Honouring the victims of terror...or not!

The production of illegally detained, suspected terrorists in the Supreme Court should have been met with a sense of triumph. Instead, the last month has seen families of missing persons, who have joined the Amna Janjua led missing persons camp as sympathisers with terrorists and militants. Those who have hailed the Supreme Courts actions have been accused of neglecting the memory of the victims of terrorism and their families.

Things have changed quite swiftly over the past few months. Then, everyone seemed content with denying that anyone was actually “missing” or that the military and intelligence agencies had anything to do with their disappearance.

Today, many argue, quite openly that our intelligence agencies only “pick up” the guilty and if they do so, so what? After all its in the national interest!

A letter to the editor in this paper summarised the prevalent sentiment as follows:

And there are instances when those arrested have been found to be involved in attacks on members of the armed forces, military installations and on buildings owned by intelligence agencies. In such instances, cases were filed in the courts but those accused were acquitted.

It appears guilt is determined by the institutional affiliation of the accuser rather than the presumed actions of the accused.

A common criticism is that the courts and judges are incompetent or scared, or worse both. They are unwilling or unable to prosecute cases involving those accused of terrorism and are in majority of cases acquitted. Further, evidence gathered by extra judicial means cannot be submitted in court, further hampering the prosecutions case. 

However, is the solution to limited judicial capacity extra judicial murder and torture? Or is the provision of resources and improvements in the law, to convict criminals properly, a better long term solution?

Another line of criticism against those who have question the policy of enforced disappearances includes the sentiment that:

Instead of trying to understand this issue, our media does the opposite and makes a hue and cry over this, and in the end the terrorists benefit. This also lowers the morale of our armed forces who feel that while they are risking their lives to fight the militants, society in general is placing greater value on the rights of the militants.

I find it quite insulting that people believe that extra judicial actions; which are illegal according to the law of the land, which military personnel have taken an oath to uphold, will somehow improve the morale of the armed forces.

I assume that members of the armed forces are serving to uphold the law of the land, which clearly protects the rights of even the worst amongst us. Those who say that we should recall the sacrifices of our soldiers who are fighting terrorism by looking the other way while illegal disappearances continue do no service to the memory of the brave members of our armed forces.

Perhaps the worst interpretation of the judicial proceedings is the perception of the “rights of terrorists”, as if this is something that the Supreme Court has decided to bestow upon them. They are no rights “for” terrorists, these rights are universal and applicable upon all Pakistani citizens that cannot and should not be selectively applied.

Have we not criticised the United States for its confinement of detainees in Guantanamo bay and their policy of extraordinary rendition for the very same reasons? Do we not highlight the arbitrary confinement of Palestinians by Israel and Indian forces in Kashmir, accusing them of the very same acts that we justify domestically?

No one is campaigning for the guilty to be released unpunished. The constitution which enshrines certain rights to even murderers, rapists and terrorists, also aims to ensure that these very people face the full force of the law. That people arrested are duly processed, with their families made aware of their whereabouts and granted access to legal representation, does not diminish the states ability to hold them to account.

We as a nation should consider whether the memories of those who are victims of terrorism is honoured by brutal, illegal violence. Or do we as a nation rise above the actions of cowards and apply the law in word and spirit?

Unfortunately, we appear seduced by the appeal of raw and bloody justice, delivered swiftly, rather than making the effort to implement the hard decisions required to build the capacity of law enforcement and the judiciary.