Upside Down Flag Protest?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

According to this story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_re_us/us_upside_down_flag

a former Marine had his flag that he was flying upside-down on his private property removed by police on the fourth of July. Apparently the guy was protesting the holdup of the granting of his liquour license after he spent $200k on renovating a spot to turn it into an Italian restaurant.

Read the article and let's debate this action. I think the police had absolutely no right to come onto his property and remove the flag just because the local attorney and the cops decided he was "creating a disturbance on the fourth of July".

Total bullshit. The guy is an Iraq war vet and has a right to fly the flag in protest on his personal property as he sees fit.

His quote at the end of the article is particularly telling.

Congine, a Marine veteran who served in Iraq in 2004, said he intends to keep flying the flag upside down.

"It is pretty bad when I go and fight a tyrannical government somewhere else," Congine said, "and then I come home to find it right here at my front door."

[Indistinguishable]

I have no idea if he was just being a crybaby or not as concerned not getting his liquor license, but regardless, I am highly skeptical of there being good reason to remove his flag; the pretenses seem very flimsy. But no one else here is going to vehemently disagree.

[Chronos]

Flying his flag upside-down, especially over something as trivial as a delayed liquor license, is kind of a dick move. But it's a Constitutionally-protected dick move, and rightly so. This would be true whether he had received the Congressional Medal of Honor or if he was a convicted felon draft-dodger: Freedom of speech applies to everyone.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I have no idea if he was just being a crybaby or not as concerned not getting his liquor license, but regardless, I am highly skeptical of there being good reason to remove his flag; the pretenses seem very flimsy. But no one else here is going to vehemently disagree.

Typically, Marines are not crybabies, so, me being the military man I am, am going to operate under the assumption that he has a valid gripe until I see otherwise.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Flying his flag upside-down, especially over something as trivial as a delayed liquor license, is kind of a dick move. But it's a Constitutionally-protected dick move, and rightly so. This would be true whether he had received the Congressional Medal of Honor or if he was a convicted felon draft-dodger: Freedom of speech applies to everyone.

Yeah, but I have a real problem with local police coming onto his property and confiscating his flag because it made some 4th of July flag wavers uncomfortable.

It's not like he was burning the damn thing.

[billfish678]

Typically, Marines are not crybabies, so, me being the military man I am, am going to operate under the assumption that he has a valid gripe until I see otherwise.

Not getting a booze permit is often the difference between a biz that stays in biz and one that goes belly up in a few months.

That delay is most very likely a BIG deal. Particularly if he was told x months and now its x plus for no good reason (or even for a good reason for that matter).

[magellan01]

Not getting a booze permit is often the difference between a biz that stays in biz and one that goes belly up in a few months.

That delay is most very likely a BIG deal. Particularly if he was told x months and now its x plus for no good reason (or even for a good reason for that matter).

But someone facing a delay in his liquor license doesn't rise to the level of the country being in distress. What's next. "Oh, I got a speeding ticket I didn't deserve. Honey, flip the flag again."? That said, he's got a right to do it, just like he has the right to be a dick.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

But someone facing a delay in his liquor license doesn't rise to the level of the country being in distress. What's next. "Oh, I got a speeding ticket I didn't deserve. Honey, flip the flag again."? That said, he's got a right to do it, just like he has the right to be a dick.

There's got to be more to it than that. Perhaps he isn't well-liked for some reason and the license issuing authority, fully aware of his financial stake in his new business, is intentionally dragging it's feet. That would piss me off too.

[billfish678]

But someone facing a delay in his liquor license doesn't rise to the level of the country being in distress. What's next. "Oh, I got a speeding ticket I didn't deserve. Honey, flip the flag again."? That said, he's got a right to do it, just like he has the right to be a dick.

Its a big deal if it bankrupts him before the business even gets off the ground or shortly thereafter.

He went above and beyond supporting that flag, and because of that, I give him way more latitude than your average crybaby hippy for possible dickish behavior in how he used it.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Its a big deal if it bankrupts him before the business even gets off the ground or shortly thereafter.

He went above and beyond supporting that flag, and because of that, I give him way more latitude than your average crybaby hippy for possible dickish behavior in how he used it.

There's that too. Funny how the (town representative? mayor? Whomever?) in the article is a Vietnam vet and he actually has a problem with it. Of all the wars to protest....jeez.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Ahh, here's the quote:

Village President John Deschane, 60, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, said many people in town believe it's disrespectful to fly the flag upside down.

"If he wants to protest, let him protest but find a different way to do it," Deschane said.

Find a different way to do it, eh? Who says you get to decide how he protests how his attempt at opening a business in your village is going? Fuck you, guy. Thanks for serving in Vietnam and all, but that's just bullshit.

This is small town mob rule over something relatively trivial, if you ask me.

Next Congine will hire some Mexican to be his dishwasher at the restuarant and these same people will be all up in arms.

"Dey took er jobz!!"

[Captain Carrot]

But someone facing a delay in his liquor license doesn't rise to the level of the country being in distress. What's next. "Oh, I got a speeding ticket I didn't deserve. Honey, flip the flag again."? That said, he's got a right to do it, just like he has the right to be a dick.Wow, slippery slope in your first post in the thread. Well done.

On topic: I wonder if there's something else going on here.

[Snnipe 70E]

I read that story earlier.

Flying the flag upside down may have been a bit much. But what happen was worse. The cops shuld be charged with theft and truspass. And the person who ordered it should be charged with conspirousy.

[DMC]

Well, the flag code says:
The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.While I find myself in the camp that thinks the cops performed an illegal seizure, if the DA does find some "disturbing the peace" type argument, I'm pretty sure Congine could make a decent argument that losing the property via bankruptcy would fit within the definition above.

It should be noted that the flag was returned to him the next day. Doesn't change the fact that they took it, but at least they realized there might be trouble ahead (and still might be, of course) if they had kept it.

[magellan01]

Wow, slippery slope in your first post in the thread. Well done.

On topic: I wonder if there's something else going on here.

It's not a slippery slope argument. A slippery slope argument seeks to stop or not allow something today because of where it will lead us. I think this is inappropriate overkill in and of itself—today. I was using hyperbole. See the difference?

[athelas]

He's flying his own flag on his own property. Dick move, but constitutionally protected dickitude. (And it's interesting how flag-inverting and flag-burning is usually protected under 1st Amendment grounds, but not under property-rights grounds. Both sound like good reasons to me.)

