A kangaroo court?
The opening of the long-awaited hearing of 11 Army officers, charged with kidnapping 11 political activists, has dismayed human rights activists and stunned no less than some of the returned abduction victims with its blatant lack of resolve.
Disappointment was provoked by the indictment, read by the military prosecutor at Wednesday's hearing session, which human rights activists understood as nothing but a barely veiled effort to play down the military involvement in the scandal. Instead of trying to find out the whole truth of the chain of command in the abductions, the prosecutor is heaping blame squarely on the officers as apparent fall guys.
Military leaders' insincerity in the trial is so blatant that two of the nine kidnapping returnees -- another was found dead and the fate of 13 others is unknown -- reacted with deep disatisfaction. Kompas daily on Saturday quoted them as saying the indictment fell short of mentioning the torture they endured during the ordeal.
They recounted how they were beaten, burned with cigarette butts, forced to lie down on ice blocks and had their heads held under water by their kidnappers. They also claimed that military police investigating officers did not bother to file reports on their ordeals nor examine their wounds.
Reports about the first court session said the indictment only outlined the process of kidnappings and release of the victims. It also accuses the commander of the team of kidnappers, a major of the elite Special Force (Kopassus), of making the decision to kidnap activists "on the basis of his own conscience".
The officer believed, according to the indictment, the activists were radicals whose actions disturbed national stability. He suspected them of organizing antigovernment demonstrations.
The indictment and the reactions it generated show the case is complex and grave, necessitating the court show genuine professionalism if it is sincere in upholding the supremacy of law. It should also realize that the case is not only of interest here, but to Indonesia watchers everywhere.
The case must leave many people baffled over how an Army major, the main defendant, acted against the military act-on- order system by listening to his "conscience" in ordering the kidnappings. In the military tradition, even a superior should ask his subordinate if the latter has any questions after he delivers instructions, part of the logical process.
When a major of a crack paratrooper unit, once the pride of the nation, has ventured so far on the wrong side of the law, there must be something amiss in our military command. And we are sorry to say that we smell a rat here.
The major must have told the story about his "conscience" during questioning to avoid questions from being asked of those "upstairs".
It is plainly evident who is meant by "upstairs" since the kidnapping took place between February and April when the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) was about to reelect president Soeharto for a seventh term and Kopassus was under the command of Lt. Gen. Prabowo Subianto, a Soeharto son-in-law.
However, the same "conscience-based" decision must have been made by those who killed the students of Trisakti University in May and demonstrating students near the Semanggi cloverleaf -- both in Jakarta -- last month.
Military leaders should consider their officers' insubordinate behavior of serious concern. The trial should not be allowed to degenerate into a kangaroo court because it would not only tarnish the military's image, but also that of the nation.
More dangerous still is the implicit message that officers could somehow go it alone in making decisions according to the dictates of their conscience. Yesterday it was the students, but today or tomorrow it could be their high commander or even the head of state who falls victim to their personal impulses. A troubling thought indeed.