The Ba'asyir verdict

The Ba'asyir verdict

As could have been expected given the strains and pressures
that preceded it, the decision that was read out in the Central
Jakarta District Court on Tuesday did not please everyone -- or,
to be more precise, it probably pleased no one. Nevertheless, in
its own manner, the lengthy text that contained 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, that
decision, in a nutshell, was to acquit the Muslim cleric Abu
Bakar Ba'asyir of charges that he had led and organized Jamaah
Islamiyah (JI), that shadowy group labeled a "terrorist
organization" by the UN, in an attempt to overthrow the
government through a series of bomb attacks in Indonesia, and of
plotting to assassinate the then Indonesian vice president,
Megawati Soekarnoputri.

Still, the panel of five judges pronounced him guilty of
aiding and abetting treason by supporting the organization'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 the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, Akbar Tandjung -- who was pronounced guilty and
sentenced to three years in prison but let free pending a court
appeal -- Ba'asyir's sentence was set to be effective
immediately. The prosecution had asked for 15 years. Ba'asyir
immediately stated that he would appeal the decision while the
prosecution said it was considering an appeal.

It is not surprising that different parties have since
expressed their disappointment at the decision -- for different
reasons. Some observers are of the view opined that the sentence
is too lenient. Others viewed it as being politically engineered,
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 last October that
killed 202 people, the JW Marriott Hotel attack on August 5, and
the 2000 Christmas eve church bombings, then indeed the sentence
is too lenient.

The fact, however, is that the police failed to prepare and
present convincing evidence and credible witnesses, and that
consequently the prosecution, resting its case largely on the
televised testimony of JI suspects detained in Malaysia and
Singapore, failed to build a strong case out of the data
presented.

Two key witnesses, Omar al-Faruq, allegedly a senior operative
of al-Qaeda, and Hambali, who is said to be a key link between JI
and Al Qaeda, were not available for the prosecution for
testifying as both are currently detained by the U.S. government
and held in some unidentified locations.

The question now is, is this a setback for the Indonesian
fight against terrorism? Contrary to international perception,
seemingly it is not. After the Bali bombings of October 12, 2002,
Indonesia has in fact made some progress, transparent for the
whole world to see.

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

We are yet to see similar progress made in the wake of the
September 11, 2001, terrorists attack in the United States of
America, which occurred almost 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 Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. has yet
to prosecute and bring to court those who are responsible.

Considering the weakness of the Indonesian legal system, its
highly politicized nature and notoriously corrupt personnel, last
Tuesday's verdict can serve as a strong signal 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 terrorism.