People will bitch about anything

[Ken King]

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

A few minor changes were made a year later during the Flag Day 1924 Conference, It was not until June 22, 1942 that Congress passed a joint resolution which was amended on December 22, 1942 to become Public Law 829; Chapter 806, 77th Congress, 2nd session. Exact rules for use and display of the flag (36 U.S.C. 173-178) as well as associated sections (36 U.S.C. 171) Conduct during Playing of the National Anthem, (36 U.S.C. 172) the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and Manner of Delivery were included.

This code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes. It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia. Each state has its own flag law.

And in July 1976 the "Flag Code" was moved to Title 4 of the United States Code and is no longer in Title 36. As to the state laws (the few I have checked) seem to state that the individual/s that "mutilate, deface, destroy, burn, trample or use a flag", must have the intent to incite or produce an imminent breach of the peace or that the act is likely to cause that result.

 

[Inkd]

And in July 1976 the "Flag Code" was moved to Title 4 of the United States Code and is no longer in Title 36. As to the state laws (the few I have checked) seem to state that the individual/s that "mutilate, deface, destroy, burn, trample or use a flag", must have the intent to incite or produce an imminent breach of the peace or that the act is likely to cause that result.

I was going to look up some state laws but some other stuff came up.

I honestly never gave much thought to states laws in relations to violation of the flag code. I was subject to the UCMJ most of my adult life and knew that I would, and should have been, held to a higher standard.

 

[Ken King]

I was going to look up some state laws but some other stuff came up.

I honestly never gave much thought to states laws in relations to violation of the flag code. I was subject to the UCMJ most of my adult life and knew that I would, and should have been, held to a higher standard.

You might still be subject to the UCMJ if retired and receiving pay. 10USC802

 

[Inkd]

You might still be subject to the UCMJ if retired and receiving pay. 10USC802

I believe I am up till I am placed on the retired list?

 

[inkah]

Not even going to bother myself with this thread or the moronic idea that that flag is somehow more important than the life it cradles. You people are off your effin rockers if you dare suggest it does. If that baby's Mommy and Daddy can put their lives on the line to make sure that flag can keep flying for you fabric-worshipping weirdos, then you damn well better be willing to swaddle that baby in it. ESPECIALLY if that baby grows up to support your silly ideals with his or her life someday. If you are looking for power, unity, freedom and honor, that photo depicts all those things and more 100x over fabric flapping in the wind. The flag should be about the PEOPLE, NOT the other way around.

Dear Lord, what are we coming to.

 

[PsyOps]

Not even going to bother myself with this thread or the moronic idea that that flag is somehow more important than the life it cradles. You people are off your effin rockers if you dare suggest it does. If that baby's Mommy and Daddy can put their lives on the line to make sure that flag can keep flying for you fabric-worshipping weirdos, then you damn well better be willing to swaddle that baby in it. ESPECIALLY if that baby grows up to support your silly ideals with his or her life someday. If you are looking for power, unity, freedom and honor, that photo depicts all those things and more 100x over fabric flapping in the wind. The flag should be about the PEOPLE, NOT the other way around.

Dear Lord, what are we coming to.

The ONLY thing I have tried to state is how these rules apply to the military; NOT civilians. You can like it or not, but the military are held to a different standard than civilians. The person in the OP photo is apparently in the Navy. They are misusing the American flag according to the Flag Code; and I have shown what part of the code it violates. I have also shown, at least with the AF Instructions (and I’m sure there is a Navy counterpart regulation), which references the Flag Code as a guide (and even quotes parts of it word-for-word), where members of the Air Force COULD BE punished for it. I am, in no way stating agreement or disagreement with this; I am simply stating what it is. This is at the heart of the discussion for me… If the photo was of a civilian I wouldn’t even be having this conversation. But it was a person allegedly in the military and that person COULD be punished for misused of the flag.

 

[Ken King]

I have also shown, at least with the AF Instructions (and I’m sure there is a Navy counterpart regulation), which references the Flag Code as a guide (and even quotes parts of it word-for-word), where members of the Air Force COULD BE punished for it.

The instruction you linked states - "This instruction establishes policy and provides guidance for excellence in protocol, decorum, customs and courtesies during Air Force ceremonies, conferences and social events; in hosting distinguished visitors; and in honors afforded at military funerals." As the "incident" was not a military ceremony, conference, social event, nor was it about hosting distinguished visitors, nor related to honors at a military funeral, how could a member of the military be punished for violating that instruction?

 

[PsyOps]

The instruction you linked states - "This instruction establishes policy and provides guidance for excellence in protocol, decorum, customs and courtesies during Air Force ceremonies, conferences and social events; in hosting distinguished visitors; and in honors afforded at military funerals." As the "incident" was not a military ceremony, conference, social event, nor was it about hosting distinguished visitors, nor related to honors at a military funeral, how could a member of the military be punished for violating that instruction?

