Really & what would that be? Even wiretaps have to be authorised to be legally acceptable. Without the source, it would be meaningless.
so you think by seizing these laptops, mobiles, other material evidences, interrogation, etc wouldn't help in any manner ???
if they have to tap the phone they could have get it done easily, people on list were not high profile citizen.
IB has far more abilities than you give credit for. In cases like these, further evidence would not be easily available unless one waited till the last minute which might be risking a lot more deaths.
Don't wait, nab them, which they did, but they didn't bother to investigate further, they just lost faith in their own ability to investigate and collect evidence.
I was pointing out that there exists a nebulous grey region, not just black & white that you seem to suggest. Whether relevant or not is a matter of opinion. The point here that IB did warn the state government on an impending attack & the state police neutralised it. Happens all the time. all over India. Nothing particularly special about this encounter except that it is now being used to seriously damage anti-terrorist operations in the future for the sake of political expediency now.
Tho damage would have been avoided if police invested more than four days to crack the case, if they had faith in their own investigating abilities.
In this case, police investigation wasn't done and the supposed terrorists were not within Gujarat police jurisdiction all the time. This was primarily an intelligence operation handed over to the state police at the very last moment i.e. when an attack was deemed imminent. Expecting a long investigation then would have been a bit much.
I am not saying you continue investigation until they go and blow themselves up, threat is neutralized when police arrested them isn't it ?? Then from that point investigation should follow.
An analogy would be if the Mumbai attackers were intercepted on the basis of intelligence inputs & were picked up from the boat. Assuming that weapons were thrown overboard, what case would you make out against them? Trespassing? Have to prove they are Pakistani even to do that. The purpose of that example is simply to point out that in many cases, the situation faced by intelligence operatives is not clear cut. Expecting them to purely follow normal rules of conduct is, while a valid constitutional position, a position that has the nose firmly in the clouds.
I important thing is this that by intercepting them you neutralized the threat, regardless of you being sure about they are terrorists or not..even if they are terrorists they can't be punished for killing people but for waging war against country or so.
assume there is an intelligence input, and police intercept them
with no material evidence ??? what would you do ?? spray them with bullets then and there ?? or arrest and investigate it ??? why do we have so many pak fishermen on our jails, police could have assumed they were terrorists pretending to be fishermen.I believe through interrogation and proper investigation and with help of technology you can bring out the truth.I am in no fools paradise to argue police should away follow each and every procedure and law, but they should follow it on important matters, and this I believe is one.
Since you given a a hypothetical situation let me give one to you as well.
what if police arrested four five of your friends( who do mall small illegal activities ) based on intelligence, but because they don't have enough evidence police killed them all in a fake encounter case. would you accept this in the name of acting tough and practicality etc.. would you say it's a necessary price we should pay for our security ???