling for the the death penalty for their own clients (the Hitler bomb plotters).

A.Newman, London, UK

What a fatuous remark - " our greatest right is to life". You might just as well say "our greatest right is to be happy", or "our greatest right is to be healthy". These are not rights. They are states of personal being and are quite unconnected to the contract between the individual and the state which is where rights truly exist.
Unfortunately, so many of you people on this forum have no concept of the value of your own liberty and wish for nothing beyond a snug and smug security. You remind me of my dog -quite happy as long as she has her meals, is taken for a walk every day and is thrown a stick every now and again.

Steve, Truro,

"a democracy, if under threat, has the right to protect itself, and these may mean using methods that are not democratic" ...

This comment sums up the Burleigh article - yet the paradox has gone uncommented. If a 'democracy' uses undemocratic means to defend itself, how can it call itself a democracy? This article actually advocates a knd of 'fair weather' democracy to be touted when nothing is at stake - but immediately discarded when 50 people are killed in a terrorist attack. Is that what tens of millions died for in WW2?

Given that casualties larger than the Underground attacks occur in Iraq every month, does that give the Iraqi government the right to pursue undemocratic means whenever they wish? Saddam must be laughing in his grave.

iman, watford, UK

Barry from New Zealand:

Not to be pedantic, but I must inform you that you are suffering from a confusion in terms.

The European Union is an entirely separate entity to that of the European Court of Human Rights, both of which were created under different treatises and are quite independent of one another.

As an undergraduate Law student grappling with the myriad of European institutions I do appreciate the difficulty of distinguishing between them. However, if you are going to mutter the same clichés about matters you clearly know very little about, at least learn the basic premises of what you are arguing.

Yours faithfully,

A Disgruntled Lawyer

Stephen, London,

Meanwhile, in Australia, the Federal Police have had to admit to mistakes in arresting and detaining Mohamed Haneef for alleged involvement in the Glasgow and London bombings. The charges have been dropped on the ground that there is no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Had the Australian Federal Police been given the authority to hold a man for 56 days without charge, and without needing to take him before a judge to determine whether bail should be granted, Mr Haneef would have been imprisoned, without cause, for 56 days.

It is vital to the rule of law that people cannot be detained solely on the authority of executive agents such as police and prosecutors. The legal system requires an independent judge to review cases at an early stage to determine whether there is a reason to keep the person in prison, pending trial. This is right and proper and should be continued.

Andrew, Oxford, UK

Before Mr. Burleigh starts to froth at the mouth with adulation for the parts of the Anti-Terrorism Act that allow for the holding for an indefinite period and without any need to press criminal charges of a person certified solely by the Secretary of State to be ‘a terrorist’, I would like to remind him of the words Winston Churchill, which as a historian Mr. Burleigh must surely be aware: “The power of the executive to cast a man in prison without formulating any charge known to the law and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist.”

James Q, Oxford, UK

Andrew of Oxford corrected Barry Holmes, saying:

"The UK could withdraw from the EU and still be party to the ECHR (although it could not remain in the EU if it disavowed the ECHR)."

The ECHR gives native of this country no benefits at all, but gives many "rights" to our enemies. Now that we know that withdrawal from this stupid convention (ECHR) will force a withdrawal from the EU then lets do it!

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU

Jonathan - a democracy, if under threat, has the right to protect itself, and these may mean using methods that are not democratic, but necessary for the vast majority of us who prefer to settle our differences without blowing each other up.
All it takes is for good men to do nothing and you will wake up one day under a tyrrany.
we have so much going for us, but will lose it if we let the human rights lawyers bamboozle us. The Europeans, again, have got it right

democritus, aylesbury, U.K.

It has often been said that if you want to be safe during a journey by aeroplane, you should fly El Al. Israeli planes should be the most vulnerable in the world. But if you've ever gone through security checks at Ben Gurion, you will understand just how hard it is for a terrorist to get near one of their planes. The Israelis take security seriously, and it gets results. Everybody hates their security fence (incorrectly dubbed a wall), but suicide attacks have dropped by around 80% since it was built. It's all very well to protest that it infringes Palestinian rights, but no-one is forcing Palestinians to commit acts of terror, and a lot of Israelis are alive today who might otherwise have died.

In fact, it's not an issue of human rights as such. Human rights are vital to any healthy democracy. The problem is whether we exalt the rights of the killer above those of the victim. Radical Islam is deeply opposed to democracy and human rights. We have to reject that. Without exception.

