I'm disturbed at the angry response Marc Cooper's column/article has generated. The piece, clearly too pugnaciously worded for some, was a political column intending to provoke thought and reaction. Unfortunately, I see more reacting than thinking.
What has the man done besides venture an opinion that runs counter to the ideology of many in what has come to be known as the Mumia Movement? As I see it, Cooper calls for a new trial for the man, clearly states his case against capital punishment (for Abu-Jamal and everyone else, guilty or innocent) and figuratively sticks his thumb in the eye of those who want to anoint Mumia Abu-Jamal as savior, hero, political prisoner and innocent victim of a police conspiracy. Impolite, maybe. But let's not over-react here.
I, for one, am not sure I understand what the claims of Abu-Jamal's innocence are based on. Yes, we know about the racism that permeates our society. Yes, we know about police corruption - newly uncovered but long recognized - in Los Angeles. Yes, we know about the Diallo shooting in New York and, sadly, so many others around the country. Yes, we know about federal investigations of corruption and racism in the Philadelphia P.D. But the fact that those things exist and must be rooted out of our system doesn't mean that this man is innocent, just as the fact that some believe it's possible he may be responsible for Officer Faulkner's death doesn't mean they're disloyal racist haters who deserve to be censored and shouted down.
Any honest assessment of what happened in Judge Sabo's court, I believe, argues that a new and fair trial is necessary. Justice was not served there. Cooper and other writers, including Stuart Taylor in "American Lawyer," who believe there is a genuine possibility that Abu-Jamal is guilty (though arguably not of first-degree murder), agree. So why does their having the temerity to speak their open disagreement with some of the pronouncements and attitudes of those insistent drum-beaters for innocence and immediate freedom draw such heat?
The claim, made by many, that Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner is not supported by my understanding of the meaning of the term and its use both demeans the situation of true political prisoners around the world and attempts to inflate the position of those who charge it. This and many other claims continue to be made by people who, one might begin to suspect, have a larger political agenda in mind. That, of course, is fine, but if it is so their attachment to this case should perhaps be read as having more to do with the advancement of that agenda than it does with justice for Abu-Jamal.
As for Cooper, et al, the embrace of all of the groundless, wrong-headed, lionizing, rage-inspired anti-establishmentarianism that is of a piece with solidarity in this case is apparently more than they can take. So what? That's true of a lot of people who haven't had the willingness to be quite so forthright about it. And, as appears to be the point of his article, it might be worth thinking about for anyone who truly wants to work toward an end to the obscenity that is the death penalty in our country.
Mike Farrell