The release on bail of Abu Qatada, the man once called Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe, was described by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, as "extremely disappointing"; others have been less restrained.
The former Tory home office minister, Ann Widdecombe, for example, described an admittedly bizarre bail condition preventing Qatada - who is under a 22-hour curfew - receiving Bin Laden as a visitor to his home as "ludicrous", in the Sun.
Blogger dandan111 writes: "The Brits have done it again ... What the f [sic] is wrong with them? [Qatada is] a truly dangerous individual at the centre of al-Qaida's activities in the UK."
The the Telegraph has urged for the UK to pull out of the European convention on human rights, blaming the legislation for the government's inability to deport Qatada.
"Instead of using the terrorist threat to justify undermining our own freedoms, we should withdraw from the convention so we can decide for ourselves who can and cannot reside in this country," the paper argues.
The Sun says taxpayers will be lumbered with a £1m bill to keep Qatada under house arrest, while the Telegraph also claims he will receive at least £12,000 a year in benefits.
John Hirst, on jailhouselawyer'sblog , agrees his detention will cost "a fortune ... It would be cheaper to allow him to have his civil liberties. Whatever happened to the days when you could rant and rave at Speaker's Corner?"
Is the human rights convention hampering the fight against terrorism? Or would its abandonment be a dangerous precedent at a time when the government is trying to extend detention without trial for terror suspects and introduce universal ID cards?
This is an edited extract from the Wrap, our digest of the daily papers.
