AFSPA: Soldiers clear of Implications , but is everyone else?

The debate on AFSPA is becoming distracted by who is more important or who has more power to impose the will on the situation, Army or the Chief Minister. It should ask simple questions and issues examined with out passion and with humility. A citizen to be reined in as a responsible member of the society requires:

1. strict criminal laws passed
2. strict enforcement of these criminal laws.
3. Fear that if laws are violated, he will be caught in all probability, prosecuted, and punished and sentenced to jail term or send to the gallows.

A soldier provided with a gun and made to operate in a troubled region can be reined in as responsible member of the society even if:

1. he is given full power, authority and power of law to enforce his will on the civilian.

2. Summary power to execute if necessary according his sole judgement on the spot.

3. No criminal law which he himself imposes on the subjects applies to him as he can not be charged with any infringement.

4. There is no fear that he will be caught, prosecuted, punished or sentenced to jail or sent to to the gallows.
5. In fact he is assured that he is immune from all laws and all fear of prosecution and sentencing.
6. He is the sole judge of his actions

All I am saying is all humans (civilian citizen or men in uniform) behave almost similarly under similar circumstances. Do you have wild objections to such conclusions?

Aristotle's oft quoted words represent the best of truism: Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all.

Who should decide whether the area is disturbed? The civil head of administration or the man in uniform who should get full immunity? or the Unified Command? It is total lack of understanding of human nature and how power operates and how checks and balances should provide justice and fairness to the citizen.

AFSPA is giving free hand to kill with no judicial review. AFSPA does not give power to soldier for self defence or minimum use of force for bringing order but use excessive use of force and no judicial review whether excessive use of force was used or not. You can expect a soldier's own comrades to defend him with silence or false witness or the camaraderie of the Army fail to charge him with crime in the military courts martial. Should the civilian have right to report violation of law against the soldier and expect due process is the question.

Law enforcer can commit crime while summarily disposing on the spot one man verdict and execution but the civilian should have no legal due process, seems little strange! It is never the case that the soldier should not have freedom to use the minimum force required to make the citizen comply with immediate danger and grave law and order situation. You do not require AFSPA for that. You do not require magistrate's signature under aid to civil authority for that.

 Is this so difficult to get?