Three Yale students arrested for burning U.S. flag

[Desertdog]

I assume they didn't bring their own flag for the burning.

Three Yale students arrested for burning U.S. flag

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0436814620070404
BOSTON (Reuters) - Three Yale University students, including a Briton and a Greek national, have been charged in a case involving the burning of a U.S. flag outside a Connecticut house, a court official said on Wednesday.

Said Hyder Akbar, 23, Nikolaos Angelopoulos, 19, and Farhad Anklesaria, 19, were arrested on Tuesday and charged in New Haven Superior Court with reckless endangerment, arson, breach of peace, criminal mischief and other offenses.

Police said the three torched a flag hanging from the porch of a house in New Haven near the Ivy League school.

Anklesaria is British and Angelopoulos is Greek. Both are freshmen. Akbar, a senior, was born in Pakistan but is a U.S. citizen, according to police and court documents. Anklesaria and Angelopoulos turned over their passports.

Police gave no indication why they set fire to the flag. The trio acknowledged it was a "dumb thing to do" when questioned by police, the New Haven Register reported.

They appeared in court in leg irons and handcuffs, the newspaper said. Bail was set at $25,000 for Angelopoulos and Akbar, and $15,000 for Anklesaria, it added.

Akbar worked as an informal translator for U.S. forces during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and later published a memoir, "Come Back to Afghanistan," about his experiences there, the Yale Daily News reported.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that flag burning was protected under constitutional free-speech guarantees, invalidating laws in 48 states and outraging veterans' groups and others who say that an important national symbol should be protected from defacement.

"It makes me sick to my stomach to think that someone would burn the American flag," Marc Suraci, 37, owner of the two-story house, told the Register, describing himself as "very, very patriotic."

[Perd Hapley]

FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!  FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!


Not.

[charby]

so they were charged with tresspassing and distruction of property?

Why isn't the article headlined that? Oh I know why, its the left media.


GRRRR!

Charby

[tyme]

I'm not anti-flagburning, but this has nothing to do with flag burning as a symbolic activity, and everything to do with destruction of other people's property.

[Ned Hamford]

I'm not anti-flagburning, but this has nothing to do with flag burning as a symbolic activity, and everything to do with destruction of other people's property.

Property that is cherished not just by the particular owner, but by a sizeable majority... just about anyone who bothers to own a flag, fly it, follow the proper display rights ect.

[K Frame]

Were I the judge, both the Briton and the Greek would be heading back to their respective nations with no chance of completing their studies.

[Desertdog]

They should have brought their own flag and not torched one on somebdy's porch.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!  FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!


Not.

Said Hyder Akbar, 23, Nikolaos Angelopoulos, 19, and Farhad Anklesaria, 19, were arrested on Tuesday and charged in New Haven Superior Court with reckless endangerment, arson, breach of peace, criminal mischief and other offenses.

Police said the three torched a flag hanging from the porch of a house in New Haven near the Ivy League school.

[MechAg94]

I always wondered why flag burners were not arrested for lighting fires in public spaces or something like that. 
This case is a far cry from any demonstration though.

[Nightfall]

What a clever way to show people how evil the USA is.

Step 1: Leave home country to get top notch education in America, thus showing America is stupid.

Step 2: Provide an example for the evil Americans as to how cultured, educated peoples behave by torching somebody else's private property.

Bravo!

[tyme]

I always wondered why flag burners were not arrested for lighting fires in public spaces or something like that. 

Cool!  Can we arrest smokers then?

[CAnnoneer]

Well, maybe it is just me, but burning somebody else's flag while being a visiting foreigner in that very country is a highly unbecoming behavior. Obviously, these guys have no manners or common sense, besides being a fire hazard due to pyromaniacal tendencies. I say, revoke their student visas and give them 48 hours to leave the country.

