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.