Ba'asyir's conviction

Ba'asyir's conviction

Whatever others may say about it, here in Indonesia the trial
and subsequent conviction on Thursday of Abu Bakar Ba'asyir to
30 months' imprisonment for partaking in the "evil conspiracy"
that culminated in the Oct. 12, 2002, Bali nightclub bombings is
likely to remain a topic of heated contention for a long time to
come.

On one side of the divide are those who believe in the
cleric's guilt, or at least in his role in the Jamaah Islamiyah
organization and in his capability to incite violence, while on
the other side, his blindly devoted followers and others believe
that justice should be meted out impartially and objectively, no
matter what -- which, in the absence of convincing proof, they
believe the court has done.

Apart from touching on some of the most fundamental,
universally recognized principles of justice, Ba'asyir's case
thus personifies the precarious position that Indonesia -- as the
world most populous Muslim nation -- occupies in the global tug-
of-war between the fight against terror and the principle of
equality before the law. In the final instance, at stake is the
direction in which the nation's efforts at judicial reform and
its democracy are headed.

In the meantime, the past few years of police efforts have
proven that the aging cleric is not an easy fish to catch. To
briefly recall Ba'asyir's embroilment with the law after his
return from self-exile in Malaysia after the fall of the New
Order regime in 1998:

Police arrested Ba'asyir on Oct. 19, 2002, just a week after
the Bali nightclub attacks, for alleged involvement in terrorist
activities across the country, including the December 2000
Christmas Eve church bombings and involvement in a plot to
assassinate then president Megawati Soekarnoputri.

He was officially detained on Nov.2 of that same year and went
on trial in April the following year. Though charged on several
counts, including a 1999 plot to assassinate then vice president
Megawati, the Central Jakarta District Court only managed to hand
him a four-year prison sentence for document fraud and
immigration violations. In November 2003, the High Court reduced
that sentence to three years, a ruling that the Supreme Court
further reduced in March 2004 to 18 months' imprisonment.

Ba'asyir, however, did not savor his newly gained freedom for
long. Just moments after his release, police once again arrested
the cleric, this time on charges of terrorism. The clashes that
resulted left more than 100 Ba'asyir followers injured. On
Oct.16, formal charges of masterminding the Bali bombings were
made against the 67-year-old cleric. The rest, as they say, is
history.

Opinions, meanwhile, remain sharply divided, not only here at
home, but also abroad. The Australian foreign minister, Alexander
Downer, for example, was quick to express his disappointment over
what he considered to be a too lenient verdict. A spokesman of
the U.S. embassy in Jakarta, Max Kwak, conveyed similar
sentiments, though it must be noted that both also expressed
their respect for the independence of the Indonesian judiciary
and the conviction.

The same divide seems to exist to some extent among
Indonesians, with those who consider Thursday's court verdict
lenient, fearing that it might encourage more acts of violence in
the future, pitted against those who call the verdict unfair and
unfounded. After all, the court's reliance on a sworn testimony
based on an overheard conversation, appears weak to say the
least.

Nevertheless, the fact that Ba'asyir and his lawyers could so
easily have evaded the more serious charges of terrorism provides
plenty of room for thought, particularly regarding the country's
judiciary. Eight charges were laid out by the prosecutors against
the cleric. The bench regarded just one -- the subsidiary charge
of involvement in an evil conspiracy to cause an explosion that
caused death and endangered the lives of others -- as proven, and
even that claim is suspect.

The Abu Bakar Ba'asyir court saga, of course, is not over at
this point. The aging cleric has made it clear that he will
appeal the verdict.

In the meantime, the Indonesian government, its national
legislature and its judiciary had better work hard toward
establishing a more effective and more elucidated means of
ensuring national security, all in full adherence to the law and
the Constitution. The nation's security must be protected, but
without resorting to the authoritarianism of the past.