[Ponderoid]

Well, the flag code says:

The flag code has no enforcement provision. If it did, that would be a definite 1st amendment violation.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Well, the flag code says:
While I find myself in the camp that thinks the cops performed an illegal seizure, if the DA does find some "disturbing the peace" type argument, I'm pretty sure Congine could make a decent argument that losing the property via bankruptcy would fit within the definition above.

It should be noted that the flag was returned to him the next day. Doesn't change the fact that they took it, but at least they realized there might be trouble ahead (and still might be, of course) if they had kept it.

Who cares when they gave it back to him? The fact that they did the very next day tells me they know they screwed up in taking it in the first place.

No offense to you at all. I am the farthest person you'd ever find that ever aligns himself with protestors of almost any stripe.

However, this guy was well within his rights and I generally just hate warrantless violations of private property, or cops just taking matters into their own hands in general.

It galls me when I read the quote from the neighbor, whom apparently had no problem with the guy or what he was doing, asking while witnessing the cops' actions "What are you doing"?

Response: "It's none of your business".

Well, uh, yes it is, officer! I am witnessing you violate my neighbor's Constitutional rights, asshole!

Yeesh.

[DMC]

Who cares when they gave it back to him? The fact that they did the very next day tells me they know they screwed up in taking it in the first place.

No offense to you at all. I am the farthest person you'd ever find that ever aligns himself with protestors of almost any stripe.Did you read any other parts of my post? I'm on your side, dude. Completely. I just wanted to put out the known facts, including that they gave the flag back. If we find out tomorrow that his liquor license was delayed because he's a convicted felon, has sex with goats, supports the Taliban financially, and screwed the mayor's wife, I'll post that info, and I'll STILL think the police were wrong to take the flag.

[DMC]

The flag code has no enforcement provision. If it did, that would be a definite 1st amendment violation.Which is why I wasn't using that argument to go after the guy, but instead in defense of the guy. I was simply saying that if they trumped up some "disturbance" charges, he could simply argue that the was using the flag in a respectful manner, among many other reasons why he's in the right.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Did you read any other parts of my post? I'm on your side, dude. Completely. I just wanted to put out the known facts, including that they gave the flag back. If we find out tomorrow that his liquor license was delayed because he's a convicted felon, has sex with goats, supports the Taliban financially, and screwed the mayor's wife, I'll post that info, and I'll STILL think the police were wrong to take the flag.

OK. Obviously if he were all the extraneous things you posit that my fervor for his cause would be quite muted.

But I'd still agree.

I wonder if perhaps he was standing on the side of a parade or something with his upside-down flag screaming anti-government epithets at the passers-by.

[Miller]

Typically, Marines are not crybabies, so, me being the military man I am, am going to operate under the assumption that he has a valid gripe until I see otherwise.

I gotta disagree with you on this one. Flying the flag upside down sends the message that there is something seriously wrong with the country. Doing that over a liquor license is a huge over-reaction, no matter how badly he's being dicked over by the local government. Not being able to get a liquor license isn't a sign that the country is fucked up, it's, at worst, a sign that you've got a bunch of douches on the local liquor board*.

I don't know that I'd term it a "dick move," precisely, but it is pretty whiney. Either way, it doesn't remotely excuse the cops coming onto his property and taking it down.

*Or whoever it is that hands out licenses.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I gotta disagree with you on this one. Flying the flag upside down sends the message that there is something seriously wrong with the country. Doing that over a liquor license is a huge over-reaction, no matter how badly he's being dicked over by the local government. Not being able to get a liquor license isn't a sign that the country is fucked up, it's, at worst, a sign that you've got a bunch of douches on the local liquor board*.

I don't know that I'd term it a "dick move," precisely, but it is pretty whiney. Either way, it doesn't remotely excuse the cops coming onto his property and taking it down.

*Or whoever it is that hands out licenses.

Possibly. This "distress" flying of the flag goes back to the Navy, yes?

Of whom the Marines are the Navy's infantry, right?

Might be douchebaggery, might be something else. I'm sure a media outlet will be along promptly.

[Miller]

Possibly. This "distress" flying of the flag goes back to the Navy, yes?

Of whom the Marines are the Navy's infantry, right?

Possibly. Can't say as I see the relevance, though.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Possibly. This "distress" flying of the flag goes back to the Navy, yes?

Of whom the Marines are the Navy's infantry, right?
Not any more.

[kaylasdad99]

He went above and beyond supporting that flag, and because of that, I give him way more latitude than your average crybaby hippy for possible dickish behavior in how he used it.The very idea that the police action was more egregious because Congine was a former Marine instead of a DFH sickens me. Of course, so does the flag fetishism that so often passes in this country for devotion to American ideals.

Why would he spend 200G on property acquisition and remodeling before securing the liquor license? And can we find out how much was spent on the property and how much was spent on the remodeling? I hate when people conflate numerical data like that; it makes it impossible to get any perspective on things.

[kaylasdad99]

Not any more.Marine Corps officers no longer come out of the Naval Academy?

Huh. Who knew?

And "citation, please?"

[billfish678]

The very idea that the police action was more egregious because Congine was a former Marine instead of a DFH sickens me. Of course, so does the flag fetishism that so often passes in this country for adherence to American ideals.

.

Boy, everything sickens you doesnt it?

I said I gave him more lattitude for possible dickishness than a DFH :)

The DFH can burn the flags and invert them as much as they want and I think the cops should leave em alone as well him. Well, maybe spray em down with water because they probably need a bath.

[Duckster]

During the period 2000 through 2008 I often flew the flag on my vehicle upside down. (About 9"x15" in size)

Lots of bewildered stares, and lots of nods and vocal gestures in agreement, even though no other communication as to its meaning ever occurred.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think there is a prima facie case that the police acted illegally by physically removing the flag. I think they might be able to defend the action if they can show that there was some kind of demonstrable disturbance, but from here it looks like an overreaction by the police.

Still, they only took it down for a day, and the guy sounds like a huge dickhole, so there may have been more provocation than meets they eye.


It's not especially relevant, but we also don't know that there isn't a legitimate reason this guy is being denied a liquor license.

The cops might have acted illegally, but it's not the most egregious act of fascistic repression ever. They gave the baby his flag back the next day. I don't see that he has any real damages, but somebody on the police department might deserve a reprimand or a suspension.

[kaylasdad99]

Boy, everything sickens you doesnt it?

