Counter Terrorism Laws And Human Rights

5263 Words22 Pages
The moral rule is not "when one is about to kill you, pre-empt him and kill him first," but rather "when one is about to kill you, do everything necessary in order to thwart his intention." Accordingly, if there is no alternative to killing him, strike first. If there is an alternative other than killing him, thwart his intention without striking first, without killing him.
I Introduction
Human rights and national security are at times perceived to be at odds with one another. When government officials speak about national security, their arguments rest primarily upon the premise that protecting human rights and civil liberties is at times subservient to protecting national security. In India, the government has passed stringent laws protecting national security and combating terrorist threats, but these same laws cannot pass the test of human rights scrutiny. The international human rights framework, conventions or treaties to which India was a signatory or ratifying party, also justified the limitations on governmental powers. However, the contemporary reality of Indian executive governance demonstrates the weaknesses and inadequacies of the treaties and conventions. As a result, police, military and para-military forces continue to violate human rights. This problem underscores the need to develop a culture amongst law enforcement officials that respects human rights as a sine qua non for the preservation of the rule of law.
Get Access