As far as flag-burning is concerned, I think it is an idiotic decision to allow it. Freedom of speech protects dissident expression, not treason. Besides, by what kind of crooked logic you will get arrested for streaking (indecent exposure) which expression is not protected by freedom of speech, while declaring yourself contemptuous of your country and nation is okay? Methinks judges bend over backwards to allow their favorite flavor of anti-Americanism.

[tyme]

You and Mr. Suraci look at a flag and you see a symbol of a country.  Destroying the flag is thus unequivocal symbolism for destroying the country.

I look at a flag and I see a lot of different things.  I look at an instance of flagburning and I don't know what to make of it -- beyond burning of a piece of cloth -- until I hear the motives of the person behind it.  Those motives were conspicuously absent from the article.  So I don't know what to make of the incident beyond arson and rectocranial inversion (which the trio admitted to, regardless of what they were trying to symbolize).

And, when motives are in evidence, I prefer to judge the people and motives independently of their burning of a piece of cloth.

[Nick1911]

Maybe I missed it, but did the article state that the flag belonged to someone else?

[CAnnoneer]

I look at a flag and I see a lot of different things.  I look at an instance of flagburning and I don't know what to make of it -- beyond burning of a piece of cloth -- until I hear the motives of the person behind it. 

It is your right and choice the give them the benefit of unreasonable doubt. However, if a nation takes the same stance, it is not long for this world. If we destroy or allow the destruction of that which unites us, all that might remain is that which divides us. Such a model has never come to a good end in history, and there is no reason to expect a different outcome.
 

[tyme]

Police said the three torched a flag hanging from the porch of a house in New Haven near the Ivy League school.

Nick, I'm not completely sure, given the poor communication skills of modern reporters, but the wording suggests to me that the trio didn't bring the flag and hang it up.

CAnnoneer, if the flag were the only thing uniting us, as you seem to suggest, then I would view flagburning in general is a symptom rather than a cause.  As long as there's something more, let them burn flags.  If the motive is anti-Americanism, flagburning will serve to unite us; if the motive is something else, something more specific, then flagburning will serve to draw our attention to a potentially legitimate complaint about internal or international policy.

The danger of having a specific icon like the flag -- and treating it as an inviolable symbol of something great -- is that any jerk can motivate you to psychotic heights merely by burning or stomping on that icon.  And it might even turn out that you and the jerk weren't ideologically opposed.

Everything else in your argument applies equally well to anti-American speech.

[CAnnoneer]

Sorry, tyme, history does not support your claims. Groups, tribes, movements, nations, societies, in fact all forms of social organization ultimately utilize symbolics. That symbolics reinforces the bonds between the individuals in the group. There are numerous examples of that - emblems, badges, flags, anthems, uniforms, sigils, secret shakes, etc. Those things mean something and are important. Without them, it is much harder for the group to be kept together and focused on the same common goals. If the cooperation weakens and the group loses too much cohesion, it disintegrates or falls prey to others, or both. That has been the mindnumbingly repeated human experience.

For some, a jerk burning a flag would be a signal to consolidate, for others, quite the opposite. They would say to themselves "things are going south, we are falling apart, everyone for himself". That's the reality. The strength of the group is strongly coupled to its self-perception. Devaluing its symbolics devalues that self-perception.

As far as freedom of speech goes, IMO there is a huge difference between:
1) "We have our problems. We need to do this, this, and that. Change this, keep that."
2) "America sucks! It is the whore of world capitalism, a theocratic shithole, a zionist client state, the source of all evil in the world! A bunch of child-murderers! Burn the damn flag! Down with America! Long live the jihadi freedom-fighters!"

#1 is free, constructive, and patriotic criticism.
#2 is verbal traitorous excrement

In my mind, penalizing #2 is not unreasonable, especially in times of war. I admit it is a slippery slope, but so is most of jurisprudence, and pharmacy for that matter ("the dose makes the cure").

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Were I the judge, both the Briton and the Greek would be heading back to their respective nations with no chance of completing their studies.