I said I gave him more lattitude for possible dickishness than a DFH :)So you did. I'll apologize for the baseless extrapolation, then.

I'm still not entirely comfortable with the notion of giving one "more latitude" than the other, especially in the present context.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Marine Corps officers no longer come out of the Naval Academy?

Huh. Who knew?

And "citation, please?"
The Marines and the Navy share resources, and yes, the Naval Academy trains a lot of USMC officers, but they are still separate branches. The Marines are not part of the Navy. The USMC and the Navy are separate "sister services" in the Department of the Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps#Relationship_with_other_services

[DanBlather]

I thought it was a well known fact that conservatives can protest by desecrating the flag but liberals can't.

[ashman165]

The cops might have acted illegally, but it's not the most egregious act of fascistic repression ever. They gave the baby his flag back the next day. I don't see that he has any real damages, but somebody on the police department might deserve a reprimand or a suspension.

Intentionally abridging someone's Constitutional rights without due process of law is itself a damage, for which he may sue. He was denied his Constitutional right to protect his government's actions on what is arguably the most pressing day to do so. It was the Fourth of July celebration, a day on which we celebrate our independence and the rights enshrined in our charter. The irony is palpable.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Eh...they made him stop trolling the neighborhood during a parade. I'm not saying it was justified, it was probably illegal, but it's not like we're living in Iran all of a sudden.

[Snnipe 70E]

The Marines and the Navy share resources, and yes, the Naval Academy trains a lot of USMC officers, but they are still separate branches. The Marines are not part of the Navy. The USMC and the Navy are separate "sister services" in the Department of the Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps#Relationship_with_other_services


The commandant of the Marine Corp answers to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). The command structure of a ship puts the commander of a Marine detachment on the ship under the Captian. The Marines do not have medics.

[kaylasdad99]

The commandant of the Marine Corp answers to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO).Not quite. They both report directly to the Secretary of the Navy.

[Enginerd]

It's not like he was burning the damn thing.
Also a constitutionally protected dick move. There's no substantive difference between Congine's protest and a dirty hippie burning the flag.

[kaylasdad99]

Eh...they made him stop trolling the neighborhood during a parade. I'm not saying it was justified, it was probably illegal, but it's not like we're living in Iran all of a sudden.I'm not seeing where anyone made the argument that we are.

[kaylasdad99]

Also a constitutionally protected dick move. There's no substantive difference between Congine's protest and a dirty hippie burning the flag.There kinda is.

Congine's protest asserted the point that his liberties as an American are in distress as the result of the actions of his local government. A DFH (with a sense of symbolism) would burn the flag in protest at something the national government was doing.

[BobLibDem]

Anyone has the right to fly the flag rightside up or upside down as they see fit. The dude's veteran status gives him neither more rights nor less rights than anyone else. The only part of the arguments put forth that I have issue with are those that are willing to cut him more slack because he was a Marine. Sure, great, wonderful, he was a Marine, but it's irrelevant.

[Elendil's Heir]

Flying his flag upside-down, especially over something as trivial as a delayed liquor license, is kind of a dick move. But it's a Constitutionally-protected dick move, and rightly so. This would be true whether he had received the Congressional Medal of Honor or if he was a convicted felon draft-dodger: Freedom of speech applies to everyone.

Seconded. Unless the police could show that the upside-down flag was demonstrably riling people up and leading to an imminent breach of the peace, the guy is free to fly it upside down. Going onto his property to remove it without his consent is an abuse of authority.

Edwin Walker, the very conservative former Army general whom Oswald attempted to kill in April 1963, was notorious for flying his flag upside-down in protest of the Kennedy Administration not being tough enough against the Commies.

As it happens, there's a house not far from where I live that has been flying an American flag upside-down for several weeks now. The funny thing is, I remember they had an Obama sign on their lawn last fall. Don't know if they're deeply disappointed in the President, or maybe it's a politically-divided household, or something else is going on here.

[Snnipe 70E]

Not quite. They both report directly to the Secretary of the Navy.


No the CNO reports to the SecNav, and the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff.

Look at the Joint Chief's, Army, Navy, And Air Force. No Marine they are repersented by the CNO. And no Coast Guard, they are not a part of the department of defence.

[Enginerd]

There kinda is.

Congine's protest asserted the point that his liberties as an American are in distress as the result of the actions of his local government. A DFH (with a sense of symbolism) would burn the flag in protest at something the national government was doing.

The motivations behind the acts are different, but the acts aren't. What I meant was that there's no substantive difference in the legality of the acts or the appropriate response to them.

[Guinastasia]

Anyone has the right to fly the flag rightside up or upside down as they see fit. The dude's veteran status gives him neither more rights nor less rights than anyone else. The only part of the arguments put forth that I have issue with are those that are willing to cut him more slack because he was a Marine. Sure, great, wonderful, he was a Marine, but it's irrelevant.

Strangely enough -- there's an ex-Marine chick in our neighborhood (her yard is ugly as sin*) who's been flying the flag upside down since the election. And yes, it's her right, of course -- this thread just made me think of it.

She's really weird, too. She started screaming at my mother when she - my mom - tried to pass by her big-ass SUV. Woman has a few screws loose. She's got a "Michael Savage for President!" sticker on said SUV as well.




*She also has her motorcycle parked practically out in the middle of the street. One of these days, someone is going to smash right into the damned thing.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

The motivations behind the acts are different, but the acts aren't. What I meant was that there's no substantive difference in the legality of the acts or the appropriate response to them.
That's true but my comment was directed more towards actually destroying or defacing the flag rather than the legality of either action when compared with one another.

I don't like it when people burn US flags in protest here in America. It just rubs me the wrong way. At least flying it upside down doesn't destroy a perfectly good flag.

Even if both actions are equal in the eyes of the law. Burning it just bothers me more.

Anyhoo, here's a news video clip pertaining to the incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j48NQl5dkg

[gonzomax]

He bought it. He owns it. Whatever he wants to do with it, is none of my business. If he wants to get a rise out of me by flying it upside down or burning it, it will not work. Have at it.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I'd really like to know if this guy has a legitimate gripe regarding his liquour license or not. Sounds like he was promised it, paid for his renovations on good faith he was going to get it, then it was denied.

I don't understand why the town would cite economic hardship as a reason for not issuing the license. I believe they sell those things to businesses to make money, right?