Dr. Denis MacEoin, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

i can say most of you have lost the plot. To be soft like before or to be tough isnt the point, with all these fierce arguments you are losing to the terrorists. They have driven a wedge between nearly every people on earth.
What do the terrorists want? Global caliphate is a joke for starters, that is not what they want, they know its impossible.
but it serves as a sales selling point to recruit mindless idiots to carry out their political gains.
Chaos & confusion is what they want, not a caliphate, which is just another form of monarchy.
To think that a bunch of evil thugs can cause all this mess without any viable solution is scary indeed. Total draconian measures wont solve it,neither will current lenniency solve it, the question is vexed, but the solution still hasnt been found.

s.ahmed, Cairo,

"Senior judges sabotaged the system of control orders"?
Judges have to follow and interpret the legislation. The quanity of legislation produced over the last decade has been massive, it is hardly suprising then that the quality has dipped somewhat. If the Acts passed had been better considered, then perhaps the Belmarsh detainees would not have been released; following that decision the Act was repealed and a new one created to avoid the pitfalls of the first.
"The use of intelligence intercept evidence in courts is being debated here" and it is the Government and security services, not lawyers or the judiciary, who are preventing its use.
If the Acts and admissability elements dealing with terrorism were better framed, the CPS would be able to bring more effective, and probably less expensive cases, against terrorists which would in turn reduce the effectiveness of their campaigns.

Jon Dawkins, Bristol, UK

I couldn't agree less. The author fails to acknowledge that there is a natural balance between untrammelled liberty and absolute safety. The former may be unworkable, but the latter is impossible, and striving for it at the cost of liberty is foolish. The ludicrous idea that the executive should act untrammeled by questions of legal due process simply because of a particular type of criminal activity is tantamount to arguing for dictatorship, and life lived under a dictatorship would be pretty damn miserable. It is outrageous for France to deprive a (presumed innocent) person for 4 or 5 years without them being tried and convicted. What if it turns out they are, ultimately innocent? This is not an example to be followed, it is an abuse of power to be derided.

Jonathan, London, UK

We must replace liberalism - the ideology of Western suicide - with democratism, the rule of the democratic majority.

Terry Daly, London, Great Britain

I am lawyer - 25+ years in the profession. Qualified in the UK and Australia. Degrees in Law, Economics and a Masters in Law from Russell Group Universities.

And I am heartily sick to death of the public preening by those who masquerade as defenders of liberty. They strut in front on the TV, are feted by the BBC and spout such unmitigated rubbish. The media, in particular that "much loved public institution", never challenges their political agenda nor even mentions the subject - and their statements of what is 'law' are blindly accepted as gospel.

It seems that the liberal establishment blindly accepts these individuals as bedecked in garments of gold - am I the only one who thinks they are stark naked.

Ian, London,

Michael Burleigh: This is a superb article. Thanks a lot!

This is one of the few rare, very candid articles. Thanks to you and keep it up!

We are in the 21st century and it is Internet age. So the last and earlier century assumptions and laws need overhaul in Britain and other nations to face the increasing and very violent all pervasive threats from Islamic extremism, jihadi elements and their overt and covert supporters in all walks of life. Their operations are very sophisticated and complex. The governments and judiciary have to reform right away to restore credibility.

The basic overhaul needed is that anybody charged with terrorism charges (after very careful scrutiny and reviews) is guilty unless and until otherwise proved contrary to the current practice of innocent until proven guilty! The attorneys such as Shami Chakrabarti, Mudassur Arani and others such as human rights groups misusing and stretching laws need to be punished and sued by victims too.
Regards,

Krishna R. Kumar, Udupi, India

Surely we're not arguing that fundamental human rights should be dispensed with? Freedom from torture; right to a fair hearing etc etc?

Further, the legal profession merely implements, to the best of its ability, the will of parliament.

JC, London,

When will Britains see Liberty and Amnesty and hundreds of other NGOs in the UK for what they are: money-making, finger-wagging cash machines that provide a very nice living to armies of people. What's a typical month like for these people: well, apart from endless meetings, they go on trips all over the world to conferences where they meet up with their friends and have a right old time. Nice for them, but when their frigging about puts my and my loved ones lives at risk, then it isn't a joke and I don't take their happy trips well anymore. I once gave money to these organisations, but now no more. I have seen them become richer and richer and our borders a joke.

Bob Macdonald, London,

Socrates said it best: "kill all the lawyers".

In this time of troubles for our civilization, it is abhorrent that the US and the UK suffer under an over-litigious class of elitist lawyers who abuse the system for their own purses.

Ethan, Tampa, FL, USA

The funny thing is the advocates for state repression are almost always the first to cry foul if and when they, their relations, or even their friends are caught in the net. Such nonsense gain currency among the rabid and idiotic islamophobes precisely because the ethnic/religious characterisation affords exemptions for their favourite groups.

Will Michael Burleigh be prepared blithely to endure 5 years in detention awaiting trial for an undisclosed "crime"?

violet, Princes Risborough, Bucks

Terry seems not entirely to grasp what democracy is supposed to be. To explain it to him simply, you vote in a government and a parliament which passes laws. The judiciary is there to interpret those laws, not "impose its will". Judges in this country are non-elected , which is fine, but also non-accountable, which is not.

