THREE PROPOSALS to tighten the laws against terrorism raise concerns that the Government wants to curtail civil liberty and human rights more than is strictly necessary. The danger is that in defending their way of life against terrorism, the British may lose much of what they value, especially the long-cherished and much-fought-over freedom of the individual against the state.

The home secretary, Charles Clarke, has accepted the police argument that they need the power to detain terrorist suspects prior to charge for up to two and a half months longer than the maximum 14 days now allowed, because the investigations are of unprecedented complexity. There is some weight to this, but to allow suspects to be held for that length of time simply on the police?s word that inquiries were proving lengthy is not a sufficient safeguard against abuse. The police should have to convince a senior judge that they really do need more time, if necessary allowing him to scrutinise their investigations and to set conditions and deadlines. In any event, three months is excessive, and a maximum of six weeks should be more than adequate.

The Government?s proposal to outlaw the ?glorification? of terrorist acts has been watered down by the requirement to prove that the intention of the ?glorifier? is to condone or provoke violence. But the wording is still not satisfactory, and could still catch innocent comment as well as criminal incitement. It should not be made illegal, for instance, to say that Hamas? terrorist campaign against Israel is justified (though in fact it is not). The word ?glorify? is itself too vague for a criminal statute, and should be dropped.

There is also legitimate concern that the Government?s desire to deport foreign nationals to their native countries runs the risk of their being tortured when they arrive, contrary to the Human Rights Act.

The courts will eventually have to test the strength of the various undertakings the ...