[Guinastasia]

You DO know that burning a flag is the proper way to dispose of it, when it's old or tattered, correct?

[Elendil's Heir]

You DO know that burning a flag is the proper way to dispose of it, when it's old or tattered, correct?

Of course, but there's a difference between a protester doing so in anger and an American Legion WW2 vet doing so in a ceremony, even if the end result is the same.

[mswas]

It's funny how these things are never a real big deal until the police decide to take action against them and then they become national news.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

It's funny how these things are never a real big deal until the police decide to take action against them and then they become national news.

It's only news because of the police doing what they did (unless there's more to the story than we know, their actions were unjustified).

[mswas]

It's only news because of the police doing what they did (unless there's more to the story than we know, their actions were unjustified).

That's what I mean. Somehow I doubt it got beyond, "That asshole flying his flag upside down.", "Well you know he served his country as a Marine, you didn't even serve in the military, are YOU going to question HIS patriotism?"

My point is those things are rarely actually socially disruptive until the police make it a thing.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Of course, but there's a difference between a protester doing so in anger and an American Legion WW2 vet doing so in a ceremony, even if the end result is the same.
The only difference is what the flag burners are thinking about while doing the flag burning.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

That's what I mean. Somehow I doubt it got beyond, "That asshole flying his flag upside down.", "Well you know he served his country as a Marine, you didn't even serve in the military, are YOU going to question HIS patriotism?"

My point is those things are rarely actually socially disruptive until the police make it a thing.
The police rarely make it a thing unless it's socially disruptive.

At the end of the day, it's his flag, his property, he can do whatever he wants and the cops probably overstepped their bounds, but I doubt they did it because they gave a crap about his "patriotism," or about the statement itself, or because they just wanted to be dicks. They were probably worried that it might cause problems during the parade.

[gonzomax]

The only difference is what the flag burners are thinking about while doing the flag burning.

So we require the "thought police" to take care of such problems.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Of course, but there's a difference between a protester doing so in anger and an American Legion WW2 vet doing so in a ceremony, even if the end result is the same.

Sure, but as I know you are aware, E.H., you can fly the flag upside down, or burn it, or take a piss on it, or whatever you like. (Well, burning might be regulated by content-neutral environmental regulations.) All are protected by the First Amendment.

To the rest of the posters, I see a lot of the usual conservative suspects in your numbers, I hope you caught that one of your habitual bugbears, the American Civil Liberties Union, is getting involved here on the side of the homeowner. I dare to dream that this might give you pause the next you target it in your outrage-fests.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Sure, but as I know you are aware, E.H., you can fly the flag upside down, or burn it, or take a piss on it, or whatever you like. (Well, burning might be regulated by content-neutral environmental regulations.) All are protected by the First Amendment.

To the rest of the posters, I see a lot of the usual conservative suspects in your numbers, I hope you caught that one of your habitual bugbears, the American Civil Liberties Union, is getting involved here on the side of the homeowner. I dare to dream that this might give you pause the next you target it in your outrage-fests.

Oh bullshit. I generally dislike the ACLU because my dim view of them is that they grandstand on issues and try to draw attention to themselves rather than really giving two shits about what they are representing.

The issue at hand to me is two-fold:

One: the police had no right to trespass on this guy's property and confiscate his flag, no matter how he was flying it and just because it was the 4th of July and his business where the flag was flying upside down along a planned parade route upset people. Unless there's more evidence to the contrary, like he was lobbing sandwich baggies full of Marine-poo at parade-goers or generally making a nuisance of himself isn't totally clear.

It sounds like a small-town mentality decision: we don't like what this guy is doing, take down his fucking flag.

Two: the unresolved issue is about the liquour license. Sometimes these things are very difficult to obtain and they obviously can make or break a business like a restaurant. We don't know why the license wasn't issued....there may be more to that. Maybe this ex-Marine is batshit insane. We don't know.

But it sounds like to me, if you watch the video, that he proceeded in improving and renovating his newly brought property under the assumption that he was given assurances by the local authorities that his liquour license was a foregone conclusion. Otherwise, why invest/borrow almost a quarter million dollars?

If that's the case, then this local townships government fucked up twice, if it can be proven that they withheld the license for ambiguous reasons.

You have to apply for liquour licenses, localities only have so many to give out, and if I'm not mistaken, the owner of the prospective business has to PAY for them, so in the case of the video, the municipality claiming "it's the economy" doesn't hold water, because they would make money off the sale of the license as well as the tax dollars generated afterwards.

Something doesn't add up, but I have a very dim view of cops just deciding that they can come and confiscate property without a warrant because THEY get to decide what's the law, or that some group of flag-waving blue-hairs are put out by having to witness the horror of an American flag flying upside down.

[mswas]

The police rarely make it a thing unless it's socially disruptive.

How are we defining socially disruptive? One or two people called to complain?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Oh bullshit. I generally dislike the ACLU because my dim view of them is that they grandstand on issues and try to draw attention to themselves rather than really giving two shits about what they are representing.

I did say "I dare to dream." I really didn't expect that you and the rest of your conservative ilk would suddenly judge the ACLU on the basis of what they do (as here, representing the homeowner) and instead continue to pout about how the ACLU "doesn't really give two shits" about what they are representing (without ever explaining how exactly you know what the ACLU gives any shits about* and why they engage in the work of representation if they don't actually care).

* Okay, I confess, I do know how exactly you've come to acquire this access to the private thoughts and sentiments of ACLU attorneys: Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity told you on Fox News, of course.

[mswas]

I did say "I dare to dream." I really didn't expect that you and the rest of your conservative ilk would suddenly judge the ACLU on the basis of what they do (as here, representing the homeowner) and instead continue to pout about how the ACLU "doesn't really give two shits" about what they are representing (without ever explaining how exactly you know what the ACLU gives any shits about* and why they engage in the work of representation if they don't actually care).

* Okay, I confess, I do know how exactly you've come to acquire this access to the private thoughts and sentiments of ACLU attorneys: Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity told you on Fox News, of course.

:D

Have I ever told you that I like you Kimmy?

[Guinastasia]

Of course, but there's a difference between a protester doing so in anger and an American Legion WW2 vet doing so in a ceremony, even if the end result is the same.


Maybe. But they still have a right to do so. To ban flag-burning, in my mind, makes a mockery of everything said flag stands for.

[mswas]

Maybe. But they still have a right to do so. To ban flag-burning, in my mind, makes a mockery of everything said flag stands for.