MS, London,

Good old common-sense. Prepare for a deluge of criticism and abuse from those who have turned naivete and stupidity into a science.

Derek S, Dundee,

Chakrabarti's 'Liberty' is totally over-represented by the biased, appeasing BBC, to the detriment of British citizens who need their security to have priority against Islamic jihad.

A.Lang, Lancaster, England

I work as a librarian for a law firm and although my own firm doesn't go in for the kind of nonsense you describe, I am well aware of it through reading the legal press. 'Human rights' lawyers' seem to have massive egos and like to be congratulated on how liberal and caring they are. You only have to read pieces in some of the leading journals to see this.

C, Liverpool, UK

This is the usual rant about lawyers, mistaking cause and effect, and an attack on our birthright - The Rule of Law. Parliament largely determines how lawyers and judges approiach these matters. Parliament has become hypocritical - their "big tent" approach to politics makes them sign up to the various human rights treaties, but then to castigate lawyers and judges for taking them seriously. I find the attacks on law and lawyers over the past few years very disturbing indeed. Doesn't anyone else share this concern. The great dictators used the same populist manipulation. Incidentally I am a traditional conservative.

Peter Holttum, Ferndown, UK

Peter from London - it is quite clear that Profesor Burleigh is not attacking a whole profession. He is not condemning the solicitor who did your conveyancing or the pi lawyer who represented your sister when she tripped on a paving stone. He is attacking the self-important 'human rights' lawyers and 'campaigning' groups like Liberty, who are more interested in their own self-image and impressing bien pensants than in defending real rights, eg the right for us to live and not be murdered by terrorists.

Craig, Liverpool, UK

To Macdonald in Canada - when those 'palestinian children' are lobbing hand grenades and launching missiles at Israel and when they are dressing up babies as suicide bombers then yes - Israel has every right to blow them up. That isn't terrorism - it is survival.

And by the way, learn your history, it was the arabs who first attacked Jewish children with rocket attacks on Kiryat Shemona and who committed acts of terrorism on innocents. Your hatred Jews and of the Jewish state is obvious and ignorant

This article is brilliant.

Jay, London,

This article just about says it all,there seems to be a gulf in our Legal System that Justice as a concept is an old idea which does not have any relivance in the modern world.
This fantasy world that our Government and Institutions live in, is far away from the reality which we have to live in.The longer that this goes on the less respect the people have for the politicians,government etc.,this has to change and quickly.

Nigel, wimbledon, UK

I believe in helping people that need help. I also believe that people who choose to live in our community should not expect the rest of us to bow to them. Religion has a lot to answer for. All around the world it has been used, mostly by men, to repress its people, especialy women and children. We hear more and more about the abuse suffered by women and children from cultures that profess to believe in god, allah, johovah what ever you want to call them. It is now the 21st century and whilst our planet is dying a fortune is spent on war and hatred. If There is a god he must be very sad that he ever gave such power to the cruelest animal on earth.

Alicia Hack, basingstoke, england

Barry Holmes, you are making the common mistake of confusinig the EU with the Council of Europe. The ECHR is a treaty drafted by the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights sits in Strasbourg, not in Brussels. The UK could withdraw from the EU and still be party to the ECHR (although it could not remain in the EU if it disavowed the ECHR).

Andrew, Oxford, UK

Excellent article. Thank God I live in France now.

I know that the French authorities understand the threat from Islamists and will take prompt action as they did in Brest and Nantes by expelling radical Immams without the delay, embarassment and "ho ha" that happens in the UK. They know that their principle loyalty is to the People not to dangeous foreigners and immigrants.

My Gendarme friends at the local gym actively seek out and harrass these people - they get no rest or support from the state. If they cross the line their feet dont touch the floor.

Perhaps we should have had a Revolution in the UK so that the Establishment understand the rights of the people and their democratic responsibilities to them.

Geoff Miller, Josselin, France

What an excellent article. It's about time someone stood up to the "human rights" industry which not only imperils the lives of citizens (for example had the 1000 terrorists that MI5 is tracking all been interned or otherwise put out of business then MI5 would have had the resourses to follow up Khan and 7/7 could have been averted) but also costs the British taxpayer a fortune. Abu Hamza's legal aid was in millions, millions which the British taxpayer has to earn, most of which ends up in the pockets of greedy cynical lawyers. Terrorists are at war with us, we need to declare war on them and stop spouting this disengenous rubbish about "they win if we sacrifice our civil liberies" - we're talking about sacraficing the civil liberties of those known to be involved in islamic terrorism, not your average honest Brit regardless of their faith.

Ben Richmond, Sheffield, England

Because the rule of law is possibly the most fundamental building block of our civilization.

