It is surely not for senior members of the judiciary 'to engage in a serious and considered debate about how best legally to confront terrorism' (see Joshua Rozenberg, [2008] Gazette, 15 May, 14).



That is the job of elected politicians, the media and indeed the rest of us. If someone like Abu Qatada is detained in the UK as a security risk, he has the right to challenge his forced incarceration, for so long as we continue to pride ourselves on the right of recourse to the courts by all those who come within the remit of our laws in cases where the executive is seeking to deny freedom of movement within these islands.



Along with most other Middle Eastern states where democracy is either non-existent or severely constrained by monarchy or single-party rule, Jordan regularly tortures its people and others who fall foul of its authorities. Such behaviour has been encouraged of late by the Bush administration's willingness to use Jordan as a place of rendition for the harsh interrogation of those thought to be a terrorist threat to Washington.



Deporting 'Mr Othman' to a part of the world where inhumane treatment is a regular and accepted part of police and military procedures demonstrates that no signed memorandum of understanding or any enacted statute outlawing such egregious treatment can be taken at face value.



While Mr Rozenberg emphasises his absolute abhorrence of torture, his call for further discussion smacks of a willingness to consider further inroads into this most vital of human rights. It will be interesting to learn of his suggestions for dealing with those who openly advocate violence in pursuit of their ideals while protecting their right not to be imprisoned indefinitely or otherwise sent off to less auspicious climes to await an even less congenial fate.



In the meantime the 'truly dangerous' can be subjected to extensive hours of curfew and other daily restrictions on their movements and contacts, albeit at a higher cost to the taxpayer.



Bill Jackson, Nottingham