Post by: Desertdog on April 04, 2007, 11:09:21 AM
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."
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 04, 2007, 11:11:02 AM
Not.
Post by: charby on April 04, 2007, 11:19:14 AM
Why isn't the article headlined that? Oh I know why, its the left media.
GRRRR!
Charby
Post by: tyme on April 04, 2007, 11:21:48 AM
Post by: Ned Hamford on April 04, 2007, 11:32:22 AM
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.
Post by: K Frame on April 04, 2007, 11:36:02 AM
Post by: Desertdog on April 04, 2007, 11:37:44 AM
Quote
FREEDOM OF SPEECH!! FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!
Not.
Not.
Quote
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.
Police said the three torched a flag hanging from the porch of a house in New Haven near the Ivy League school.
Post by: MechAg94 on April 04, 2007, 11:46:15 AM
This case is a far cry from any demonstration though.
Post by: Nightfall on April 04, 2007, 11:59:38 AM
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!
Post by: tyme on April 04, 2007, 12:05:32 PM
Quote
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?
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 04, 2007, 02:33:27 PM
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.
Post by: tyme on April 04, 2007, 04:03:52 PM
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.
Post by: Nick1911 on April 04, 2007, 04:51:55 PM
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 04, 2007, 04:52:22 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: tyme on April 04, 2007, 05:52:56 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 04, 2007, 06:13:12 PM
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").
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on April 04, 2007, 06:53:04 PM
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. 
Post by: Antibubba on April 04, 2007, 09:32:22 PM
I agree with expulsion from school and nation.
Post by: Laurent du Var on April 04, 2007, 10:16:46 PM
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....
Post by: Manedwolf on April 04, 2007, 11:03:52 PM
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?
Post by: grampster on April 05, 2007, 04:17:34 AM
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.
Post by: HankB on April 05, 2007, 04:35:24 AM
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.
Post by: gunsmith on April 06, 2007, 03:40:57 AM
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.
Post by: wingnutx on April 06, 2007, 09:19:55 AM
Arson of an occupied structure is grounds for use of deadly force in Arizona.
Post by: MattC on April 06, 2007, 09:33:04 AM
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 06, 2007, 10:01:31 AM
Quote
Someone who burns a US flag is part of what that flag symbolizes.
Can you expand on that?
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 06, 2007, 10:05:50 AM
Post by: tyme on April 06, 2007, 11:29:39 AM
Quote from: MattC
I agree with you that all cultures and nations develop symbols for identification.
And I agree with CAnnoneer on that point, too, despite him suggesting I don't. It's the instinctual, savage reaction to flagburning that I have a major problem with, in case I was unclear.We all have rituals, symbols, totems that are important to us. I'd get quite upset over someone burning certain science books as a form of political protest, but I wouldn't even think of trying to get a law passed to make such science-burning illegal.
Nevermind.
Post by: MattC on April 06, 2007, 12:19:59 PM
CAnnoneer, I do not think that anarchy is a viable economy. People do not always think rationally, and a permanent rational mindset would be needed for an anarchic economy. You did not accuse me of thinking anarchically, but I wanted to dismiss any suspicions that may have been forming. It appears that my term negative expression was what led to your concerns of basing everything on negation. I chose my words poorly. By negative expression, I meant expressing opinions that are unsupportive of the government, where negative was used as having the opposite of a positive emotional response.
To have a government that is meaningful, constructive, and long lasting, the government and citizenry need to be dynamic. People will never hold unanimous opinions across a nation, and so dissent, even fervent dissent in the form of burning a flag, must be allowed by a meaningful, constructive government that will represent and serve is citizenry in order to provide long lasting protection of civilized behavior. To disallow it would create a neutered nation that could only effectively dissent through violent revolt, since physical action is the only recourse when communication is silenced. I would rather see an upset college student burn a flag than throw a Molotov cocktail at the police. I would much rather see that student talking rationally and distributing literature than burning a flag.
CAnnoneer, I am confused on one of your counter arguments, though. You said that a compilation of people like that which I described could not form a nation. Are you referring to a group of people who treat the flag as a metaphor and not as an idol?
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 06, 2007, 12:46:45 PM
Quote
The very mad person burning a flag at a protest may be only thinking of the flag as a metaphor representing political domination.
I think that's what really bothers me about flag-burning as a form of protest (rather than to retire an old, worn flag). I know some people burn the flag thinking they are protesting the govt., or some particular policy, but I can't see how it can really mean that. The flag represents the nation, not just the govt. Burning it doesn't mean that you hate the govt or what the govt. does. The message that comes across, whether intentional or not, is hatred for the country. Like burning a person in effigy.