If we abandon this to "deal" with a bunch of half baked religious nutters then we are doing their work for them.

This is not to say we should ignore them, but our response needs to be effective and law based, not shoot from the hip.

Since when have we had to learn from France or Italy? except in the matters of cooking and other girly stuff.

Not an intelligent nor well reasoned article.

cuffleyburgers, Lucca,

Nice one MB -
how refreshing to read an article that exposes our consistent weakness to the threat that confronts us all. Our weak willed response -our sense of 'compromise' does no one any favours other than those who wish to harm us.
The reference to the fact that the French (and others) will detain far longer than we do is due (i believe) that whilst arrests made by the police may be subject to shorter time limits- ?Arrests made by ( 'Magistrates') have no such constraints??
Quite apart from the 'homegrown' problems that we have- who will have to be subject of far tougher 'detention' laws
I found it quite unsettling that we have over recent years- in effect, due to lax immigration policies- actively encouraged those who would cause mayhem and carnage to 'settle' here and we 'pay' them whilst they plot!
I fear time will show that we have beeen living in 'cloud cukoo' land.......................

mike, oxford, england

Britain is the only member of the EU that follows
all the garbage that comes out of Brussels. The ECHR authorities must say their prayers daily thanking the Lord that Britain joined (thanks to Cherie
and tony Blair) Way back in the early days of the EU
when fish and fishing were the big issue which was
the only country to stick to the rules surprise Britain.
It will be the same with the new treaty Britain will be the country loosing out.

Barry Holmes, Christchurch, New Zealand

The vast majority of anti-terrorism measures you mention would find little complaint from human rights campaigners.

Ian Brown, London,

Time for lawyers to have personal liability for some of their clients....such as making them provide bail or to have them reside at their homes.

Judges should be warned by the LCJ about the precautionary principle

Photographs should be posted of all escaped suspects

TomTom, Leeds, England

Although he is a historian (albeit, according to the New York Times, a 'popular' one), Mr Burleigh can come up with only one terrorist lawyer. Whilst they tend to be too cowardly to get involved personally, academics surely have much more vicarious blood on their hands. This is not to attack academics but to illustrate the stupidity (not vulgarity) of condemning a whole profession because of one member.

Perhaps "our greatest right is to life". But we celebrate and honour the millions of Britons who died to secure our other rights. And we should be happy to accept some small risk to protect the liberties they won for us.

Peter, London, UK

First class article.Unfortunately our Law Lords, Judges, Lawyers and organisations like Liberty are more interesting in looking at the problem as a ego trip and money making making machine out of the taxpayer funded legal aid system. The French government under Sarkozy dont have the same problems with so called civil liberties issue as the UK goverment,they are more interested in protecting the public from the threat, the UK legal system are more interested in protecting the criminals.Unfortunately they have the support of the Lib Dems and some of the Tories who are on Camerons whooly Liberal left.

Bill Rees, Pieusse, France

Shakespeare was right!!

Jim, Roscoe, USA

In a democracy lawyers and the judiciary will force their will on governments and citizens, while in a dictatorship the same class will do as they are instructed without question.

Terry, Radstock, England

While I laud some of your sentiments I note that they do not includ
the largest and best armed terrorist organizion in the Middle East.

I refer, of course , to Israel. Hardly a day goes by without Israeli
bombs raining from the sky on a helpless and defenceless
Palestinian population.The Israelis' will say its killing terrorists.
Perhaps they judge the whole Palestinian population to be terrorists ,children who are killed will grow into terrorists and the end justifies the means.

Jim MacDonald, Winnipg MB, Canada

Britain's mishandling of potential future problems not only places Britain at risk, but other western nations as well. Yet Britain could adopt Swiss-style versions of very delayed and revokable citizenship, by first hiring some better lawyers. Safety concerns always trump.others.

Emma H., Ottawa, Canada

Excellent article, its what Real Britons .... YES BRITONS want to here, .... oh no i think i might have one of those doo gooding lawyers on a fat paypacket accusing me of being combat 18 or BNP well actually i am not, i am a guy with a normal job who works hard and just SIMPLY DOES NOT WANT ME OR MY CHILDREN BLOWING UP on the underground in this year 2007 ! simple isn't it? we'll see how these silly lawyers feel when there loved ones bodies are ripped apart by a bomb blast in Mcdonalds !! how there opinion will change then ... i don't want to offend muslims but these days you can't say anything with out doing it !! and lets be honest when was the last time i have seen Christian suicide bomber? thats right so am sorry to say unless you as muslims weed out your fanatics from within .. then to find alleged terrorists The uk will have no choice but to "pen" you all and find the bad eggs before we get blown up ! ... sorry i live in Briton... if you don';t like it go to another Islam state.

lee, leeds, uk