The Ba'asyir verdict

The Ba'asyir verdict

As could have been expected, given the amount of strain and
pressure that preceded it, the verdict that was read out on
Tuesday at the Central Jakarta District Court did not please
everyone -- or, to be more precise, it probably pleased no one.
Nevertheless, in its own way, the lengthy text that was capped by
the controversial decision can be regarded as having some merits
of its own in the fight against international terrorism.

As has been widely reported both here and abroad, in a
nutshell, the verdict acquitted Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir
of charges that he had led and organized Jamaah Islamiyah (JI) --
that shadowy group classified as a "terrorist organization" by
the UN -- in an attempt to overthrow the government through a
series of bomb attacks in Indonesia, and that he had plotted to
assassinate Megawati Soekarnoputri when she was still vice
president.

However, the panel of five judges pronounced him guilty of
aiding and abetting treason by supporting JI's aim of
establishing an Islamic state in Indonesia. The judges also found
him guilty of minor immigration violations and sentenced the
frail and aging cleric to four years in prison. Unlike the same
court's ruling against House of Representatives Speaker Akbar
Tandjung -- who was pronounced guilty and sentenced to three
years in prison, but is free pending appeal -- Ba'asyir's
sentence was effective immediately.

Ba'asyir immediately declared that he would appeal the
verdict, while the prosecution said it was considering an appeal
-- it had asked for a 15-year sentence.

It is not surprising that various parties have since expressed
their disappointment at the verdict -- all for different reasons.
Some observers opined that the sentence was too lenient; others
saw it as having been politically engineered, nothing more than a
groundless decision.

If the prosecution could have proved beyond any reasonable
doubt that Abu Bakar Ba'asyir was indeed the leader of JI and
that JI was responsible for the Bali bombings on Oct. 12, 2002
that killed 202 people, for the JW Marriott Hotel attack on Aug.
5, and the spate of church bombings on Christmas Eve 2000, then
indeed the sentence is too lenient.

However, the fact remains that the police failed to prepare
and present convincing evidence and credible witnesses, and
consequently, the prosecution was unable to build a strong case
out of the evidence it had, resting its case largely on the
televised testimony of JI suspects detained in Malaysia and
Singapore.

Two key witnesses, Omar al-Faruq, allegedly a senior al-Qaeda
operative, and Hambali, allegedly the key link between JI and al-
Qaeda, were not available to testify for the prosecution, as both
are currently in U.S. custody and are being held at unspecified
locations.

The question now is, is this a setback for Indonesia's fight
against terrorism? Contrary to international perception,
apparently it is not. After the Bali bombings last year,
Indonesia has made some actual progress, transparent enough for
the whole world to see.

With its poorly equipped personnel, limited capacity and not-
so-professional force, the Indonesian police have arrested many
suspects in a relatively short period of time. Many of these
suspects have been brought to court, either as defendants or as
witnesses. Some have been convicted, whether convincingly or
otherwise.

We have yet to see similar progress in the wake of the Sept.
11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S. nearly two years ago.
Despite its mighty superpower resources, and after having invaded
two countries -- Afghanistan and Iraq -- presumably to find those
who were responsible for the attacks, the U.S. has yet to detain
and take to court those who are responsible.

Considering the weaknesses of the Indonesian judiciary, its
highly politicized system and notoriously corrupt officials,
Tuesday's verdict can serve as a strong sign that Indonesia will
not tolerate terrorism by radical groups in this country.

This nascent democracy does not need any backlash from the
U.S. and its allies. What it does need is honest global
cooperation in its war against terror.