After coddling Abu Bakar Bashir, Indonesia shows some genuine resolve. Note also Iwan's last threat. From AP, with thanks to Scaramouche:
JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- An Indonesian militant has been sentenced to death for helping plan and carry out last year's suicide bombing at the Australian Embassy -- the harshest penalty yet over the attack that killed 10 people.Iwan Darmawan, 30, said Tuesday he would appeal the verdict, which was the latest in a series of tough sentences against militants found guilty of terror attacks in the world's most populous Muslim nation.
"Your punishment will be worse than mine," Darmawan shouted as he was being led to a prison van.
Presiding Judge Roki Panjaitan said Darmawan surveyed the heavily fortified mission three times before the truck bombing and bought the explosives used in the attack, which killed mostly Indonesian passers-by and guards.
The judge repeated allegations that the attack was funded by al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden and was carried out "to avenge the slaughter of Muslims by America and its allies in Iraq."
I guess the question here is why the difference in treatment. Is it because Abu Bakar Bashir only counselled and aided & abbetted, whereas Darmawan was involved in the actual act of violence. If so, it's far too fine a distinction. Bashir was certainly constructively guilty of the attack that killed so many people in that Bali nightclub and should have been punished accordingly.
The difference is this:
The bombing at Bali was an attack whose victims were largely Infidels. Thus it is hard to find fault with it.
The bombing of the Australian Embassy, however, whatever the intended target, had victims who were, in the main, Indonesian Muslims.
Surely that played an important, perhaps decisive role. It is, after all, not wrong to kill Infidels -- only wrong to kill enough of them, and in such a way, that the Infidels themselves can act in ways damaging to Indonesia or the greater interests of Muslims. It is wrong, however, for Muslims to kill Muslims (see the Qur'an, see the Hadith, see the Sira). That is morally unacceptable. And that is what defines the true fanatics: they are willing even to cause Muslim victims. But all Muslims can agree that attacking Infidels because those Infidels, or other Infidels they know, or may be related to, or may form part of the same society, or may be citizens of the same Infidel state, have been accused of harming (i.e., "attacking") the interests of Muslims, quite broadly defined (so broadly in fact as to include almost everything, from invading Iraq to banning the hijab in France to forbidding the instituting of shari'a-based family law in the Province of Ontario, to anything else you care to note or dream up).
That is the difference. That's what makes Indonesia "softly" Islamic, "moderately" Islamic. It will punish those who in the pursuit of Jihad happen to kill other Muslims.
What a victory for moderation. How heartening for Infidels everywhere.
Another factor is the terrorist's relative standing in the hierarchy. Low level members are expendable; the lowest examples are the homicide bombers.
High level members such as Bashir or Bin Laden or Yassin are rarely prosecuted by their Muslim hosts. If their hosts do not outright agree with them, they at least fear the backlash of the tiny minority of fanatics that would occur if they were prosecuted.
Apparently Darmawan doesn't have any political weight and can easily be replaced.
The foot soldiers are expendable, the evil men who inspire them are not. They can't execute the Bashirs because the Bashirs ensure there will be many more future jihadis willing to murder infidels in the name of Islam. So the Bashirs are given token sentences, to appease the infidel (although we are not appeased, we are insulted and incensed!). They execute the jihadis, knowing full well that there will always be more of them, as long as the Bashirs are kept alive.