President George Bush has spoken of three wars against terrorism in response to the recent attacks in the US: the intelligence war, the economic war and the military war.

The first two are fuelling a debate over where to draw the line between civil rights and security.Many solicitors question whether tougher laws are needed in the UK, even in the light of the events in New York and Washington DC of 11 September.Malcolm Fowler, a partner at Birmingham firm Jonas Roy Bloom, who was chairman of the Law Society's criminal law committee when the Terrorism Act 2000 was debated and passed, says there were widespread reservations that the powers it gave the police were too great.Stephen Grosz, a partner at London civil liberties firm Bindman & Partners, and now a member of the committee, similarly counsels caution.

'Our laws already go far enough,' he says.

'We've only just got a new law.

There is a tendency to react to terrorist outrages by insisting on enacting new laws without really thinking about them, simply because you want to be seen to be doing something.'The Terrorism Act 2000, which came into force in February 2001, made it more difficult for terrorist groups to operate in the UK, by making it an offence to belong to any of a list of named organisations.A total of 21 organisations, mostly Islamic, are currently proscribed under the Act, including Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda group.

As time passes, names may be added or removed from the banned list.The Act, which looks ominously prescient in the light of recent events, anticipated global terrorism.

Professor Paul Wilkinson, director of St Andrew's Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, who worked as terrorism adviser with Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a Law Lord, on the commission which prepared the ground for the Act, says his terms of reference were to assume that Irish terrorism was no longer a threat.

It was designed with the rest of the world in mind, and replaces the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which was an emergency power prompted by the Irish Troubles.The new Act also introduced a wide definition of terrorism, so that it is now an offence even to support a group which would oppose a regime, including an illegal one, with violence.

It allows suspects to be held on a magistrate's authority for up to seven days, provided there is 'reasonable suspicion' that they have committed a terrorist-related offence.Mr Fowler says he knows of no cases where it was used until the spate of recent arrests following the US hijackings.A 27-year-old man, his brother and wife and a 44-year-old man were all arrested and questioned by police in London, on suspicion that they may have had connections with the World Trade Centre hijackers.

Three men were arrested in Leicester in connection with an alleged plot to bomb the US embassy in Paris, and seven men were detained under the Act before being questioned in connection with illegal immigration and not terrorism, after they had been picked up near RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk.For all the reservations of many lawyers and other experts, hints by the Home Secretary David Blunkett suggest the government has already drawn up draft new anti-terrorist powers, measures which may contravene its own Human Rights Act, says Mr Blunkett.Here again, Mr Grosz points out that those who have warned that the European Convention on Human Rights hampers the fight against terrorism are misguided.

Article 15 of the Convention already allows a government to pass laws which jeopardise the right to personal liberty -- under article 5 -- if it can show that the powers are strictly required, and they are approved by both houses of parliament.

This derogation of the convention then remains in force for five years.According to Professor Wilkinson, tougher laws would not only jeopardise the balance between civil liberties and security, but are not needed.

'Probably, other European countries need to bring their laws into line with the UK,' he says.

Better intelligence about terrorism is what is needed to be effective, he argues.

No law is effecti ve if you have no suspects.Professor Wilkinson says there is no need for longer detention than is already allowed under the Act.

'The evidence is that trained, experienced terrorists will not break down under questioning, however long you keep them.'It is right that the Act requires the police to go before a magistrate to ask for the longer period to question suspects, he maintains.Mr Fowler is also worried that differences between judicial codes in Britain and other parts of Europe may be overlooked in the pressure for a universal and tougher anti-terrorist alliance across the EU, which seems a likely consequence of the various meetings between European home affairs and justice ministers since the US atrocities.As part of the war on terrorism, Mr Blunkett says he favours the introduction of identity cards for UK citizens.

The Law Society's criminal law committee has not discussed the issue, but Mr Fowler says technological changes may mean they need to be reconsidered.

It is possible to include unique data, such as fingerprints or images of the iris, at a feasible cost.But he argues that there is little reason to suppose they would have had much effect on preventing the hijacking in the US, where apparently the terrorists had carved out complete identities.

'If they can forge a passport and other documents, they can forge identity cards,' he says.But as with other measures, Mr Fowler is worried about the effects of the introduction of cards on minority and disadvantaged communities.

He says they would create a larger excluded class of those who are either unable or unwilling to apply for identity cards.Professor Wilkinson is sceptical about the value of identity cards on pragmatic grounds.

'There is no evidence they reduce terrorism in countries where they are in use.' He cites Spain as an example where terrorism and identity cards co-exist.

'There needs to be research on the comparative effectiveness of anti-terrorism measures where there are, and are not identity cards,' he says.Another area where the UK's laws are already ahead of the game is money, and President Bush's 'economic war on terrorists'.

Louise Delahunty, a partner at London fraud specialist firm Peters & Peters and chairwoman of the Law Society's money laundering and serious fraud task force, says the Terrorism Act 2000 already provides the powers needed.

'It makes it an offence, for anybody, including solicitors, to fail to disclose belief or suspicion of use of terrorist funds,' she says.

She does not know of any cases brought so far under that section of the Act.Ms Delahunty says the Proceeds of Crime Bill, expected to be introduced in this parliament, might be a further way to attack terrorist financing.

'The Bill catches the proceeds of any criminal conduct and imposes an objective test for suspicion,' she says.

The offence would be committed 'where a person has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that another person is engaged in money laundering'.

Terrorism money can be channelled through many other illegitimate channels, and the wider provisions should ensure that those in the regulated sector, including solicitors, will help fight terrorism by being vigilant about all crime.Lawyers on both sides of the Atlantic will find themselves in the position over the coming weeks of reminding politicians that there is a second side to all anti-terror legislation -- that it may subsequently be misused against innocent people, unconnected with terrorism or any other crime.

'It is not necessarily a popular position,' Mr Fowler recognises.And Mr Grosz sums up the dilemma facing lawyers and governments following the New York and Washington terrorist attacks: 'It's a pretty serious situation.

Politicians are entitled and arguably obliged to ensure people are properly protected.

At the same time that doesn't just give them carte blanche to do what they like.'