Agreed.

[ashman165]

The police rarely make it a thing unless it's socially disruptive.
[/QUOTE]

Not so much. The police do many things simply because they want to.

[SmashTheState]

It galls me when I read the quote from the neighbor, whom apparently had no problem with the guy or what he was doing, asking while witnessing the cops' actions "What are you doing"?

Response: "It's none of your business".

Well, uh, yes it is, officer! I am witnessing you violate my neighbor's Constitutional rights, asshole!

I see this sort of behaviour constantly, since I'm the organizer for the local copwatch program. When we stop to witness police doing illegal searches of people they've stopped for being poor, black, or (worse yet) poor and black, their first reaction is always, "Move along or I'll arrest you for obstruct." To which my response is always to hold out my wrists and invite them to do so. Not even the stupidest meathead steroid-case has taken me up on my offer.

To quote Frederick Douglass, "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted."

[ashman165]

I see this sort of behaviour constantly, since I'm the organizer for the local copwatch program. When we stop to witness police doing illegal searches of people they've stopped for being poor, black, or (worse yet) poor and black, their first reaction is always, "Move along or I'll arrest you for obstruct." To which my response is always to hold out my wrists and invite them to do so. Not even the stupidest meathead steroid-case has taken me up on my offer.

To quote Frederick Douglass, "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted."

Yes, please tell us more about how what happens in Canada bears on an American citizen flying his American Flag upside down on the American Independence Day Celebration in an American City under the Constitution of the United States of America. I'm sure any anecdote you tell us will be highly relevant because, after all, Canada has the exact same laws as America.

[mswas]

Yes, please tell us more about how what happens in Canada bears on an American citizen flying his American Flag upside down on the American Independence Day Celebration in an American City under the Constitution of the United States of America. I'm sure any anecdote you tell us will be highly relevant because, after all, Canada has the exact same laws as America.

I've participated in copwatch before, and what he says applies equally in the United States.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I did say "I dare to dream." I really didn't expect that you and the rest of your conservative ilk would suddenly judge the ACLU on the basis of what they do (as here, representing the homeowner) and instead continue to pout about how the ACLU "doesn't really give two shits" about what they are representing (without ever explaining how exactly you know what the ACLU gives any shits about* and why they engage in the work of representation if they don't actually care).

* Okay, I confess, I do know how exactly you've come to acquire this access to the private thoughts and sentiments of ACLU attorneys: Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity told you on Fox News, of course.

Soooo....the ACLU is a bastion of freedom representation in your mind?

And way to parse the rest of my post avoiding to get at the root of the problem, which is the reason this guy's liquour license was denied in the first place. He may have a valid and litigatory gripe, or maybe he's a fucking loon. Do we know? No. Get your facts straight.

Your FOX NEWS accusations are laughable. Yes, I linked to a Fox news story in this instance. It was the only one I could find.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Soooo....the ACLU is a bastion of freedom representation in your mind?

Well, obviously, yes. I love it when conservatives ask this kind of question, thinking liberals are like unicorns and never actually encountered in real life or on internet message boards. Then, the liberal to whom this question is put answers, as I have answered, in the affirmative. The conservative, taken aback to be in the presence of such an exotic creature, then lamely counters with "Awwww, what do you know anyhow?" So, coming up in three... two... one...

And way to parse the rest of my post avoiding to get at the root of the problem, which is the reason this guy's liquour license was denied in the first place. He may have a valid and litigatory gripe, or maybe he's a fucking loon. Do we know? No. Get your facts straight.

This isn't the issue at all. I don't care whether the city is tyrannically withholding the license, or if the homeowner was just out to ruin somebody's Fourth of July, or if he believes Gozer told him to do it. You don't lose your speech rights just because you are using them to advance baseless arguments or to foment social or political dissatisfaction or to witness for ancient Sumerian cults. Indeed, if free speech rights could be lost because you had to use them to advance well-reasoned, factually-supported arguments without incendiary rhetoric, your Fox news network would have been yanked off the air long ago.

[Elendil's Heir]

The only difference is what the flag burners are thinking about while doing the flag burning.

Well, not entirely. A diligent police officer would have to consider the impact of the conduct on those nearby. In exceedingly rare cases, a flag-burning protest might cause a breach of the peace by provoking onlookers. In those uncommon cases, the officer would be acting properly to arrest the flag-burner and extinguish the flag. No ceremonial flag-burning by the American Legion, Boy Scouts, Elks, etc. has ever caused a riot, to my knowledge.

Both forms of flag destruction are constitutionally protected, I agree. No legislature may prohibit them. But only one might realistically lead to a breach of the peace and justify police intervention, which the Supreme Court noted in Spence v. Washington, a 1974 case very similar to that in the OP: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=418&invol=405

[ashman165]

I've participated in copwatch before, and what he says applies equally in the United States.

Allow me to translate: I've participated in Copwatch before, so his experience under the Canadian Constitution is informative of how things operate under the American Constitution.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Well, obviously, yes. I love it when conservatives ask this kind of question, thinking liberals are like unicorns and never actually encountered in real life or on internet message boards. Then, the liberal to whom this question is put answers, as I have answered, in the affirmative. The conservative, taken aback to be in the presence of such an exotic creature, then lamely counters with "Awwww, what do you know anyhow?" So, coming up in three... two... one...



This isn't the issue at all. I don't care whether the city is tyrannically withholding the license, or if the homeowner was just out to ruin somebody's Fourth of July, or if he believes Gozer told him to do it. You don't lose your speech rights just because you are using them to advance baseless arguments or to foment social or political dissatisfaction or to witness for ancient Sumerian cults. Indeed, if free speech rights could be lost because you had to use them to advance well-reasoned, factually-supported arguments without incendiary rhetoric, your Fox news network would have been yanked off the air long ago.

Why do you keep calling me a conservative? Because I hold an opinion about the ACLU? Only conservatives distrust them? I'm not saying they are inherently bad as an institution. But I think that sometimes they overstep their bounds within the context of what they are trying to accomplish.

Look Gibbler, I agree with you, I think this guy's rights were violated. Is it a huge deal in the grand scheme of things? I suppose not, and in this particular instance I have no problem with the ACLU representing this guy. Maybe I wasn't clear about that.

