Friday 6 March 2015

Opinion: What does justice mean for Ferguson?





  • Grand jury hearing Michael Brown case; some believe there won't be indictment

  • Mark O'Mara says it's important to let the process play out

  • Case should be decided on the facts, not as a proxy for racial justice issues, he says




Editor's note: Mark O'Mara is a CNN legal analyst and a criminal defense attorney. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.


(CNN) -- The Michael Brown case has great significance because it is yet another in a growing line of tragedies that further demand a conversation about our civil liberties within the criminal justice system.


It has highlighted a massive lack of trust that exists between police and minorities. We must face the inconsistencies and the biases that remain if we are ever to move towards a system worthy of the trust it needs to succeed. Only by doing so can we end the devastating loss of life that is becoming an all-too-common occurrence.


We have another opportunity to become focused on and vocal about the changes that are necessary. It is only by bringing those problems to the forefront and into the harsh light of constant and public critique that we can hope to make a better system.



Mark O\'Mara


I still contend our criminal justice system is the best in the world for dispensing true justice, but, like every facet of the American democratic experience, it can use polishing. However, I reject the notion that the system is incapable of dispensing justice in cases where young, unarmed black men and women are killed.


With my experience representing George Zimmerman as a backdrop, I've been following a number of cases that have overtones of Ferguson, and I know that we have made progress:


Earlier this month, Michael Dunn received a life sentence for the murder of Jordan Davis in the so-called "loud music" trial.


In January, a grand jury indicted Officer Randall Kerrick on voluntary manslaughter charges after fatally shooting unarmed Jonathan Ferrell.


And on August 7, a jury in Michigan convicted Ted Wafer of second-degree murder for shooting Renisha McBride on his front porch. The verdict came just two days before the Michael Brown shooting. Black victims, white shooters.





Ferguson chief: I'm focusing on the job

Certain commentators have suggested we should skip the grand jury and that Officer Darren Wilson must be tried before a jury.


While I laud the idea of having open trials, thereby allowing the public to view that the process works fairly, it is dangerous to short-circuit justice because of media attention or social pressure.


We gave the Ferguson shooting an enhanced social significance before we knew all the facts of the case, facts we still don't know. The grand jury should not consider the broader social issues; they should focus on the facts. And if they decide, solely on the facts, to indict Wilson, only then should he stand trial.


But in light of the recent press leaks regarding evidence in the case, most now suggest an indictment is not likely.


I fear that those who equate justice with nothing other than an indictment of Wilson are allowing deep-seated predispositions against the system to infect how they define justice.


We should not be asking for reparations at the cost of putting a thumb on the scales of justice in favor of convicting, or even charging, someone who does not, based upon the facts as viewed dispassionately, deserve it.


I do not suggest trust in this system merely to quell the voices of criticism or to forestall the feelings of frustration. Rather I contend it is the only answer.



So, what happens if the grand jury decides not to indict Darren Wilson? District Attorney McCullough committed that he will release all of the transcripts of the proceedings. This will give all the witness testimony, forensic evidence, and other information presented from which they decided not to indict. Transparency here is absolutely necessary. The Federal officials should not interfere with that release.


If Wilson is not charged, there will, undoubtedly, be a backlash. Many people consider an indictment as a step for justice -- not only in this individual case -- but in the larger effort of balancing the racial inequities in our justice system.


Conversely, a failure to indict Wilson will be seen as an indictment of the system. But that point of view is not only wrong, it is dangerous.


I fear that pinning significant civil rights issues to the facts of this case may serve only to foster more mistrust in the system. It will create a greater racial divide, and it will create another generation of disenfranchised young black men and women who are less willing to become police officers or legislators or attorneys or judges at the very time that we need their leadership most.


If the grand jury decides not to indict, they will do so because they concluded Officer Darren Wilson's shooting to be justified based upon his and Michael Brown's actions. While it is considered callous and insensitive to review the actions of a deceased person, it does none of us any good to ignore facts, should they exist. By doing so, we lose the lessons that may be learned from a dispassionate analysis of what actually happened that day, not what we as individuals, or we as communities, want to believe happened.


The decision to indict or not can be a catalyst for us to move further apart, or it can be seen as an opportunity to critically analyze how these tragedies are occurring and how to stop them in the future. That choice, no matter how it may go against the grain of our emotions, is a voluntary one, but we must decide on the latter.


Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.


Join us on http://ift.tt/1bl3g0P.



