The Protection of Pakistan bill was approved by the National Assembly on July 2, 2014. This bill states that a grade-15 officer has the full permission to enter and search the premises of a suspected offender without a warrant, to prevent the crime he may be about to commit.

It also allows the officer to arrest or shoot at sight of any person even on the slightest suspicion of terrorist activity.

This could mean either of two things: a sharp but dark descent into terrorism or a socially acceptable ascent into civilian killings. Once this law rolls into action day by day, it will be hard to distinguish between the two. In this country, to be honest, an officer can wilfully 'suspect' almost anyone, innocent or militant.

Can the police be trusted?

That begs the question, can we safely rely on these law enforcers to decide by themselves? Isn't it a gross violation of rights to declare citizens a legal shooting target based on mere 'suspicion'? Advocates point to the similar US Patriot Act of 2001 and the support it enjoyed, but opponents point to something far more relevant — context.

Trusting US law enforcement personnel is one thing and trusting the infamous Pakistani police another. Police work here is based on a network of bloody rivalries and revenges waiting to occur. In such a scenario, the PPO has entrusted its officers with deciding who should be caught/shot on whatever their ideas of 'reasonable suspicion' or 'credible information' are.

What's more, no member of our security teams will be considered 'liable to any action for the acts done in good faith during the performance of their duties'. So Pakistanis are now effectively at the mercy of the 'good faith' of policemen.

Violation of basic rights

Activists have rightly claimed that the PPO violates the fundamental rights of citizens. Question is, does the government care?

Human Rights Watch has voiced its concerns at all forums. Opposition parties have squeezed in a few amendments to water it down and introduce some semblance of accountability in it.

Generally, though, the PPO remains a document of highly vague terms and an absolutist philosophy, all of which boil down to one clear message for law enforcers:

you can get away with anything.

Preventive detention is allowed, for up to 90 days. The Army, Rangers and all other security forces have been given the powers of a police officer. The burden of proof now lies with the accused, meaning he will be guilty until he proves himself innocent. And any suspect without an identity will be treated as an 'enemy alien' (stripping off someone of his ID on spot could easily put him in this category). Bizarre terms like 'crimes against computers' abound. The government has been given the right to override existing laws and to 'remove any difficulties' getting in PPO's way. And all of this is justified citing the 'dire' situation the country is in.

Are we OK with the potential for abuse?

It seems this is the extent the government is willing to go to curtail the terrorism that continues to destroy our society. The nature of this draconian law and can be compared to India’s Prevent of Terrorism Act (POTA) where cases of the law being abused have been reported. It is likely the same advantage will be taken of the PPO and few will try to prevent it.

Also read: 'Analysis: Another repressive law'

The ordinance is little more than an attempt to sweep away every vice with one broad brush, instead of opting to improve the nitty gritty of everyday police work. What should actually be increased is institutional efficiency, rather than the already occurring overkill brought on by this bill.

Understandably, 'collateral damage' always prevails but for how long will we deem this overriding effect as collateral damage? I accept that drastic legislations are sometimes needed but even in dire situations, limits, too, are needed.

Are we really willing to go as far as shaking off the potential costs of civilian lives for terrorists? It seems the ‘enemy alien’ has taken more from us than we can comprehend.