Inside Guantanamo Bay prison Jumah Dossari had reached the end of his tether. Captured in Pakistan in 2001, he had spent four years locked up as a terrorist suspect, including two in solitary confinement; he could take it no more.

While meeting his lawyer last month, he asked to go to the lavatory; minutes later he was found hanging from a noose tied to the ceiling.

Dossari’s suicide attempt — he survived — is one of more than 30 at the camp. As captured “enemy combatants” they have reason to despair. On Thursday the US Senate passed an amendment that, if confirmed by the House of Representatives, will prevent the prisoners making a legal challenge against their detention. No habeas corpus for them.

For in the war on terror, President George W Bush is determined to use whatever measures he can. On Friday in a speech attacking both his critics and Islamic extremism, Bush reiterated his determination that “the defence of freedom is worth our sacrifice”.

He explained: “We are facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. Against such an enemy there is only one effective response: we will never back down.”

Like Bush, Tony Blair is also uncompromising in the face of the terrorist threat. He, too, is intent on ratcheting up the powers of the state. Last week the prime minister fought hard to grant police the power to detain suspects, British or foreign, without charge or trial for up to 90 days.

In the House of Commons, Blair quoted a senior police officer to make his case. “We are not looking for legislation to hold people for up to three months simply because it is an easy option,” he said.

“It is absolutely vital. To prevent further attacks we must have it.”

It did not convince MPs. Defied by 49 Labour rebels, Blair went down to a crushing defeat. He promptly accused opponents of betraying the country and imperilling its citizens. “The country will think parliament has behaved in a deeply irresponsible way,” he said.

Others believe that the trade-off between security and civil liberties is not so easy to judge. Get the balance wrong and it can make the terrorist threat worse, they say. Focus too much on new legislation, others add, and you risk taking your eye off the main game — making sure our police and security services are working effectively.

“Britain and the US are debating the balance between competing interests: the rights of individuals on the one hand, and the rights of the community as a whole to take appropriate protective measures,” said Professor Philippe Sands, author of Lawless World, a study of international law and human rights.

“You are balancing competing objectives to ensure agencies have time to investigate while adequately protecting communities — without doing so in a way that exacerbates the problem,” he said.

Other governments are grappling with the same dilemma. Australia, where this month police claim to have thwarted a significant attack, is proposing tough new laws — although only 14 days’ detention without trial.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Should Knox’s trial even have reached the courtroom?
• All that glitters is not sold in Wright’s world
• Believe it or not, Big Brother is your friend