The government seems bent on passing the Protection of Pakistan Bill (PPB) as it stands despite facing an opposition united in disapproval. The bill is now in the Senate where in all likelihood the opposition will quash it, for good reason. Allowing security officials the power to enter homes without a warrant, shoot suspects on sight, submit evidence and confessions obtained through torture, and detain any person on suspicion blatantly disregard fundamental constitutional and human rights. The government is adamant that the bill is the only way to protect the lives of citizens. The question arises however, who will protect citizens from the depredations of an already heavy-handed police and security establishment, notorious for corruption, harassment, and being trigger-happy? The Society for Human Rights and Prisoners’ Aid (SHARP) reported 181 civilian deaths after police ‘encounters’ and more than 9,300 cases of police torture in 2012. Human rights organisations report that methods of torture include beating with batons and whips, burning with cigarettes, whipping the soles of feet, prolonged isolation, electric shocks, and denial of food or sleep. The Asian Human Rights Commission reports: “There are around 1,300 police stations in the country and every day at least one person undergoes physical torture in every police station.” Torture occasionally results in death. The International Crisis Group reported in 2008: “Pakistan’s police force is incapable of combating crime, upholding the law or protecting citizens and the state against militant violence.” These facts are well known and indicate that giving police and security personnel wider powers will result in more dangers for Pakistani citizens, not less. The government position that the country is at war with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and requires extraordinary measures has certain merits. At the same time, TTP spokespersons regularly release statements to the press and appear on television talk shows. Instead of denying the TTP publicity, the government has made them legitimate negotiating partners, while allowing their representatives to put out the group’s propaganda at will. Extraordinary measures should first limit the ability of the enemy to act, before subverting citizens’ right to privacy in their homes and habeas corpus. The UK recently issued cautious criticism of the PPB that the Foreign Office brushed aside, calling it an internal Pakistani matter. Pakistan has ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Convention Against Torture, and the International Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, among others, meaning it has international obligations to protect constitutional liberties. After the experiences of the Rwandan genocide and Balkan wars, international norms no longer define sovereignty as the ability to practice political repression within one’s borders without international condemnation. It is positive that Mr Zaid Hamid and Senator Raza Rabbani, respectively government and opposition representatives, have been deputed to work out an acceptable framework for enhanced security requirements, something that should have been done from the start since the PPB in its current form is clearly unacceptable, within or without Pakistan. This argument is strengthened by the simple fact that the government does not have a majority in the Senate, therefore the only way the PPB can be passed is in consultation with, and with the agreement of, the opposition.*