But the underlying issue beyond that (the REASON this guy was flying the flag upside down in the first place) is WHY he wasn't issued his liquour license. He had to have been operating under the assumption that he was given assurances by the local govt that he would receive one, otherwise, why bother with borrowing all that money in the first place? Restaurants with liquour licenses generally are far more profitable than those without, as the markup on alcohol is much higher than on food.

The whole business seems shady and unclear.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Why do you keep calling me a conservative? Because I hold an opinion about the ACLU? Only conservatives distrust them?
"Distrust" them? Distrust them to do what? What do you think they're going to do to you?
But I think that sometimes they overstep their bounds within the context of what they are trying to accomplish.
Examples? What are their "bounds?" How do they overstep them, and how does that hurt you?

I find that most people who bitch about the ACLU have very little idea of what it actually does. What do you actually know about it?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

"Distrust" them? Distrust them to do what? What do you think they're going to do to you?

Examples? What are their "bounds?" How do they overstep them, and how does that hurt you?

I find that most people who bitch about the ACLU have very little idea of what it actually does. What do you actually know about it?

It was founded in the early 20th century, it has a lobbying arm and a litiguous arm, it has taken controversial positions on some issues.

They were against the sex offender reporting law, I disagree with them on that.

More recently, they defended the "right" of the Westboro Church and the loathsome Phelps family to be present at military funerals with their "God Hates Fags" message of love, which REALLY chaps my hide.

The are actively trying to denude Christmas of all it's religious context, which I am in opposition to.

They don't support capital punishment and support their argument that it's somehow unfair to minorities, which I think is bullshit.

I'm sure there's more, if I bothered to look it up.

Again, as an instituition, they aren't reprehensible. In fact, I think the institution is inherently good.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

They were against the sex offender reporting law, I disagree with them on that.
On what legal basis?
More recently, they defended the "right" of the Westboro Church and the loathsome Phelps family to be present at military funerals with their "God Hates Fags" message of love, which REALLY chaps my hide.
Do you have a problem with the 1st Amendment? As loathsome as the Phleps clan may be, does that mean they should not be allowed free speech?
The are actively trying to denude Christmas of all it's religious context, which I am in opposition to.
Cite?
They don't support capital punishment and support their argument that it's somehow unfair to minorities, which I think is bullshit.

That the DP is unfairly applied to minorities is pretty much irrefutable. You disagree?
I'm sure there's more, if I bothered to look it up.

Again, as an instituition, they aren't reprehensible. In fact, I think the institution is inherently good.
So what you're saying is that you don't trust them because sometimes they take positions you don't agree with or defend civil rights that you don't think should be defended?

Can you name a way in which the ACLU has ever harmed you?

And really -- you buy into the "war on Christmas" bullshit? I thought you were a little brighter than that.

[jtgain]

I think the problem here is that there is no effective remedy for the police violating a person's rights. There is no doubt in my mind that the mayor said, "Look, I don't care about this guy's rights, take the damn flag down so it doesn't mess with our parade. We'll give it back to him tomorrow and worry about the ACLU then".

I think we need criminal penalties against law enforcement who violate the 1st and 4th amendments.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

On what legal basis?

Do you have a problem with the 1st Amendment? As loathsome as the Phleps clan may be, does that mean they should not be allowed free speech?

Cite?


That the DP is unfairly applied to minorities is pretty much irrefutable. You disagree?

So what you're saying is that you don't trust them because sometimes they take positions you don't agree with or defend civil rights that you don't think should be defended?

Can you name a way in which the ACLU has ever harmed you?

And really -- you buy into the "war on Christmas" bullshit? I thought you were a little brighter than that.

I don't think it's so much a "war" on Christmas a gradual erosion of what are to many, cherished principles behind the meaning of Christmas. You know, shit like WalMart telling it's employees not to say "Merry Christmas" and all that.

I honestly don't know for certain what the ACLU's position is on religious freedom other than to suggest that if it "offends someone's sensibilities" then it must be wrong.

No, the ACLU has never harmed me personally, and again, I am glad they exist. Maybe I will need their protection someday.

How is the DP unfairly applied to minorites? People that committ extremely heinous crimes in a state where the DP is applicable risk being put to death, regardless of their color.

If you're going to talk about the past and how black people were regularly railroaded into convictions for crimes they didn't commit just because they were black, I'm not denying that. We've come a long way in that regard, and institutions like the ACLU, NAACP have ensured that progression.

As far as the Phelps family goes, I don't think they have the right to protest at someone's funeral in the disrespectful way that they do. I think them exercising their Constitutional rights as funeral protesters infringes on the constitutional rights of the dead servicemember's family to have a respectful service for their loved one.

[ashman165]

I don't think it's so much a "war" on Christmas a gradual erosion of what are to many, cherished principles behind the meaning of Christmas. You know, shit like WalMart telling it's employees not to say "Merry Christmas" and all that.

Well, just note that as societies progress, they inevitably get rid of their superstitions (gods and what not). Christmas is an amalgam of plenty of pagan rituals wrapped up in the bible. As the knowledge of mankind progresses, it's natural that such fantasies will fade away. If they hasten the death of this nonsense, I'll consider donating.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I don't think it's so much a "war" on Christmas a gradual erosion of what are to many, cherished principles behind the meaning of Christmas.
What principles is the ACLU eroding?
You know, shit like WalMart telling it's employees not to say "Merry Christmas" and all that.What does the ACLU have to do with how Wal-Mart tells its employees to greet customers?

Do you think that Wal-Mart doesn't have a right to tell its employees how to greet customers? Do you think Wal-Mart should be forced by law to allow its employees to spout religious messages at customers?
I honestly don't know for certain what the ACLU's position is on religious freedom other than to suggest that if it "offends someone's sensibilities" then it must be wrong.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that most people who bash the ACLU have no idea what they're talking about. Can you support your contention at all? The ACLU works to defend religious liberties against the government (and that includes defending a lot of Christians against infringements in public schools and the like). What confuses people is that they also work to defend the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and preserve the separation of church and state. The stuff that invariably gets people riled up is when they're trying to stop the government from endorsing specific religious mesages. The ACLU never tries to stop citizens from doing it.
How is the DP unfairly applied to minorites? People that committ extremely heinous crimes in a state where the DP is applicable risk being put to death, regardless of their color.
Minorities are far more likely to be convicted, and are far more likely to be wrongfully convicted.

