The case of the generals

The case of the generals

I am disappointed that a lawyer of Mr. Adnan Buyung Nasution's
reputation should take up the case of the generals (The Jakarta
Post, Dec. 16, 1999: Generals protest 'baseless' accusations). I
am particularly disappointed that he should use such specious and
obscure technical grounds in an attempt to discredit the members
of the commission.

Up to now, the members have merely carried out a fairly
thorough preliminary investigation and, in accordance with their
mandate as a duly accredited body of the government of this
country, they have reported their findings to the public who are
represented by that government; such reporting is called "being
transparent".

It has become absolutely axiomatic in international
jurisprudence since the War Crimes trial in Nuremberg in 1946,
later adopted by the United Nations, that no person, be they
general, president, emperor, civilian, or only a soldier of the
lowest rank, can shirk his or her responsibility for giving or
carrying out orders which would result in the commission of
crimes. The definition of the word "crimes" is long but it boils
down to "acts which any right thinking and proper human being
would so consider". Quite obviously, mass murder falls into this
category.

Since 1975, it has now become apparent, the Indonesian Army
waged war against the whole population of East Timor, and not
only the guerrillas. There are examples of how an army in an
enemy country should behave and, from the evidence thus far
presented, our Army behaved otherwise. This culminated in
Wiranto's demand for martial law just before the referendum,
rightly rejected by the People's Consultative Assembly, but
cravenly decreed by Habibie. (Previously, Wiranto had established
an armed force throughout the country, fortuitously including
East Timor.)

Whether Wiranto gave an order or whether one of his
subordinates did, or whether the armed militia were simply given
to understand that they had a free hand, presumably by receiving
expressive shrugs rather than answers from the Army officers that
they asked, does not really matter. The generals and all the
officers of the Army and the militia had quite specific
responsibility for ensuring that none of the men under their
command became an ungovernable mob. "Omitting" to give an order
or simply looking the other way is the same as if they were part
of that mob and pulled the trigger themselves.

Everyone keeps trotting out the same tired "presumption of
innocence" excuse for not publishing names and details. Provided
the charges framed against the generals state that they are
charged with ordering or standing by while orders that they knew
were unlawful were issued, to shoot everyone that they saw (I
believe no curfew was declared) and to burn whatever property
they saw and, in general terms, to consider all the population
the enemy without proof that this was the case, then they must
all stand guilty as charged.

Every person should have the services of a lawyer, I agree,
Mr. Nasution, but a lawyer, acting in the best interests of these
particular clients, has a duty to advise them to plead guilty and
to attempt to show mitigation.

W. WALLER

Cianjur, West Java