A deficient legal system

Faced with a multifaceted and incomprehensible rising surge of suicidal militants, the nation tends to look forward to the security forces to effectively capture these havoc creators and upon the judiciary to pronounce befitting punishments, originating from an intrinsic desire to exterminate the terrorists along with the symbolic terror that they perpetuate.
So far many operations have been launched by the security forces during which a great number of Taliban leadership was killed while the rest were captured, who during interrogation, revealed vitally classified information about the terror networking. The severely anomalous judicial system, however, constructed to try these terrorist has failed to perform absolute justice that is an essential component of the war waged against this menace.
An example of this failure is the most prominent terror commander, Dr Usman, who was in the custody of Pakistani security forces for his suspected involvement in the suicide attack at the Islamabad Marriott in September 2008. Detained along with three other prominent Taliban figures from October 2008, the four men were apparently linked to an organised terrorist network operating in Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa and Punjab. Dr Usman, however, was released due to lack of evidence and an obvious exercise of influence despite court attempts to detain him by rejecting acquittal pleas filed by him.
After being acquitted, Dr Usman reorganised himself only to orchestrate the deadly assault and siege on Pakistan's Army General Headquarters, entering the compound taking 42 hostages, Dr Usman killed 14 troops, including a brigadier, a lieutenant colonel, and six SSG commandos. The generous acquittal of this mercenary criminal by the Anti-Terrorist court is an indicator that calls out for appraisal of our legal system.
The judges, lawyers and witnesses face great resistance by the flawed system as they are intimidated by threats of being targeted or appeased by heavy sums offered as bribe, thus the verdicts of these cases easily sway in favour of these militants who, by now fully comprehend the legal system along with its multiple loophole that serve as windows of freedom to blatantly and fearlessly exercise their missions.
The threat of violence against jurists and lawyers is real in cases of terrorism, which often compels them to become apprehensive thus, hindering a judicious decree. Witnesses in such cases however, are on the lowest rung of the ladder as they are subject to severe threats, particularly when these emanate from organised terror elements. Consequently, crime and acts of terror, carried out by such elements, are rarely prosecuted as no one testifies against them due to a woefully inadequate security of witnesses.
However, legal system needs to be appraised and restructured on an effective model providing security, protection and incentives to judges, lawyers and witnesses, developing an infallible system of urgent and austere punishments for those involved in any act of terror.