Clark elaborates on flag position

<snip>

Those in power ought to respect the opinions of others, Clark said, but he added that people shouldn't burn flags to express their discontent. When one listener asked whether Clark would support a constitutional amendment banning flag burning, the retired general said he would, if the American public supported one.

"I believe in the right to disagree in dialogue, but the flag has a special place," he said. "It should stand above politics. It should stand above dissent."

<snip>

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/clark_111403_2003.shtml

An important clarification.

Still, I disagree with him. I don't think any symbol stands above dissent.

Clark as an honorable member of the military looks at the flag differently than those of us who have never served. His respect comes from a different place. They take their flags very seriously in the military. Where it is flown, how it is flown, when it is flown. And mlitary rules dictate that when the flag is worn or dirty it is to be cut up and burned..

And that's where I find Clark's position kind of odd. He above anyone else should realize that I think our sybolic flag is dirty and worn. I refuse to fly a flag that represents what ours does right now. Burning it is our way of saying that the ideals sybolized by the flag need renewing.

Idunno. This is not an issue for me. I don't expect many Americans to put as much time and thought into the issue as I do, and, like Clark, whatever the people want is fine. If I feel the need to burn a flag, I'll determine on my own if it is worth breaking the law.

At first I kinda held it against Clark when I found out about his stance, but not anymore. No reason to hold a grudge over this issue.

Except maybe I hold a grudge against someone who thinks I should be allowed to burn it but wants to punch me in the mouth for it. I expect a presidential candidate who criticizes the president about this war to understand the basic principle that violence is not a means of diplomacy.

I'm a Clark supporter but I'm disappointed by his position on this issue.

Joe Conason published an old Colin Powell quote the other day. It's a far more rational position on the flag and freedom of speech:

"The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away."

It shows that he gets what America is all about. Too many people lack this understand. Unfortunately, General Clark seems to also. I am very disappointed. I have been a big supporter of Clark, but this shakes my resolve.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

in fact, dissent is the symbol that shouldn't be burned

The flag is a garment...it's cotton strung together to make a picture of the stars and bars...its the stars and bars themselves that have the meaning...the symbol of the country that the stars and bars represent.

Burning the flag is not important. Saying you can't burn the flag is horrendous.

Isn't that the ultimate form of protest in this coutry?

it's only an extreme form of protest because so many are taught to worship the flag

I would rather you burn the flag than burn the constitution to save the flag...or something to that effect.

When you raise a symbol "above the fray" of public debate, you in essence iconify, sanctify, deify it. And that is not only wrong, it's dangerous.

The flag represents many things to many people. But in essence, it is a piece of cloth certainly not above the realm of public discourse.

Also, just because something "has the backing of the American people" doesn't make it right, or in spirit with our constitution. Remember that at one time a majority of Americans supported slavery.

We are not in a country "of the right" or ruled "by the right". This is a country of the people, ruled by the people, for the people. Whatever is the will of the people, should be the will of their elected government representative. It made me sick when Dean said in a Debate, "I don't care if most people in the country disagree with me, I'm going to do it because I think it's right". Well, you know what....it says, "We The People"...... NOT "I, Dean"!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you're living in the wrong country. You move

was OK with you? After all...the majority of the people spoke....

And how in the hell do you determine the will of the people?! This sounds an awful lot like the nonsense that Rousseau spouted about his direct Democracy....

Truth is, our Founders realived that the will of the majority could be tyrannical which is why the developed institutional protections for the minority and individual in this country...

So a leader may in fact be standing up to the tyranny of the majority....as he did when he signed the civil unions bill as Gov., not because himself or the majority of voters supported it...but because it was the right thing to do....We The People of Vermont be damned!

Doesn't surprise me.

He sees all through militarisitc eyes. Haven't Democrats gotten sick enough of the flag waving nationalists in this country? Do some want to support and vote for one to be president because he put a "D" before his name?

Not I! I will fight w/everything I have to keep my Freedom of Speech!

I do not trust clark w/our Constitution!