The army has frequently expressed unhappiness over the release of suspected terrorists. While this has sometime led to charges of inefficiency on the part of judiciary, others have maintained that the negligence on the part of police investigators is responsible for the terrorists’ release and, therefore, what is needed is to concentrate on revamping the prosecution department. A new law which gives sweeping powers of detention to the army has reportedly been signed by President Zardari. There is a perception that this might create more problems than it is expected to resolve.
While the new law is liable to be called Pakistan’s version of the USA Patriot Act, the two are poles apart. In the Pakistani law, the army plays a central role and is empowered to detain civilian suspects as long as it considers necessary. The American law had simply reduced the restrictions on law enforcement agencies’ ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records, eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States and allowed the treasury to regulate financial transactions. Under the American law, only immigrants could be detained or deported.
Granted these tough times call for proactive measures against terror but it is difficult to reconcile draconian anti-terror laws to the principles of democracy. So went the argument against the Patriot Act as it does in this law. It allows arrests on suspicion not only in the tribal areas but anywhere in the country. It also allows internment of the suspects for indefinite period which amounts to the denial of basic rights. To allow only the army, and not the courts, to probe any abuse or misuse of force by army personnel is highly unjust. Including offences unrelated to terrorism could open the way to the act’s misuse against political opponents. To allow the proposed law to be enforced from February 2008 is arbitrary as terrorist acts started much earlier. Handing over the tribal areas to the army for an indefinite period amounts to the civilian government abdicating its responsibilities. In case gross acts of terrorism continue to take place in major cities of the country, they would provide an argument that the entire country be handed over to the army. There is a need for a debate on the proposed act both in Parliament and in media before it is promulgated.
