IMPLICATIONS OF THE BA'ASYIR DECISION

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 JAKARTA 013581

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR S/CT, EAP/MTS
DOJ FOR CTS THORNTON, AAG SWARTZ
FBI FOR ETTUI/SSA ROTH
NCTC WASHDC

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/10/2016
TAGS: PTER PGOV KJUS ASEC CASC ID
SUBJECT: IMPLICATIONS OF THE BA'ASYIR DECISION

REF: A. JAKARTA 13563

B. JAKARTA 7555

C. JAKARTA 2848

D. JAKARTA 3026

E. JAKARTA 16215

Classified By: Political Officer Adam West for reasons 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (C) Summary. The decision by Indonesia's Supreme Court
to overturn the conviction of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) spiritual
leader Abu Bakar Ba'asyir has a number of potential legal and
political implications for the GOI's counterterrorism
efforts. While the legal basis behind Ba'asyir's 2005
conviction was always tenuous, Embassy contacts have
questioned the legal rational behind this latest decision,
speculating that the unanimous decision of the five-judge
panel was not based on legal considerations alone. The
decision may also have an indirect affect on how Indonesian
courts treat other appeals in terrorism cases. Several GOI
officials have privately expressed shock at the decision and
reaffirmed the GOI's commitment to continue aggressively
combating terrorism. The clearing of Ba'asyir's name will
bolster his claim that the trial was being directed by the
U.S. all along, but indications are it will not lead to
closer relations between Ba'asyir and mainstream Islamic
organizations. End Summary.

The Ba'asyir case: a Tangled Web
--------------


2. (SBU) The Indonesian Supreme Court announced on December
21 it had overturned the conviction of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI)
spiritual leader Abu Bakar Ba'asyir. (ref A) The legal case
against Ba'asyir was fraught with difficulty from the
beginning. During his first trial in 2003, the judges
acquitted Ba'asyir on all terrorism charges, convicting him
solely on a minor violation of immigration regulations.
After serving a short jail term, he was immediately
re-arrested and brought to trial on a new set of charges. In
March 2005 Ba'asyir was again acquitted on terrorism charges,
but the court found him guilty of participating in a
"sinister conspiracy to cause a fire or explosion that
resulted in deaths" in connection with the Bali attacks. (ref
D) The conspiracy conviction was based on the testimony of a
single witness, Utomo Pamungkas, currently serving a life
sentence for his role in the attack. According to Pamungkas,
he and Amrozi (also convicted for his role in the attack and
currently on death row) spoke to Ba'asyir about their "work
in Bali" in a meeting in the Philippines in August, 2002.


3. (U) A few weeks after the conviction, in a letter dated
March 24, 2005, Amrozi stated that this testimony was coerced
and false, and that no such meeting took place. Ba'asyir's
Muslim Defense Team lawyers (who are also representing
Amrozi) claimed that the letter constituted "new evidence" in
the case, and used it as the basis for Ba'asyir's request for
Judicial Review, which was filed in December 2005. (ref C)
In its December 21 decision, the Court ruled that the new
evidence demonstrated that there was no conspiracy between
Ba'asyir and Amrozi, and that the judges in the 2003 trial
had erred in not compelling Amrozi to testify during the
trial.

The Decision: Fueling Controversy
--------------


4. (C) The Supreme Court's decision will further fuel already
contentious debates about the integrity of the Supreme Court.
Embassy contacts from the Indonesian National Police (INP)
and Attorney General's Office (AGO) have criticized the
decision and expressed doubts about the motives behind it.
Prosecutor Narendra Jatna, who worked on the 2005 trial that
led to Ba'asyir's conviction, told us that the testimony
contained in the letter submitted by Amrozi had in fact been
introduced during the trial and therefore did not constitute
"new evidence" at all. Jatna described Chief Judge German
Hoediarto as being involved in a number of "strange"
decisions, including the ruling that reduced the sentence of
Tommy Suharto from 15 to 10 years. (Note: Suharto, son of
former President Soeharto, was convicted of murdering a
member of the Supreme Court. He ultimately served less than

JAKARTA 00013581 002 OF 002


five years and was conditionally released in October 2006.)
Another prosecutor from the original case, Salman Maryadi,
concurred with Jatna's opinion and speculated that there was
a political agenda behind the decision. Another contact
pointed out that Ba'asyir remains on UN terrorist lists, and
therefore his exoneration is far from complete. Others have
speculated that the Ba'asyir decision will make it easier for
judges to overturn convictions in other terrorist cases, or
at least lessen sentences. One police contact cited the
newly submitted Judicial Review request of Amrozi and two
other terrorists currently on death row as a case where
judges might now feel emboldened to reduce the sentence to
life in prison or even less.

Larger Implications
--------------


5. (C) The private comments of GOI officials make clear that
the decision in no way reflects a change in the GOI's CT
policy. Presidential Advisor Dino Djalal and Minister of
Justice Hamid Awaluddin both expressed shock at the verdict
in a private meeting with one western diplomat. Djalal
reportedly described the Supreme Court as "more and more
divorced from reality," and assured that ongoing surveillance
of Ba'asyir by Indonesian authorities would continue
regardless. INP Chief Sutanto was quoted in the newspapers
as stating that the decision will have no impact on ongoing
INP CT operations.


6. (C) Ba'asyir has long maintained that the charges against
him were part of a U.S. and Australian-led plot against
Islam. His exoneration will undoubtedly be seen by his
supporters as additional proof of this. However, more
mainstream Muslim groups are likely to continue to keep their
distance. While Islamic leaders have not commented publicly
on the decision, Embassy contacts have indicated that the
mainstream organizations are unlikely to change their
unsympathetic views on Ba'asyir. A contact on the Central
Board of Muhammadiyah told us that the group never endorsed
people like Ba'asyir, and that the decision will not affect
their relationship with the JI leader. A contact from the
Student Wing of Nahduatl Ulama went even further, suggesting
that the decision was a result of the influence of Islamic
radicals on the judicial system.
HEFFERN