Due to the high number of e-mails we get we cannot guarantee to publish every single message we receive, however the e-mails published will reflect the balance of opinion. We may also edit some e-mails for legal reasons and for purposes of clarity and length.
The views expressed on these pages are not necessarily the views of the BBC. The e-mails published will be reflective of the balance of opinion received.
Excellent work BBC for showing another part of what is really happening in the UK with law and human rights. If you want to live in UK, you should obey the british law and cultures. Well done for the quality programme like this, it is worth paying the licence fee.
Brin Kasinathan, Harrow, London
If it becomes illegal to glorify terrorist acts, will it become illegal to celebrate Guy Fawkes Night? The wording seems to make it an offence to celebrate an act, not the success or failure of the act.
Philip Lello, Larling, Norfolk
I would rather be killed by a terrorist bomb while living in a free country, than to continue an existence in what amounts to a Police state.
Jerome Haynes-Smith, Fareham
In the 1960s South Africa introduced a 90-day detention law which, in effect, is what this government is trying to do.
Very soon the Justice (or should that be injustice?) Minister, John Vorster said it was a 90-day detention law "renewable until this side of eternity." People were released after 90 days and then re-arrested immediately, without even leaving the police station.
How long until this government finds the 3 months provision insufficient and wants to detain people for even longer, perhaps indefinitely. It is happening in Guantanamo already.
Andrew Macdonald, Glasgow, United Kingdom
I have always been the first to jump to the BBC's defence when accused of bias, truly, and I have been an objector from the beginning to the Iraq invasion. However this BBC programme that seems to take a judgment on one case to indicate that the individuals concerned were "squeaky clean" and the interviewing of jurors, who are only qualified (if that is even true) to comment on the single case they were involved in, is totally bizarre. After the London bombings surely it is not just the right but the duty of the legal system and the government to do their utmost to prevent such attacks in the future?
Yes the terrorism act was used stupidly (and incorrectly) at the Labour Party Conference but surely the most important point is the safety of the British Public. Surely we should worry about the rights of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants after we have assured ourselves that we have done the best possible to protect the public?
When in a time of war (Islam's words) we have, as we did in World War Two, to put Britain first. How many of these do-gooders (awful phrase) were on the Tube Trains or lost relatives on 7/7? When things get to this level there will certainly be some mistakes, but I would say again that the current situation is not normal and requires measures that may seem extreme in the normal course of events. There may well be further bombings in London or other cities in the near future and the government of which ever colour has a duty to try to protect us to the best of their abilities. To suggest that the 7/7 bombings were an aberration rather than a sign of what is to come is comfy old fashioned thinking that totally ignores reality and the changes in the wider world. The danger is real, we have seen it nearly twice, and we deserve to be protected and will as in World War Two understand the need for greater security.
Now is not the time to get hung up on technicalities or the time to be paralyzed by political correctness. In fact is seems that it is our gullibility and generosity to asylum seekers and the like only serves to increase the danger. Maybe, God forbid, the USA is right with its regulations and Department of Homeland Security. What will it take to make us 'wake up and smell the coffee' as they say?
A student of politics, I consider myself very aware of the issues discussed in the programme. Unsuprisinly then I didn't find the programme very factualy ground-breaking. However I feel it is important to highlight the very important issue of Public Safety vs Civil Liberties to the polpulation at large, and for this I thank the programmers.
Although I am curious to know if the BBC intended to advocate the non-wearing of seat belts by the Blair's in all the car scenes. Is this the right message to be senning to a counrty in which over ten people die on the roads every day? Many, many times more than do in terrorist attacks in Britain.
Meredith Lloyd, Bath
I was very disappointed that a much respected programme such as Panorama should present such a one-sided and confused view of the argument on prevention of terrorism. Whilst I do not support any aspect of detention without trial, I do believe that people who incite others to commit violence should be penalised under the law. You did not offer any examples in your programme, but I believe that someone who states that a terrorist act was a good thing and that people should do more of it,should be breaking the law.
This is not about freedom of speech it is about violence, and incitment to violence, which should not be tolerated under any circumstances. With regard to the proposal of a three month detention period, there must be some clear evidence to enable a judge to agree that further investigations and detention beyond two weeks are justified.
Brian, Totnes, Devon, UK
I find it odd that the opponents of the new anti-terrorist laws constantly refer to the European law on human rights. These so called "human rights" laws have been draughted up in the Fifties when Europe was under the threat of communism, and some countries were still under colonial rule. Now the situation has entirely changed: our society has to live under the threat of terrorism which acts in a different, more extreme, way. Therefore the human rights laws are outdated, they do not protect our society and therefore have to be revised.
