Dear Sir/Madam,

The following quotes from the article referred to above leave me wondering about the mental stability of their author:

"Within hours of the attacks, British ministers began considering measures to curtail civil liberties in the name of national security . . . The most dramatic proposal is the introduction of identity cards . . ."

Does the author really think that British ministers' main concern is to "curtail civil liberties", rather than to increase security against terrorist attack?

And what would be so "drastic" about the introduction of identity cards?

Why is it that so many people seem to equate civil liberties with a right to remain anonymous in society? The 19 terrorists, who boarded 4 internal US flights on 11 September before hijacking them, were only able to do so because they were anonymous. No one knew who they were or what they were capable of doing - until it was too late.

If America had had a modern and efficient system of personal identification in place, at least at its airports, those attacks would not have been possible and thousands of lives would have been saved.

I am more than happy to have an airline know exactly who I am before boarding one of its flights, and would like them to know exactly who everyone else is getting on with me.

As far as I'm concerned, the sooner we can all be reliably identified on the spot the better! Except for terrorists, criminals, and perhaps illegal immigrants, this would be a tiny price to pay for the security and peace of mind it would bring, quite apart from all the lives it will save.

Having mentioned illegal immigrants: many come to the west because they know they have a good chance of remaining illegally. Once word got round that they would be quickly identified and required to leave, it would greatly reduce the numbers coming and make life easier for us all, including those genuinely seeking political asylum.