As far as the Phelps family goes, I don't think they have the right to protest at someone's funeral in the disrespectful way that they do.
The Constitution says otherwise (as long as the protest is being done in a public space).
I think them exercising their Constitutional rights as funeral protesters infringes on the constitutional rights of the dead servicemember's family to have a respectful service for their loved one.
Where does the Constution say you ever have the right not to hear speech you don't like on public property?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

No the CNO reports to the SecNav, and the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff.

Look at the Joint Chief's, Army, Navy, And Air Force. No Marine they are repersented by the CNO. And no Coast Guard, they are not a part of the department of defence.

Peter Pace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pace) begs to disagree with you.

[Polycarp]

I don't think it's so much a "war" on Christmas a gradual erosion of what are to many, cherished principles behind the meaning of Christmas. You know, shit like WalMart telling it's employees not to say "Merry Christmas" and all that.

I honestly don't know for certain what the ACLU's position is on religious freedom other than to suggest that if it "offends someone's sensibilities" then it must be wrong.

No, the ACLU has never harmed me personally, and again, I am glad they exist. Maybe I will need their protection someday.

How is the DP unfairly applied to minorites? People that committ extremely heinous crimes in a state where the DP is applicable risk being put to death, regardless of their color.

If you're going to talk about the past and how black people were regularly railroaded into convictions for crimes they didn't commit just because they were black, I'm not denying that. We've come a long way in that regard, and institutions like the ACLU, NAACP have ensured that progression.

As far as the Phelps family goes, I don't think they have the right to protest at someone's funeral in the disrespectful way that they do. I think them exercising their Constitutional rights as funeral protesters infringes on the constitutional rights of the dead servicemember's family to have a respectful service for their loved one.

Mext time you post, inform yourself first. The ACLU's position on religious freedom is very clearly stated on their website, and exemplified by the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause cases they take. (For the record, I disagree with a few of their positions, like efforts to remove symbolicl references to religiously-based history in municipal seals and such.)

And it's a non-controversial fact that the death penalty has been applied unfairly, in a manner that discriminates against blacks, in North Carolina -- liberals and conservatives, pro- and anti-death penalty, joined together to call for a state moratorium on executions. It is a demonstrable fact that blacks convicted of capital murder get the death penalty at a much higher rate than whites, apparently even crimes with the same level of heinousness.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Mext time you post, inform yourself first. The ACLU's position on religious freedom is very clearly stated on their website, and exemplified by the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause cases they take. (For the record, I disagree with a few of their positions, like efforts to remove symbolicl references to religiously-based history in municipal seals and such.)

And it's a non-controversial fact that the death penalty has been applied unfairly, in a manner that discriminates against blacks, in North Carolina -- liberals and conservatives, pro- and anti-death penalty, joined together to call for a state moratorium on executions. It is a demonstrable fact that blacks convicted of capital murder get the death penalty at a much higher rate than whites, apparently even crimes with the same level of heinousness.

Well, ignorance fought and all...does that death penalty rate for blacks versus whites apply in every state in the Union that has the DP, or just in North Carolina?

[Polycarp]

Well, ignorance fought and all...does that death penalty rate for blacks versus whites apply in every state in the Union that has the DP, or just in North Carolina?

I did mean in this state, the one place that I have read the pertinent data on. I don't know the case elsewhere.

[SmashTheState]

I think we need criminal penalties against law enforcement who violate the 1st and 4th amendments.

To quote Rudolf Rocker, "Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are rather forced upon them from without. They do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace."

You can set all the criminal penalties you like and it won't mean a tinker's damn out on the streets where you can get shot 41 times with impunity by the police for the "crime" of existing while black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo). It's about taking back our own streets. We need more copwatch programs, more people willing to step forward and question the police when they're actually engaged in the criminal activity, not weeks later when the damage is already done. Giving police free rein to do as they please is the one sure-fire recipe for a police state.

Allow me to translate: I've participated in Copwatch before, so his experience under the Canadian Constitution is informative of how things operate under the American Constitution.

What does the constitution have to do with anything I described? I was writing about the behaviour of police, a psychological phenomenon irrespective of any constitution. I was affirming that I had personally witnessed such behaviour by police -- and the respondent likewise affirmed that she or he had also witnessed such behaviour.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

To quote Rudolf Rocker, "Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are rather forced upon them from without. They do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace."

You can set all the criminal penalties you like and it won't mean a tinker's damn out on the streets where you can get shot 41 times with impunity by the police for the "crime" of existing while black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo). It's about taking back our own streets. We need more copwatch programs, more people willing to step forward and question the police when they're actually engaged in the criminal activity, not weeks later when the damage is already done. Giving police free rein to do as they please is the one sure-fire recipe for a police state.



What does the constitution have to do with anything I described? I was writing about the behaviour of police, a psychological phenomenon irrespective of any constitution. I was affirming that I had personally witnessed such behaviour by police -- and the respondent likewise affirmed that she or he had also witnessed such behaviour.

I have to say that I admire your conviction, even if I don't generally agree with anything you say.

[Guinastasia]

I don't think it's so much a "war" on Christmas a gradual erosion of what are to many, cherished principles behind the meaning of Christmas. You know, shit like WalMart telling it's employees not to say "Merry Christmas" and all that.


Cite that this has happened? And even if it has, WalMart is a PRIVATELY OWNED CORPORATION. The ACLU has no jurisdiction over WalMart's so-called "War on Christmas." (Hell, if they wanted to, WM could instruct their employees to say, "Fuck you!" if they so wished, and the ACLU couldn't do jack)




As far as the Phelps family goes, I don't think they have the right to protest at someone's funeral in the disrespectful way that they do. I think them exercising their Constitutional rights as funeral protesters infringes on the constitutional rights of the dead servicemember's family to have a respectful service for their loved one.

As long as Phelps and Co. stays on private property, and isn't making too much of a scene (screaming, yelling, throwing things), then too bad. You do NOT have a right "not to be offended." I don't like them, and I wish they'd go away as well. BUT, if the law doesn't protect them, how can I ask it to protect me as well?

[Saint Cad]

Minorities are far more likely to be convicted, and are far more likely to be wrongfully convicted.


Then the problem is with the system, not the DP itself

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So what?

[TruCelt]

If I were driving through a neighborhood and saw a flag upside down I'd assume that the person was being held captive in their home (or something equally bizarre*) and trying to signal for help.

Isn't an upside down flag a universal signal for distress?

I don't think the police were justified in what they did, but I'd have asked to remove it because it would worry people unecessarily and possibly waste 911's time answering calls.