And after they got the boot, they'd probably return home to a hero's welcome.   

[Antibubba]

Had they burned a flag they had purchased, and burned it on the sidewalk, they would not have been arrested.

I agree with expulsion from school and nation.

[Laurent du Var]

Police gave no indication why they set fire to the flag. The trio acknowledged it was a "dumb thing to do" when questioned by police, the New Haven Register reported.

Why not ? I hate to see incomplete articles discussed. If you don't know why don't write the effing piece of nothingness !
Bad journalists should be wearing handcuffs and leg irons from 9 to 5 every work day !

Burning a flag is always bad, for sure.

Could be it was a political statement, if so put them on the next plane to Afghanistan  but I guess Yale students would have better means to express their political points of view, could be they were just stoned or drunk out of their minds as students are known to be from time to time, in that case just let them do some public service....

[Manedwolf]

If they burned a flag that was on the porch of a homeowner, they SHOULD be charged with arson and reckless endangerment and malicious destruction of property and all the rest.

If someone came on my porch and set my flag on fire, they'd be chased away by the unfriendly end of an 870, for sure.

What part of "setting part of someone's home on fire is bad" do those who defend them not understand?

[grampster]

Well, if someone is going to burn a flag, or any symbol of a particular thing, at least they ought to have the courage to stand up for the motives they had when they did the thing.

They oughta get a swifter kick in the behind for the hangdog attitude of "...that was stupid" than the act itself.  Cowards.

The outrage from the left for their arrest will start in 4...3....2...1.

[HankB]

Were I the judge, both the Briton and the Greek would be heading back to their respective nations with no chance of completing their studies.

+1

From the way the story is written, it certainly sounds like they decided to set fire to someone else's property, on someone else's property.

That's criminal no matter how you look at it.

[gunsmith]

If you are a visitor in another country it is very poor manners to burn their flag.
I lived in Ireland for two years and never once burned their flag, nor would I do so if I visited Iraq/Iran/China/England....whereever!
Send them home, pronto.

[wingnutx]

The flag was attached to a house.

Arson of an occupied structure is grounds for use of deadly force in Arizona.

[MattC]

The posts above have well established that the major legal problem was them burning someone else's property.

Regarding CAnnoneer's comment on the inviolable nature of a country's flag, I disagree that it is a "traitorous excrement" type of activity.  I agree with you that all cultures and nations develop symbols for identification.  These symbols help unify through a shared sense of laws, morals, history, and goals.  Holding these symbols in high regard indicates a respect for the culture or nation.  Demanding that these symbols be inviolable in representation or handling puts the symbol outside of reason and into the realm of the mystical.  The flag is a metaphor, not an idol.  Idols are worshiped in the belief that a mystical force resides within the object or channels through the object.  A metaphor is a simple-concept short-cut in the senses that lead to a more complicated expression, and is sometimes crafted to include an aesthetic flourish.  Metaphors are rational, with the expression coming from the individuals who use the metaphor.  Idols are irrational, with an expression that is assumed to come from a mystic authority but cannot be tested or challenged on argument.

Our flag is a metaphor.  To hold it as inviolable is to subject one's peers to a mystical force that an individual believes in.  Burning the flag falls into the category of freedom of expression because it is a metaphor, not the nation itself nor a mystical channeling of the nation.  It is something that we can look at and associate with many other aspects in our shared culture that are too complicated to list and display individually.  Defacing that metaphor is an act of contempt and disrespect, but not "traitorous excrement."  It is just a flag, just a metaphor, and their expression is a real demonstration of unrest.  Someone who burns a US flag is part of what that flag symbolizes.  America is a culture founded on rebellion and independence, both politically and individually.  Our most revered cultural icons are those who went against the grain.  I may disagree with why someone burns a flag, but it is irresponsible of me to tell them that they cannot use a metaphor as a means of negative expression.  Unless, as in this case, it is not their own property.