'Strong argument' for military aid






U.S. President Barack Obama visits Stonehenge after leaving the NATO summit in Newport, Wales, on Friday, September 5.U.S. President Barack Obama visits Stonehenge after leaving the NATO summit in Newport, Wales, on Friday, September 5.

Obama speaks at a news conference at the NATO summit on September 5. The two-day summit was billed as the most important gathering of NATO leaders in more than a decade.Obama speaks at a news conference at the NATO summit on September 5. The two-day summit was billed as the most important gathering of NATO leaders in more than a decade.

Obama listens to opening comments during a roundtable meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the NATO summit on September 5.Obama listens to opening comments during a roundtable meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the NATO summit on September 5.

Obama speaks with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at a meeting on the future of NATO on September 5.Obama speaks with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at a meeting on the future of NATO on September 5.

Military jets perform a flyover during the summit on September 5.Military jets perform a flyover during the summit on September 5.

Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron watch the flyover on September 5.Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron watch the flyover on September 5.

Obama and other world leaders pose for a photo during the summit on Thursday, September 4. Obama and other world leaders pose for a photo during the summit on Thursday, September 4.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry passes a note to Obama as Cameron speaks during a NATO meeting on September 4.U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry passes a note to Obama as Cameron speaks during a NATO meeting on September 4.

From left, French President Francois Hollande, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Obama, Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi sit together September 4 to discuss the conflict in Ukraine.From left, French President Francois Hollande, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Obama, Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi sit together September 4 to discuss the conflict in Ukraine.

Obama and Cameron meet with schoolchildren in Newport on September 4 before attending the NATO summit.Obama and Cameron meet with schoolchildren in Newport on September 4 before attending the NATO summit.

Marine One, carrying Obama, lands in Newport on Wednesday, September 3.Marine One, carrying Obama, lands in Newport on Wednesday, September 3.

Obama speaks at Nordea Concert Hall in Tallinn, Estonia, on September 3. In Estonia, Obama said the vision of a Europe dedicated to peace and freedom is "threatened by Russia's aggression against Ukraine." Obama speaks at Nordea Concert Hall in Tallinn, Estonia, on September 3. In Estonia, Obama said the vision of a Europe dedicated to peace and freedom is "threatened by Russia's aggression against Ukraine."

Children welcome Obama to Kadriorg Palace in Tallinn on September 3. Obama's visit to Estonia sought to reassure nervous Eastern European nations that NATO's support for its member states is unwavering.Children welcome Obama to Kadriorg Palace in Tallinn on September 3. Obama's visit to Estonia sought to reassure nervous Eastern European nations that NATO's support for its member states is unwavering.

Estonian security, left, and a U.S. Secret Service agent stand after Obama and the leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania made statements September 3 at Kadriorg Art Museum in Tallinn.Estonian security, left, and a U.S. Secret Service agent stand after Obama and the leaders of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania made statements September 3 at Kadriorg Art Museum in Tallinn.

Obama and Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves face reporters at a news conference in Tallinn on September 3.Obama and Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves face reporters at a news conference in Tallinn on September 3.

Estonian Prime Minister Taavi Roivas, second from left, and Obama hold a meeting at Stenbock House in Tallinn on September 3. Estonian Prime Minister Taavi Roivas, second from left, and Obama hold a meeting at Stenbock House in Tallinn on September 3.

Members of the Secret Service keep watch as Obama meets with the Estonian President in Tallinn on September 3.Members of the Secret Service keep watch as Obama meets with the Estonian President in Tallinn on September 3.

Ilves greets Obama at Kadriorg Palace in Tallinn on September 3.Ilves greets Obama at Kadriorg Palace in Tallinn on September 3.

Estonian children waving American flags await Obama's arrival at Kadriorg Palace on September 3.Estonian children waving American flags await Obama's arrival at Kadriorg Palace on September 3.

Obama reviews the honor guard during a welcoming ceremony September 3 in Tallinn.Obama reviews the honor guard during a welcoming ceremony September 3 in Tallinn.

Estonian press photographers cover Obama's arrival at Tallinn Airport early on September 3.Estonian press photographers cover Obama's arrival at Tallinn Airport early on September 3.








1



2



3



4



5



6



7



8



9



10



11



12



13



14



15



16



17



18



19



20



21








  • Daniel Treisman: Ukraine is much weaker than Russia, needs aid to hold its own

  • He says there are powerful arguments on both sides about whether to send military aid

  • Aid could lead to Russian escalation but doing nothing would condone Putin's actions, he says

  • Treisman: Argument for arming Kiev is stronger than it has ever been




Editor's note: Daniel Treisman is a professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, and author of "The Return: Russia's Journey from Gorbachev to Medvedev." The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his.


