The British government?s recent introduction of ?control orders? intended to ?restrain? terrorist suspects was likely to be abused and ridiculed from the onset. This is in part because such a measure can be only a temporary solution to an enormously difficult problem and partly because a system of restraint based on house arrest, tagging, some surveillance, and self-enforced restrictions on travel and communications can be abused and cannot provide the same level of assurance as incarceration. Yet, when the UK?s highest court, the Law Lords, ruled that the power to detain foreigners without trial was illegal and violated basic human rights, the government was forced to address this hugely difficult problem of what to do with terrorist suspects who might pose a significant threat to life and property when admissible evidence to secure a conviction was insufficient (WAR Report).

Previously, the procedure had been to detain such individuals without trial indefinitely. Then in December 2004, the Law Lords ruled that this practice, besides being illegal under UK and European law, also seriously undermined the legitimacy of the UK?s efforts to combat terrorism (WAR Report). The UK government solution was, therefore, to introduce control orders for suspects already held in custody and for those who might be arrested in the future. Many have ridiculed both the efficacy and effectiveness of this measure, but this author would argue that it was a pragmatic, albeit temporary, solution to an extraordinarily difficult challenge. In only three months, the British government somehow came up with a solution that balanced the need to protect the public with the absolute requirement to remain within the letter and intent of the law. At the same time, the measures chosen had to contribute to securing the moral high ground in order to engage in the ?War of Ideas? with Islamic extremists for the ‘hearts and minds’ of moderate Muslims.