Military tribunals keep to a pattern

Military tribunals keep to a pattern

From Kompas

As predicted, the military police of the Indonesian Military
(TNI), offering various pretexts, has not named Attorney General
Lt. Gen. Andi M. Ghalib a suspect in a corruption case, despite
the evidence reported to it by Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW).
The unclear judicial status of Ghalib reminds us all that cases
which go before to the military tribunal always end murkily. It
seems this will also be the case of the "investigation" into
Ghalib. It conforms to the implementation of the new paradigm
adopted by TNI in response to the demands made by the reform
drive.

Capt. Khusairi in the slaying of labor activist Marsinah, the
Trisakti and Semanggi shootings, Lt. Col. Sri Roso and the "Rose
Team" all have something in common: the main substance of the
case is distorted into another direction, for example, by
deciding that a case is simply a procedural mistake. The military
police also made the same statement in Ghalib's case: It is a
procedural mistake. If one pays closer attention to this trend,
it is clear that TNI prefers to defend itself rather than
defending the interest of a wider public (the people, the nation
and the state.).

It is clear that TNI has made every effort to protect its
"positive image" and is reluctant to find material truth in
accordance with the universally applicable general principle of
criminal law. This phenomenon shows that in military judicial
proceedings -- from the very beginning until the injunction is
passed by a military tribunal -- the logic of "unity of command"
is more important than the universal principles of the criminal
law. A commander or the commander-in-chief of the TNI, who holds
supreme command, has a command authority in determining the
judicial process from the beginning to the end. It must be
understood that the entire matter is the result of a command
decision.

EKO BUDISISWANTO

Depok, West Java