(CNN) -- As Western leaders gather in Newport, Wales, for this week's NATO summit, the Ukrainian army is taking a pounding from Russia-supported rebel fighters in the country's east and south. The central question now confronting President Barack Obama and colleagues is whether to supply Kiev with heavy arms.


So far, Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the two key decision makers, have been reluctant. But with Ukrainian forces reeling before what many are calling an overt Russian invasion, pressure is growing on them to reconsider.


Already NATO has announced plans to strengthen the defense of its frontline members in the Baltics and Eastern Europe. The alliance is planning to create a rapid reaction force, made up of 4,000 troops, to respond within hours to any future Russian incursion.



Daniel Treisman


Whether that will be enough to deter President Vladimir Putin, it will not help Ukraine, which is not a NATO member. Under fierce attack from the rebels, supported now by up to 2,000 Russian troops, the Ukrainian army has been reduced in recent days from seeking victory to merely trying to avoid defeat.


To fight back, it needs anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, drones, spare parts, fuel -- and, most of all, intelligence and strategic advice from Western military planners. Should NATO -- or just the U.S. -- oblige?


There are powerful arguments on both sides.


Equipping Kiev with greater firepower might well provoke an escalation from Russia, whose forces grossly outnumber those of Ukraine. To send more arms into a war zone is cynical if it will merely increase the scale of killing without any realistic prospect of ending the conflict.


Both Obama and Merkel believe their current strategy of graduated economic sanctions will bear fruit in the longer run. Unwilling to contemplate direct military involvement, they worry about getting dragged in inadvertently.





Obama calls on Europe to defend Ukraine




NATO increases presence in Ukraine

Yet to refuse the kind of military support that might enable Kiev to reclaim its eastern territories would allow Putin's violation of the principle of state sovereignty to stand, at least for now. The international order depends upon respect for borders and a rejection of territorial conquest.


The world is watching. China is surely monitoring events in Ukraine closely as it sizes up the South China Sea. Iran may take comfort from the West's divisions as it negotiates over its nuclear program. North Korea may be tempted to disregard U.S. warnings.


And if Putin perceives his Ukrainian gambit to have worked, this may embolden him to push further. The other day, he appeared to boast to European officials that he "could take Kiev in two weeks."


Four times in a row, Putin has upped the ante in the face of Western rhetorical and economic pressure. He sent special forces into Crimea, then annexed the region to Russia, then engineered the rebellion in the east, then, more recently, dramatically increased military support.


In between -- and especially whenever the West looked ready to act -- he floated "peace proposals" and "ceasefires" that have always come to nothing. A new "Seven Point Plan" revealed on Wednesday may or may not turn out to be something more serious.


With more than 750,000 active-duty forces, Moscow's military superiority over Kiev is obvious. But would Putin choose to escalate if the rebels faced a better-armed adversary? Of course, a complete defeat of Moscow's proxies would be embarrassing. But more direct Russian involvement would also carry domestic costs.



At present, Putin's ratings at home are off the charts -- 84% approved of his actions in the latest independent, Moscow-based Levada Center poll. Yet, at the same time, the surveys show the post-Crimea euphoria to be fading and doubts about military engagement growing.


Since March, the percentage of Russians who say they would "support the Russian leadership in the situation of an open military conflict between Russia and Ukraine" has fallen from 74% to 41%. That's less than the 43% who now say they would not support this. The share favoring the incorporation of eastern Ukraine into Russia has fallen from 35% in April to 21% in mid-August.


Russians remain delighted by the annexation of Crimea. But the proportion that say they are ready to bear at least some of the economic cost associated with the territory's incorporation has fallen from 59% in March to 50% today.


Fighting a disorganized and poorly equipped adversary, Putin can have it both ways. He can keep support to the separatist rebels relatively limited and covert, while denying to the public back home that Russia is involved at all.


All this is not to say that Putin would stand by if the West sent arms to Kiev. He may feel strong enough to disregard the hints of growing public anxiety. Nor is it clear that additional weapons would turn the tide.


To win the war, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko needs to build a more effective state, introduce economic reforms and offer potentially loyal citizens of Eastern Ukraine a comprehensive deal that recognizes their minority rights and -- while excluding the thugs and Russian agents that have streamed across the border -- gives local Ukrainians some real autonomy.


For the leaders in Newport, this will remain a tough call. But the argument for arming Kiev is stronger than it has ever been.


Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Daniel Treisman.