My 2nd Column Ran Today

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldn...e/j29common.htm

 

Here's my second column for the Herald. I can't believe there is a newspaper paying me to rant like I do on Soxtalk.

[southsider2k5]

Damn I thought my letter would get your anti-American ass fired. :angry

[Steff]

Congrats LCR!!!

[kapkomet]

Cool... glad you're getting to do what you want to do!

[JUGGERNAUT]

Should we call you Neil now?

 

I basically agree with what you said. But I can see the other side of the argument as well. If the American Flag transcends all other symbols as a representation of America then burning it is equivalent to saying "death to America".

 

The action in & of itself is not an act of treason but if it were to inspire acts of civil unrest or disobedience then it can be. With respect to treason if there exists a more substanitive cause other than flag burning then the courts should recognize the act of flag burning as admissable evidence supporting that cause. In short, whether flag burnig is considered a harmless act or indicative of treason should be decided on a case by case

basis.

[Balance]

Nice article. The best reason NOT to burn the flag is because we have the right to!

[Balance]

Should we call you Neil now?  

 

I basically agree with what you said.  But I can see the other side of the argument as well.  If the American Flag transcends all other symbols as a representation of America then burning it is equivalent to saying "death to America". 

 

The action in & of itself is not an act of treason but if it were to inspire acts of civil unrest or disobedience then it can be.  With respect to treason if there exists a more substanitive cause other than flag burning then the courts should recognize the act of flag burning as admissable evidence supporting that cause.  In short, whether flag burnig is considered a harmless act or indicative of treason should be decided on a case by case

basis.

Treason?

 

That's a very large stretch. Are you saying that if person "A" burns a flag, and person "B" starts rioting, then person "A" has committed treason? It seems to me that you'd be holding person "A" responsible for the actions of person "B", over whom he has no control. That doesn't seem like justice.

[KipWellsFan]

Great read

 

here's proof the Republicans are already using this crap

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/byrdad.mov

[JUGGERNAUT]

Treason?

 

That's a very large stretch.  Are you saying that if person "A" burns a flag, and person "B" starts rioting, then person "A" has committed treason?  It seems to me that you'd be holding person "A" responsible for the actions of person "B", over whom he has no control.  That doesn't seem like justice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Specifically wrt to treason there would need to be a more substantitive cause such as suspect relationships with terrorists, or enemies of the state (N Korea for example).

 

However outside of treason, if there is strong evidence suggesting person B commited a crime as a result of the flag burning then it is reasonable to charge person A as an accomplice. It's one of the risks one takes when one commits an act equating to "death to America" for the world to see.

[Balance]

(snip)

However outside of treason, if there is strong evidence suggesting person B commited a crime as a result of the flag burning then it is reasonable to charge person A as an accomplice.  It's one of the risks one takes when one commits an act equating to "death to America" for the world to see.

Could you please expand on this a little?

 

Let's just say there's a guy on the street with an American flag. Maybe he's in the Daley Center Plaza. And, saying nothing to anyone, he sets the flag on fire. (Maybe he uses the eternal flame at the plaza to ignite it.)

 

Aside from someone coming up and kicking his ass, which technically is a crime, how would you say the flag-burner provoked anyone else into committing a crime, to the extent that the flag-burner was his "accomplice"?

[Heads22]

Well, I've been published at least 15 times this summer, so you can bite me, LCR.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Well, I've been published at least 15 times this summer, so you can bite me, LCR.

I got a column running every 4 weeks for this paper...so I'll be catching up!

[Heads22]

Yah, but are you getting any pictures published?

[JUGGERNAUT]

Could you please expand on this a little?

 

Let's just say there's a guy on the street with an American flag.  Maybe he's in the Daley Center Plaza.  And, saying nothing to anyone, he sets the flag on fire.  (Maybe he uses the eternal flame at the plaza to ignite it.)

 

Aside from someone coming up and kicking his ass, which technically is a crime, how would you say the flag-burner provoked anyone else into committing a crime, to the extent that the flag-burner was his "accomplice"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Think of it in terms of ambiguities. What does a "death to America" flag burning event mean? Unless the burner clearly defines that in his demonstration it's reasonable for the prosecution to define it in the most general & expansive terms imaginable.

 

Let's follow thru with your example. Guy A burns the flag which inspires guy B to assault a cop. Is it reasonable to suggest that Guy A's demonstration was a message to guy B to assault the cop? Yes. Because the American flag is a universal symbol for America burning it equates to "death to America". A cop is a representation of America in human terms.

[Heads22]

Since when does a cop represent America? Unless, of-course, you're talking about übertrendy hats.

[YASNY]

LCR ... That, sir, is a great column. I agree with your reasoning 100%. A tip of the Sox cap to you and

Edited August 2, 2005 by YASNY

[Balance]

Think of it in terms of ambiguities.  What does a "death to America" flag burning event mean?  Unless the burner clearly defines that in his demonstration it's reasonable for the prosecution to define it in the most general & expansive terms imaginable. 

 

Let's follow thru with your example.  Guy A burns the flag which inspires guy B to assault a cop.  Is it reasonable to suggest that Guy A's demonstration was a message to guy B to assault the cop?  Yes.  Because the American flag is a universal symbol for America burning it equates to "death to America". A cop is a representation of America in human terms.

In terms of the law, an accomplice must knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally assist another person in the commission of a crime. A good example of an accomplice is the person who drives the getaway car in a robbery. In my example, I was describing a person who did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally assist person B in attacking a policeman. In the eyes of the law, that is not an "accomplice" situation.

 

I don't agree with you that burning a flag exclusively means "death to America." For starters, that's how you dispose of a torn or otherwise damaged flag. Boy scouts burn flags that have been damaged. Other people have, in the past, chosen to burn flags to criticize the government or its policies. Some people have indeed burned the flag and intended it to mean "death to America," but that's not the only possible meaning.

 

Now, equating a policeman to "a representation of America in human terms" is a pretty big stretch. For starters, policemen are agents of the city or state, not the USA. Secondly, this person you describe, who's so possessed with rage at the site of a burning flag that he is compelled to lash out at a perceived symbol of America? I don't buy it. And I can't possibly see how you could hold the flag-burner accountable for that second person's actions.

[Chisoxfn]

Yah, but are you getting any pictures published?

I'd pay money not to see those pictures

 

Good stuff Neil