THE younger brother of one of Osama bin Laden’s widows, Amal Abdulfattah, has filed a legal challenge in the Islamabad High Court against criminal cases filed against Ms Abdulfattah and five minor children of the Al Qaeda chief. From what the authorities have disclosed, they entered the country illegally. Perhaps the state believes that because of their proximity to the world’s most wanted man the family can provide crucial information. If this is the case, the authorities need to make it clear; otherwise it can be argued that these people are high-profile examples of the manner in which women and children in this shadowy war are written off as negligible collateral damage by militants who head households as well as the security network in pursuit.

In many cases, the militants jeopardise their families’ security by keeping them in the area of active operations. It is hard to imagine that the women and children have a choice in the matter. And when the men are targeted, via drones or bombs or raids, those affected include people whose crime was simply to be irrevocably tied to a suspected terrorist. Some argue that the militants’ intention is to use their families as human shields. Do those planning a strike against militants take such collateral damage into consideration? From the many examples, including that of Baitullah Mehsud’s wife who was killed along with her husband in a drone strike, it would appear not. The onus lies primarily on the men who drag their families with them. But military planners are not absolved of the moral responsibility for the death or victimisation of those who have no proven links with terrorism. The fate of Osama bin Laden’s family, then, becomes a litmus test. If the only charge against them is of illegal entry, the humanitarian answer lies in deportation.