Andres Benguerel, London, UK
This programme made me feel sick. Again, muslims were portrayed and being victims on British society. The terrorism we are facing in this country from these extremists needs sufficient measures to counteract it. Everybody I know is 100% supportive of measures taken to be able to fight off this real threat.
Why do so-called "moderate" muslims take such offence to these new laws? If they live in our country and obide with the law they will have no problems. The real reason they are opposed to such new rules is because most muslims in this country sympathize, at least to some extent, with the cause of the terrorists. This is very alarming.
And the programme broadcast by Panorama tonight was nothing but anti-English propoganda. I'd like to know where they found their three members of the public from? The three who, what a surprise, were against the new anti-terrorism laws. This country has been ruined, and the fact that the BBC broadcasts such blatant anti-English rubbish just goes to prove it.
Jason Wood, Dudley, West Midlands
Excellent programme, if it takes three months to put together the case for detaining terrorists, then so be it. Never mind their 'human rights' what about this country's human rights and the rights of ordinary people to go about their daily right to go to work and to go home to their family's without the fear of injury or death? If Cherie Blair (or Booth) cared about human rights, then she should try putting herself in a British citizen's place (or do we not count as we can't earn money for her?
George Davidson, Newcastle upon Tyne, England
The programme was a brilliant contribution to the national debate we must have to remedy the excessive and sloppy aspects of the draft anti-terror legislation. Let's hope parliamentary scrutiny proves to be similarly incisive and properly sceptical. Well, we can at least hope. In the meantime, congratulations and thanks to Vivian White and the team for adding to the archive of distinguished and indispensable programmes on terror-related issues that 'Panorama' has produced since 9/11.
Geoff, London, SE3
Ill-conceived legislation has the opposite effect of that intended. This piece of proposed law will do nothing to prevent another 7/7. The psychology has to be correct; and, unfortunately, in this case, it is not. One wonders if this legislation had been in force twenty years ago, what effect it would have had on the Irish troubles. Presumably, these new laws would also apply to the para-militaries now.
John Baillot, Stoke on Trent, UK
If I understand it correctly, it is because of the Human Rights Act that we are unable to protect ourselves against terrorism without creating laws that destroy the human rights we have enjoyed in this country for centuries. The parts of the Human Rights Act that cause the problem are the inability to make a distinction in law between citizens and non-citizens, and the inability to deport a person who might be subject to torture or the death penalty if returned to their country of birth.
But notwithstanding the Human Rights Act there is a distinction in law between citizens and non-citizens as a foreign national cannot be found guilty of being a traitor to this country.
The answer to the problem is not to deprive us of our traditional rights (habeus corpus, etc) but to allow a concomitant distinction between citizens and non-citizens enabling the internment of foreign nationals, should they choose it in preference to deportation, on the same grounds as those on which it is deemed acceptable to deny the entry of foreign nationals.
PK, Ipswich, UK
I will never glorify the war on terror. It's more sick and far from the anwers needed. Our current democracy, the way in which we try to 'answer', is a bigger problem then the problem we face itself.
H Elegeert, Netherlands
I was concerned at the slant of this programme. The lawyers (and even the jury) kept saying "You can't do that" but they never said what the government can do. If we are to address serious issues like this the legal profession cannot be allowed off the hook so easily. They will remain part of the problem until programmes like Panorana challange them to say what the solutions are.
Lord Lloyd said another terrorist attack was unlikely. If he is proved wrong will you challenge him?
Michael Skinner, Wem, Shropshire
The comment made by Jerome Haynes-Smith from Fareham was irresponsible and distasteful in the extreme. I find it incredible that the BBC felt it worthy of being published in this debate.
Stephen Richards, London, SE1
The programme so far has started from a biased position and used suspect techniques to support and re-inforce that position. It is not a genuine attempt to show the two sides of an argument, but a cheap mixture closer to gossip than news or journalism.
The programme relies upon the idea that all the evidence against those arrested on the second occasion was presented to the jurors on the first occasion, and that is clearly and simply wrong. As a platform for the legal profession in their battle for supremacy with the democratically-elected government, the programme does raise some serious issues, but the portrayal of the protagonists cheapens the debate and deliberately lowers the public's respect for the two sides of the substantive issue.
A poor way to address an important topic, a further step towards voter apathy and a boost to special interests beating democracy.
Dr Rod Lee, Black Isle, Scotland