Australia torn over death penalty for Bali bomber

By BELINDA GOLDSMITH

CANBERRA - Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Friday stood by his decision to back the execution of Bali bomber Amrozi despite his country's long-held opposition to capital punishment.

"The law of Indonesia requires that he be executed, then I regard that as appropriate," Howard told Australian radio.

Howard's decision not to protest at the sentencing of the so-called "smiling assassin" Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, has left Australians divided over the right way to punish those responsible for the bombs that killed 202 people including 88 Australians in Bali last October.

Australia carried out its last execution in 1967 and abolished the death penalty nationwide in 1985. It has since been a fierce opponent of capital punishment, strongly lobbying nations which have sentenced Australians to death in the past.

Last month the government pressured Washington to agree not to seek the death penalty against Australian David Hicks, who is being held in Guantanamo Bay after being arrested in Afghanistan where he trained with al Qaeda.

But Howard said that, in the Amrozi case, he would not be asking Indonesia to refrain from executing the bomber although he ruled out Australia ever reintroducing the death penalty.

"I also believe that for me to (protest) would offend many Australians who lost people, who legitimately feel, as decent Australians, that the death penalty is appropriate," he said.

The Bali bombs, which ripped through two nightclubs packed with foreign tourists, sparked an unprecedented wave of anger and cries for revenge from Australians and destroyed a sense of security based largely on geographical isolation.

Howard, whose conservative government enjoys strong public support after seven years in power, is well aware of the Australian sensitivities over Bali, as is opposition Labor leader Simon Crean who has also backed the death penalty.

Even the Australian Coalition against the Death Penalty admitted it would have been a political blunder for Howard to do anything but stand by the decision to execute Amrozi.

"If the prime minister had intervened to stop this it would have caused more grief for the loved ones of the victims," coalition president Dorina Lisson told Reuters.

"He also wants to maintain good relations with Indonesia and so can't really interfere in the justice system there but we think he could have made a strong (moral) stance," Lisson said.

While the decision to execute Amrozi prompted some of the victims' families to pop champagne corks, others said it was wrong to grant any exceptions to Australia's stance against the death penalty.

"I do not believe the death penalty is appropriate at any time," Adelaide magistrate Brian Deegan, whose son Josh died in Bali, told Reuters. "I believe Josh would not want this to occur in his name and I certainly don't want it to occur in mine."

Australian media unanimously hailed Amrozi's guilty verdict as justice, but their reaction to the death sentence was mixed.

Sydney's Daily Telegraph tabloid ran a front-page headline "Laughing All The Way To Hell" and said Amrozi was "a vile perversion...not fit to even call himself a man".

But the Sydney Morning Herald took a more moderate line, saying that a martyr's death "may simply help rally more zealots to his bloody cause".

The leader of the small, but influential, Australian Democrats party also opposed granting Amrozi a martyr's death.

"When you're fighting barbarism and terrorism I think you need to be careful not to descend to barbaric acts yourself," Democrat leader Andrew Bartlett told reporters.

"In my view the death penalty is a barbaric act that we need to oppose in all circumstances," he said.

Amrozi's defence lawyers have seven days to file an appeal against the death sentence.

- REUTERS

Herald Feature: Bali bomb blast