On the other hand, I was always confused about why the Klan, who consider themselves a Christian organization, would burn the cross. But apparently, it was meant as a way of "lighting" the cross, so that it would be visible, and was not meant as a form of disrespect for the cross.
The lesson being, you can't always tell what people are trying to say.
Post by: CAnnoneer on April 06, 2007, 03:55:13 PM
Quote
CAnnoneer, I am confused on one of your counter arguments, though. You said that a compilation of people like that which I described could not form a nation. Are you referring to a group of people who treat the flag as a metaphor and not as an idol?
Essentially, fistful clarified the point for me in a subsequent post. I meant exactly that - the flag is not a symbol of the fed gov, it is a symbol of the nation, i.e. you, me, fistful, Joe Sixpack, etc. When somebody burns our flag, he does not protest against our gov, he essentially devalues us all, including you, me, fistful, Joe Sixpack, etc. If he is a foreigner, he is insulting our country. If he is an American, he essentially invalidates his membership card for our collective club called US of A. And that is why I think it is treasonous.
If a protester wants to express disagreement with the government, flags by dept and office are in existence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_United_States
If he does not like Bush, he can burn a picture of Bush. If he thinks the institution of POTUS is unacceptable, he can print out and burn the standard of POTUS. Same with VPOTUS, individual departments, etc.
Finally, stupidity is no excuse. It is not our obligation to try to psychoanalyze a particular idiot's chosen means of communication. If he burns my flag, it is a reasonable interpretation that he disrespects my country.
Post by: De Selby on April 06, 2007, 04:02:20 PM
"All action disrespectful to the United States as a whole shall result in an instant revocation of citizenship."
Yeah, that's not a scary power to give to the Government or anything.
Broad power to strip civil rights based on "insults to the fatherland" are more appropriate to Fascist governments, where mobilization to sacrifice in the name of a unifying race and ideology drive the society.
Toleration for dissidents, even those who advocate a complete change of government for whatever nutty reason, is something that functioning democracies do.
Post by: Manedwolf on April 06, 2007, 04:29:45 PM
Imagine what the constitutional amendment to prohibit this behavior would look like:
"All action disrespectful to the United States as a whole shall result in an instant revocation of citizenship."
Yeah, that's not a scary power to give to the Government or anything.
Broad power to strip civil rights based on "insults to the fatherland" are more appropriate to Fascist governments, where mobilization to sacrifice in the name of a unifying race and ideology drive the society.
Toleration for dissidents, even those who advocate a complete change of government for whatever nutty reason, is something that functioning democracies do.
"All action disrespectful to the United States as a whole shall result in an instant revocation of citizenship."
Yeah, that's not a scary power to give to the Government or anything.
Broad power to strip civil rights based on "insults to the fatherland" are more appropriate to Fascist governments, where mobilization to sacrifice in the name of a unifying race and ideology drive the society.
Toleration for dissidents, even those who advocate a complete change of government for whatever nutty reason, is something that functioning democracies do.
Post by: MattC on April 06, 2007, 05:53:38 PM
CAnnoneer, in fairness it is not the protester's "obligation to try to psychoanalyze a particular [viewer]'s chosen means of [interpreting] communication." I agree with you and Fistful that burning the flag is a ridiculous action that does not clearly express an argument, nor is it a persuasive declaration--like you said, even burning a specific flag that relates to their argument would be more intelligent. I am not saying that the fascists will rule on Tuesday if the flag is declared inviolable on Monday.
What it comes down to for me, is that the flag is a piece of cloth and a piece of property. It is a symbol with a massive amount of meaning residing in it, but it is a privately owned object. If the owner decides to burn it, that is disrespectful and upsetting--exactly what the owner intends. But it is private property. When the person starts violating property rights or assaulting individuals, I expect laws that punish this behavior.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 06, 2007, 07:53:26 PM
Manedwolf, that is hilarious!
What it comes down to for me, is that the flag is a piece of cloth and a piece of property. It is a symbol with a massive amount of meaning residing in it, but it is a privately owned object. If the owner decides to burn it, that is disrespectful and upsetting--exactly what the owner intends. But it is private property. When the person starts violating property rights or assaulting individuals, I expect laws that punish this behavior.
What it comes down to for me, is that the flag is a piece of cloth and a piece of property. It is a symbol with a massive amount of meaning residing in it, but it is a privately owned object. If the owner decides to burn it, that is disrespectful and upsetting--exactly what the owner intends. But it is private property. When the person starts violating property rights or assaulting individuals, I expect laws that punish this behavior.
Yup.