To Kill or Not To Kill

The police killed another two men they said were terrorists. This is one hell of a good news, eh? It is in many ways exhilarating  to hear of the demise of a bunch of locos whose ill-deeds are just too abhorrent to be seen as ‘regular’ crimes that they should not even be considered as criminals – to quote Slovenian writer Slavoj Zizek, terrorism is an extra-judicial crime. But terrorism is basically faceless. Neither Osama bin Laden nor Noor Din M Top is comparable to Hitler or Mao, the iconic faces of whom have virtually defined fascism and communism of the 20th century. Mr. Top is dead, but his ideology persists. Killing the terrorists does not necessarily end terrorism. On the contrary, their glorious deaths as martyrs in the hands of the police will only breed more terrorists. We know that, of course. The so-called terrorism experts know that as well. And so, I believe, did the police. So why do they think they need to kill them?

We cannot fight terrorism using state terror

Ulil Abshar Abdalla says here that what the police did is justifiable. His reasoning is quite simple (perhaps too simple for a Harvard graduate?): the police must have had enough evidence to suspect the two men in Ciputat, Syaifudin Zuhri bin Djaelani Irsyad and Mohammad Syahrir, as terrorists before they raided their boarding house. The two men, Ulil argued, were not being ‘cooperative’ and even hurled two bombs to the police. That said, he concluded, Densus 88 had no choice but to kill them. Case closed. What follows is newspaper headlines speculating and confirming the identities of the slain terrorists; and, of course, some mundane comments on Facebook. Nobody seems to care whether the two men were actually involved in any terror attacks in Indonesia; or, again, whether they deserved to die (except the Komnas HAM, which is, of course, a good thing).

As much as I respect Mas Ulil, his argument is at best naive, and at worst shamefully biased. That Abu Bakar Ba’asyir and other Muslim radicals are probably applying double standards when they decried the killing of the two suspected terrorists as human rights abuse should not make their unusual claims invalid. What the police did was obviously excessive. Densus 88 is a special unit set up after the Bali bombings to quell terrorism. I expect the force to be more sophisticated in their approach than the regular ‘Polsek’ policemen in dealing with terrorism. I have no authority to speak in details about how the police should carry their operation, but should they have the capability of catching suspected terrorists alive? The police, for instance, could ambush them when the suspects are traveling alone; or when they are assumed to bring no weapons. They could also hurl tear gas or… umh… well, my friend here knows better lah. If Ulil thinks the police had no choice but to kill them, I doubt if he’s a true ‘liberal’ Muslim — or worse, whether he’s being objective enough in seeing the matter.

Security is important, but it should not undermine individual rights. Indonesia should learn from other countries, especially the US, in their efforts to fight terrorism, not to imitate what they have been doing all this time, but to avoid repeating their mistakes. The counter-terrorism law the government enacted a few years ago aims at ensuring our safety as citizens, not depriving us from our rights to legal protection. You see, the logic behind my apprehension is quite simple too. Imagine one day you come to a friend’s house and realize that your friend is actually Noor Din’s gay partner when the police begin shooting at you! This is not about whether you are with the police or against them. I just want to make sure that Indonesian citizens have the right to defend themselves before the court against any accusations before the police pick up their guns and shoot them.