In the name of justice

In the name of justice

Law enforcement is supposed to be one of the four components
of the ongoing joint operation in Aceh, which the government
launched on May 19. The other three elements are security
restoration, humanitarian assistance, and the empowerment of
local government. But precisely what law the government is trying
to enforce is not clear because on the same day it was launched,
President Megawati Soekarnoputri declared martial law in Aceh and
effectively put the province under military control.

As far as law enforcement within this joint operation is
concerned, the question that comes to mind is whether the
authorities -- in this case the military or the police -- are
there to administer martial law, or civil law.

What we see on the ground is a combination of the two. In one
instance, a civil law is enforced; at other times, martial law.
In one case, a civil law is applied; in another, it is martial
law.
This confusion is most apparent in the way that the authorities
in Aceh are handling the detention of people suspected of being
part of, or supporting the separatist Free Aceh Movement (GAM).

Some of these people were arrested by the police and are in
their custody. At the same time, the military has been conducting
its own arrests of suspected rebels. The ones in police custody
face charges ranging from terrorism to treason, offenses that
carry severe sentences, including capital punishment. Those under
military custody are less fortunate: they are not even being
given due process of law.

Most, if not all, the suspects, whether they are in police or
military custody, have also been denied or deprived of legal
counsel, even as they face these very serious charges.

The military could invoke many of the powers under martial law
in denying suspects their basic rights, but such practice does
not bode well for the image of the ongoing joint operation. It
smacks of hypocrisy, because the military as well as the police
are violating the laws they are supposed to enforce.

The success (or failure) of the joint operation depends to a
large extent on the support of the people of Aceh. Winning their
hearts and minds is crucial. The government's performance in the
operation to enforce the law is no less important than the other
parts of the operation. That means consistency, transparency and
nondiscrimination in applying the laws.

At the moment, there are effectively two sets of law being
enforced simultaneously in Aceh. The point where civil law ends
and martial law begins (or vice versa) is not clear. The decision
as to which law to apply is taken arbitrarily to suit the
interests of the powers that be.

This discriminatory practice is apparent in the way the
military handles wrongdoings by its members. While we laud the
military decision to hold impromptu tribunals for soldiers who
are found to have violated the law, the punishments meted out by
the tribunals defy the public's sense of justice.

A case in point is the two-and-half to three-and-half year
prison terms meted out by the military tribunal to three Army
soldiers for rape on Saturday. Although the soldiers were charged
with rape under a criminal code applicable to civilians, they
were given the minimum sentence.

This is a gang-rape committed by people in uniform, who were
assigned to protect the lives of the local people. This involved
more than just rape, but more an abuse of power and abuse of
trust. The judges (who are also from the military) should have
given the maximum sentence, which, under the Criminal Code is 12
years (this is laughable, but we have to make do with this until
we review the Criminal Code). The three soldier-rapists should
have been severely punished, not only because they deserve it,
but also in order to deter other soldiers from committing the
same crime.

Alas, from the way that the joint operation in Aceh has been
conducted, it is clear the restoration of security has taken
priority. All the other elements in the joint operation,
including law enforcement, have been subordinated to support the
goals of the security operation.

In fact, it is highly doubtful whether a law enforcement
operation can be effective when a state of emergency has been
invoked in which the military has powers to suspend many laws.

The law enforcement operation can only be successful if the
chief objective of the exercise is to uphold justice. To this
day, the operation has been conducted in so far as it supports
the military goals, nothing more, nothing less.

Not surprisingly, it has had little success.