*It's really quite difficult to think of a scenario that would fit, but I have heard of elderly folks being held captive and their neighbors not knowing for weeks.

[mswas]

Allow me to translate: I've participated in Copwatch before, so his experience under the Canadian Constitution is informative of how things operate under the American Constitution.

No, that does not resemble what I said in any way.

[Guinastasia]

If I were driving through a neighborhood and saw a flag upside down I'd assume that the person was being held captive in their home (or something equally bizarre*) and trying to signal for help.

Isn't an upside down flag a universal signal for distress?

I don't think the police were justified in what they did, but I'd have asked to remove it because it would worry people unecessarily and possibly waste 911's time answering calls.



*It's really quite difficult to think of a scenario that would fit, but I have heard of elderly folks being held captive and their neighbors not knowing for weeks.


:dubious:

That's NOT what is meant by "distress signal." Basically, an "upside-down flag" symbolizes that the NATION is in jeopardy. Not, "HELP!!! I'M BEING HELD HOSTAGE!!!!"

That's why said moronic neighbor of mine is flying her's upside-down. She had all these hard-core, "NObama!!!" "Obama is a Socialist!" signs up during the election, (nothing wrong to those who voted for McCain, peeps, just this person in particular), and then a few days after the election -- BAM!!! Her flag is flying upside down. Weird. I mean, I loathed Bush, but I don't think I'd have flown an upside-down flag when HE was in office.

[Indistinguishable]

Where do you get the idea that an upside-down flag only symbolizes jeopardy to the nation as a whole, rather than to any mere individual?

[Guinastasia]

Where do you get the idea that an upside-down flag only symbolizes jeopardy to the nation as a whole, rather than to any mere individual?


Because I've always been told that you only fly the flag upside down at times when our nation is in jeopardy, and such. Not when you need to signal someone to call the police.

[Alessan]

See, this is what happens when you have an asymmetrical flag. I bet the Brits don't get these problems!

[Indistinguishable]

Well, you can fly the British flag mirrored, I suppose, but the effect is subtle.

[C3]

If I were driving through a neighborhood and saw a flag upside down I'd assume that the person was being held captive in their home (or something equally bizarre*) and trying to signal for help.

Isn't an upside down flag a universal signal for distress?

I don't think the police were justified in what they did, but I'd have asked to remove it because it would worry people unecessarily and possibly waste 911's time answering calls.



*It's really quite difficult to think of a scenario that would fit, but I have heard of elderly folks being held captive and their neighbors not knowing for weeks.

Would you really think that's what was going on if you saw a flag flying upside down? I'd probably think it was some loonball protesting Obama. I'm having a hard time imagining someone in distress who wouldn't be able to signal for help in any other way except digging through their closet to find the flag, going outside, and hooking it up so it flew upside down. I don't think there would really be a flood of 911 calls by worried neighbors.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Because I've always been told that you only fly the flag upside down at times when our nation is in jeopardy, and such. Not when you need to signal someone to call the police.
It was originally a distress symbol for ships at sea. It's never had any official meaning that "the country is in jeopardy." It means the same as "SOS." People who say they fly it because "the country is in jeopardy" are just being figurative.

[Guinastasia]

Ah, okay. Didn't know that. So then it's merely symbolic if you want to do it in times of war and such. Thanks, Dio!

[ashman165]

It was originally a distress symbol for ships at sea. It's never had any official meaning that "the country is in jeopardy." It means the same as "SOS." People who say they fly it because "the country is in jeopardy" are just being figurative.

Or not. You don't know what they believe; and in this case, the dude seems to think that this is an example of some greater malady. The inverted flag is a sign of duress in the Army, where it can't be rightly argued it means "save our ship".

[Alessan]

Well, you can fly the British flag mirrored, I suppose, but the effect is subtle.

The Japanese, then. Or the Scandinavians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nordiske-flag.jpg)!

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Well, you can fly the British flag mirrored, I suppose, but the effect is subtle.


Hence my confusion reading this thread about the fuss. Googling reveals the Stars and Stripes doubles as the US naval ensign, whereas the UK has a dedicated ensign, so we don't have any tradition of flying the Jack upside down implying distress (in fact, the design of our flag encourages it).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Or not. You don't know what they believe; and in this case, the dude seems to think that this is an example of some greater malady.
I don't care what he thinks. I know what the inverted flag means in the military, and it does NOT mean "country in distress." If he was in the Marines, he knows that too.
The inverted flag is a sign of duress in the Army, where it can't be rightly argued it means "save our ship".
They use "SOS" in the Army too. They use it in the Boy Scouts. You don't need a ship.

As I said, the symbol originated as a Navy distress symbol for ships at sea. It is now a more general distress symbol, but "country in distress" is a purely political use of the symbol, not any kind of military meaning.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Typically, Marines are not crybabies, so, me being the military man I am, am going to operate under the assumption that he has a valid gripe until I see otherwise.

I think it is BS to give a military man any more leeway than a draft-dodger when it comes to this stuff(its like letting an off duty cop get away with double parking because he's a cop). With that said, the guys has the right to fly his flag upside down or inside out if that is what he wants to do. If we still let guys with swastikas and white hoods have parades on on main street, I think our republic can handle a guy flying his flag upside down.

[kaylasdad99]

No the CNO reports to the SecNav, and the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff.Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps#United_States_Navy) Both the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and Commandant of the Marine Corps report directly to the Secretary of the Navy.Look at the Joint Chief's, Army, Navy, And Air Force. No Marine they are repersented by the CNO.Really? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff#Current_Joint_Chiefs_of_Staff)The Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) is the highest-ranking officer in the United States Marine Corps and is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.[1] The CMC reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy but not to the Chief of Naval Operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant_of_the_Marine_Corps) And no Coast Guard, they are not a part of the department of defence.Correct. The USCG is a part of the Department of Homeland Security (up until 2002 it was attached to the DOT).

[Sailboat]

But someone facing a delay in his liquor license doesn't rise to the level of the country being in distress. What's next. "Oh, I got a speeding ticket I didn't deserve. Honey, flip the flag again."? That said, he's got a right to do it, just like he has the right to be a dick.

Flying the flag upside-down doesn't indicate the country is in distress, it indicates the party flying the flag is in distress.

[Gorsnak]

The Japanese, then. Or the Scandinavians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nordiske-flag.jpg)!

My God! Those are all upside down!!!