REACTIONS to the killing of teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the aftermath of the assassination of United States journalist, James Foley, resound throughout the US and abroad, as watchful eyes focus on the US’s international image, strength, and action.

Admirably, President Barack Obama has displayed full respect for the constitution and US legal jurisdictions enshrined under federalism. Likewise, US Attorney General Eric Holder reminded concerned parties in Ferguson and the general public that legal procedures must be followed for justice to be assured. In the era of instant news coverage, the domestic and international community were alerted to their official statements.

Meanwhile, the United States has become a despised target of ISIS hostility and its nihilistic agenda to wreak international mayhem. A graphic example of ISIS savagery is Foley’s decapitation and the group’s menacing promise to commit, on condition of ransom, a similar act on other American hostages.

President Obama and Mr Holder separately expressed revulsion. Their pledge to bring assassins to justice was followed immediately by more intensive US bombing of ISIS positions in Iraq.

Learning that Foley’s assassin may be a British citizen, UK Prime Minister David Cameron hastened to his office and sounded the alarm, as did US Defence Secretary Hagel in a clarion call, characterising ISIS, its sleeper cells, as well as recruiting efforts in the US and UK, as unprecedented and palpable evidence of its pernicious paramilitary operations and objectives.

The horrific act against Foley and ongoing international terrorist carnage — though unrelated to the police killing and subsequent vocal protests by primarily black Americans in Ferguson — raised respective questions pertaining to national security and justice.

For security reasons, the Obama Administration’s tactical moves against ISIS, understandably, will be somewhat opaque. As for Brown, legal procedures must be honoured, including ultimately a grand jury’s verdict. This tragedy became more poignant at his funeral.

It is plausible that the president’s priorities in handling domestic inflammatory issues could indicate potential approaches to crises abroad and vice versa, although modalities and tactics are circumstantially dissimilar. In these two cases, national security and justice considerations coincide at policymaking levels — bureaucratic turfs notwithstanding. So a robust rejection of disrespect for civil rights at home would be a strong signal to our detractors and enemies of our aversion to arbitrariness and inertia.

Interestingly, both situations bring into relief fundamental legal and moral principles. In Ferguson, the issues pertain to the killing of an unarmed teenager by a police officer and respect for the rights of concerned citizens to protest peacefully — a reminder of the targeted incarceration of blacks rooted in the pathology of blemished US history. Apparently, this homocide is the tragic result of racial profiling and a corrosive institutionalised bias, however disguised,

What is being tested now in Ferguson is the strength of the fabric of US democracy and the resilience of the pillars of civil society: individual rights, due process, and timely rendering of justice. The fabric would be rent if the individuals and institutions found culpable for homicide and civil rights infractions were not held accountable for their acts. Calamity follows if these presumed impregnable pillars begin to sway when confronted by egregious acts of incivility to fellow citizens by unprofessional law enforcers.

Similarly, the ISIS assassin and other members of that insiduous outfit who commit crimes against American citizens must face the long arm of the law if they survive. Firmness, fairness and justice must prevail in both instances.

Toward that end, the Obama Administration, allies, and partners are bound to rid the international community of the ISIS scourge. In defiance of these bestial marauding terrorists and their bombast about establishing an Islam caliphate, the US has no option of “leading from behind” — certainly not strategically. Instead, Washington must sharpen its multi-dimensional approach and unmask this rabid band shrouded under a distorted Islam.

In tandem, the US and allies in their own capitals can be expected to summon foreign ambassadors and register unequivocal condemnation of ISIS atrocities and forewarn the leaders who are believed to be supporting ISIS, or feigning ignorance of its well-funded insurgency, of the potential consequences for US relations with them.

In sum, respect for US integrity and democracy depends largely on the country’s earnestness to ensure justice in Brown’s case as well as hunting down Foley’s killer and fellow terrorists who threaten US interests and personnel in Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere.

After all, the US is not alone in protecting itself from both external and internal threats, be they national security interests or its cherished legal institutions founded and refined to respect the rights of all its people.

For sure, the international community will assess whether US pillars of morality, humanity, and law are as sturdy as its national security architecture of diplomacy, military strength, and intelligence.

So, may good sense prevail in both cases since much is at stake.

Earle Scarlett is a former United States diplomat with global professional experience. He resides in Atlanta, Georgia.