Bali_Bombings_Speech

The Bali bombings were Australia’s 9/11. On 12 October 2002, Australians were targeted by Islamic extremists in the most populous Muslim country in the world - Indonesia. How Australia responded to this global terrorist attack had the potential to damage its relationship with its largest Asian neighbour - a relationship already soured by Australia’s intervention in the conflict in East Timor. Unlike the United States, Australia did not have the capacity to employ a ‘war on terror’ approach against Indonesia. Instead, the Australian and Indonesian governments used the full force of both their legal systems and their police enforcement agencies to tackle the terrorist threat on their doorstep. When compared with the ‘war on terror’ approach that the United States pursued against Al Qaeda, the methods used by Australia and Indonesia, which were consistent with the rule of law, were successful. The perpetrators of the Bali bombings were caught, tried and sentenced. In the US however, after many painful and costly years of the ‘war of terror, Osama bin Laden remains at large and Al Qaeda is still a threat to global security. If a rule of law approach had been followed by the US, would this result have been different ' The Bali bombings occurred one year after the ‘September 11’terrorist attacks in the United States. 9/11 has been seen as a wake-up call to the Western world to the demands of Islamic extremists and their ability to cause widespread fear. The terrorists who captured the planes and flew them into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon belonged to Al Qaeda. Their goal was to strike at the heart of the world’s most powerful nation. Al Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, saw US involvement in the Middle East - especially support for Israel - as an affront to Muslim interests, law and way of life. Bin Laden believed that Al Qaeda would be victorious in battle against the world’s last remaining superpower, the United States, just as it had been when it fought the former USSR ( the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, dissolved at the end of the Cold War ) in Afghanistan. Within 24 hours of the Bali bombings, a team of investigative and forensic officers from the Australian Federal Police arrived in Bali to assist the Indonesian National Police. A joint operation was launched and an effective partnership was forged between the two enforcement agencies. After an extensive joint police investigation numerous arrests were made, which eventually led to 33 convictions. On 18 October 2002, the 64-year-old cleric and spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Bakar Bashir, was taken in for questioning. Bashir was an open admirer of bin Laden. Abu Bakar Bashir faced trial a number of times for various charges related to the Bali bombings. He was, however, acquitted of the most serious terrorism-related charges and was sentenced to four years for sedition. He appealed this charge and further trials followed. Bashir was eventually charged with conspiracy and sentenced to two-and-a-half years. He was freed on 14 June 2006 and his conviction was overturned by Indonesia’s Supreme Court in December of the same year. The Bali bombings alerted the Australian government to the possibility that a terrorist attack could occur close to or on Australian soil. One of the most significant non-legal responses to the Bali bombings highlighted the need for awareness on part of the all Australians that an attack could happen here. The Commonwealth government, through its National Security office, launched a public information campaign and a National Security Hotline in response to the Bali bombings. The goal of the campaign, the first phase of which commenced in December 2002, the second in September 2004 and the third in August 2007, is to ensure that the Australian people are alert and on the lookout out for any possible warning signs of a terrorist attack. One of the most important non-legal responses to the Bali bombings was the collective grief expressed by the Australian and Indonesian people. With 88 Australians killed and many others seriously injured, many people knew someone, who had been involved in the bombings. Public memorials act as a tribute to victims and a way to show support for victims and their families. People from all around the world expressed anger over the Bali bombings. The attack was seen by many as a sign that full-scale terrorist activity had reached Australia’s doorstep. The horrific images of suffering and the harrowing accounts of the survivors were widely broadcast in the print, radio and television news media. The Bali combings showed Australia that they are not immune to global terrorism. Unlike the ‘war of terror’ waged by the United States, the joint Indonesian-Australian response to the 2002 terrorist attack has seen the conviction of those tried and found responsible. Furthermore, Australia has gained a willing partner in the region which to combat terrorism and illegal drug trade. Domestically, the Bali attack has led to the introduction of anti-terrorism legislation giving Australian law enforcement agencies greater powers to deal with the threat of a terrorist attack on Australian soil. The new legislation has attracted heavy criticism from legal scholars and others, who have argued that it undermines key legal rights. It has prompted much debate about how best to protect Australia from terrorism outside and inside our borders, while preserving fundamental freedoms.