The Age Online

Home   >   Opinion   >   Article

Beware Amrozi's death sentence

August 12, 2003

Printer friendly version Print this article
Email to a friend Email to a friend

If the Bali bombers face the firing squad, many innocent people may die as a result, writes Greg Barton.

"Those who live by the sword die by the sword." It is hard to argue with this principle - and it is hard to feel too sorry for Bali bomber Amrozi. There are, however, good arguments for not executing him and his fellow terrorists.

There is, of course, the philosophical argument against capital punishment: an argument that, disturbingly, has gone missing in action in senior ALP and Liberal Party circles in recent days.

While it is understandable that some victims of the bombing, whether in Indonesia or Australia, speak of their desire to see Amrozi die for his crime, it is not clear why proclaimed opponents of capital punishment should be so untroubled by its application in this case. On what basis can we argue against the death penalty in, say, the US and China, and then support it in Indonesia?

Sure, Amrozi is not some poor, defenceless schmuck sentenced under dubious circumstances. Unlike so many on death row in America, there can be little doubt Amrozi is a murderer. But if the Indonesian authorities, which up until this point have been deeply reluctant to regularly carry out capital punishment, are now given a green light by friends and neighbours to call up the firing squads, how can we be sure that in future many whose guilt is far less certain will not also be killed?

And if this troubled nation should go the way of China and come to make a habit of regular executions in the thousands, we would be in no position to criticise.

But even if, in principle, we support capital punishment, there is another powerful reason for not endorsing it in this case. If the Bali bombers face the firing squad there may well be many more lives lost than just theirs. The bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta last Tuesday was a horrible reminder that we have a long way to go before we can outflank Jemaah Islamiah and be sure of preventing it from attacking again.

If the Bali bombers are put to death we risk losing valuable intelligence about JI that could help prevent future bombings. Amrozi himself, evidently a willing but low-level foot soldier, may not know a lot more than he has already revealed. His friends Imam Samudra and Mukhlas (Ali Gufron), however, are a different matter.

Hints of the story yet to be told emerged in late July when the defence case of alleged JI leader Abu Bakar Bashir was dealt a mortal blow after Malaysian JI operative Mohammed Nazir bin Abbas testified in Bali about his 15-year association with Bashir. He detailed how after first meeting Bashir in Malaysia in 1987 he and alleged Bali bomber and older brother of Amrozi, Mukhlas, were sent to Afghanistan to join the jihad against the Soviets. After this they studied at a military academy in Pakistan before returning to Malaysia to live with Bashir. In 1993 they helped him establish JI and set up a series of mantiqi, or operational spheres, across South-East Asia.

Up until now the unrepentant Mukhlas and Samudra have said little, and in retracting earlier admissions Samudra now seems determined to ensure his trial will yield little information of value. Even so, who can say that after months or years of incarceration the likes of Samudra or Mukhlas will not begin to talk? After all, Ali Imron, brother of Mukhlas and Amrozi, has already had a change of heart.

With a little more information of the kind provided by Mohammed Nazir bin Abbas, other JI operatives could be identified and apprehended before they act, and it might be possible to track down Hambali and the other masterminds of the JI network.

Without such information we face the near certainty of further attacks. Surely this is a good argument for not dispatching the few people we now have who can tell us more.

We should also be concerned about anything that might help Amrozi and his fellow criminals achieve their longed-for martyr status. This is not to say that any but a tiny proportion of Indonesia's 200 million Muslims would see them as martyrs. Most Indonesians feel exactly the same way about the bombers as do most Australians.

But as judicial executions often provoke sympathy for those who least deserve it, and as JI's perverted romanticising of jihad is, sadly, able to sway small numbers of the young and the vulnerable, denying them a dramatic denouement and instead leaving the terrorists to slip unglamorously into obscurity in jail seems a better course of action.

Another reason for not rushing to condone the execution of alleged terrorists comes from the troubled nature of Indonesian society. We can be pretty certain that those found guilty of heinous crimes by the court in Bali should be rightly condemned, but it is seldom the case that we can feel so confident about the Indonesian legal system.

The danger of establishing precedents in executing the Bali bombers is that in the months and years to come other young men will be arrested, charged with terrorism, found guilty and sentenced before they have the opportunity to tell their story. Given the track record of the Indonesian military and the present struggle for power in Indonesia, there is good reason to be concerned that the war on terrorism is not used as a mechanism for dispatching those who might have too much to say.

The military's involvement in the past with radical Islamist militia such as Laskar Jihad in Maluku and Sulawesi, where thousands have died, should be reason enough for caution now. Sooner or later legitimate intelligence investigations into JI and other terrorist groups are bound to intersect with stories that some in the military would rather not have told.

This is not a case for "megaphone diplomacy" - far from it. After all, even if we politely express our reservations about applying the death penalty in cases like this, there is no reason to believe that the Indonesian authorities would, or should, change their course.

Nevertheless, we delude ourselves if we argue that what we say has no impact. We are, in a myriad of subtle ways, participants as well as observers in this drama, and our statements, whether principled, consistent and sage, or otherwise, are not without consequence.

Dr Greg Barton is a senior lecturer in politics at Deakin University and the author of Abdurrahman Wahid, Muslim Democrat, Indonesian President: A view from the inside (UNSW Press, 2002).



Also in Opinion

It's not assets, it's access

Services, not tax cuts

In a hard reign, you learn who you can trust

Welfare changes need a prod along

Imagine Auntie with ad-ed value

No juice, but the Apple is sweet

The good oil on government

Why the US is failing in Iraq

How we must fight organised crime

Bad doctors deserve to be exposed

Muscle man measures up

The disabled need love. Not some ideological utopia

Australia can't tiptoe quietly away from its obligations in Iraq

It's our media that are simplistic, not Arnie

We must not get back in bed with Kopassus

How Howard differs from Bush

The real priorities that shape our foreign policy

Ads would undermine our ABC

Challenge for leader to restore credibility

How Nixon failed Victorians



The way to stop Aunty whingeing

Beware Amrozi's death sentence

Time for John Howard to come clean

A few years of slow growth may soothe a spending hangover

The AgeMost viewed articles
From midnight AEST

  1. Rose makes sure it counts