Let's try this again...

First:

Article 92

Any person subject to this chapter who:

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Air Force Instructions ARE regulations.

AFI34-1201

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

This instruction applies to all Air Force units and members including the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units and members. Major commands (MAJCOM), direct reporting units (DRU) and field operating agencies (FOA) may supplement this instruction to furnish detailed guidance for base - level operations and provide for periodic self - inspections.

This instruction establishes policy and provides guidance for excellence in protocol, decorum, customs and courtesies during Air Force ceremonies, conferences and social events; in hosting distinguished visitors; and in honors afforded at military funerals.

Purpose.

This chapter prescribes guidance/procedures for the display, disposition, and use of flags, guidons, streamers, and automobile and aircraft plates. Only the flags, guidons, streamers, and automobile and aircraft plates described in this chapter are authorized for use in the Air Force and on Air Force installations.

Chapter 2 FLAGS AND PLATES

Purpose.
This chapter prescribes guidance/procedures for the display, disposition, and use of flags, guidons, streamers, and automobile and aircraft plates. Only the flags, guidons, streamers, and automobile and aircraft plates described in this chapter are authorized for use in the Air Force and on Air Force installations.

What this means is, it applies to all members of the Air Force.

2.12.7. The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

2.12.8. The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.

My question to you is... Did you serve in the military? If so, you know full-well this is enforceable. If not, then I have to take the position that you just don't know what you're talking about.

But let's put it another way... Do you believe a member of the military, not in uniform, not on a military base is permitted to burn the flag?

 

[Ken King]

Sure, try again, with the instruction it states the SCOPE (as I have included), do you know what SCOPE means? SCOPE describes as to what instances that specific instruction would cover.

Yes, I served and the instruction that you seem to want to rely upon has not one thing to do with the situation in question. Just more of your intellectual dishonesty or it is you that know not what you are talking about.

As to the situation of your last statement I absolutely believe that a military member can burn the flag and in fact it is the preferred method of disposing of a flag that is no longer appropriate for flying.

 

[PsyOps]

Sure, try again, with the instruction it states the SCOPE (as I have included), do you know what SCOPE means? SCOPE describes as to what instances that specific instruction would cover.

Yes, I served and the instruction that you seem to want to rely upon has not one thing to do with the situation in question. Just more of your intellectual dishonesty or it is you that know not what you are talking about.

Do you know what "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY" means?

I can assure you any misuse of the flag by military members CAN be 'prosecuted' under Article 92. That is not to imply they would be Court Martialed or an article 15 or anything sever. Most it would likely end up being is a low-level Letter of Reprimand. Would this person be? I have no idea. Should they be? That's not up to me. It's obvious to me you never experienced a person being punished for mishandling the flag.

And you know, I thought you were better than this than to go for the "intellectual dishonesty" card. Last gasp of a losing debate. I am not trying to point out how I feel about this; I gave you the facts and you reject them because of some apparent ideology or refusal to believe the military would actually hold their members accountable for these sorts of things. I honestly don't care. This obviously has gotten on your nerves and that ends the conversation for me. I'm not going to play these stupid "you're an idiot" games anymore. If that's the depths of your ability to discuss things, it's no longer worth it to me.

As to the situation of your last statement I absolutely believe that a military member can burn the flag and in fact it is the preferred method of disposing of a flag that is no longer appropriate for flying.

And this proves your only intent is to be disparaging rather than have a civil discussion. You know damn well what I'm talking about.

Desecration
Protest

 

[Ken King]

Do you know what "COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY" mean?

And that publication states the scope of its coverage as - "This instruction establishes policy and provides guidance for excellence in protocol, decorum, customs and courtesies during Air Force ceremonies, conferences and social events; in hosting distinguished visitors; and in honors afforded at military funerals." It does not, has not and never has said that it applies to all aspects of a service members activities.

I can assure you any misuse of the flag my military members CAN be 'prosecuted under Article 92. Would this person be? I have no idea. Should they be? That's not up to me. It's obvious to me you never experienced a person being punished for mishandling the flag.

As the instruction you are attempting to use does not cover the incident in question it could not be used as a charge under Article 92. And no, I never observed anyone mishandling the flag being punished, though I have seen those that high-tail to cover at the sound of Retreat being scolded and admonished. I have even scolded them myself.

And you know, I thought you were better than this than to go for the "intellectual dishonesty" card. Last gasp of a losing debate. I am not trying to point out how I feel about this; I gave you the facts and you reject them because of some apparent ideology or refusal to believe the military would actually hold their members accountable for these sorts of things. I honestly don't care. This obviously has gotten on your nerves and that ends the conversation for me. I'm not going to play these stupid "you're an idiot" games anymore. If that's the depths of your ability to discuss things, it's no longer worth it to me.

The military might attempt to hold a person accountable for the act (I suspect it would be under Article 134), but you haven't shown that the incident is not allowable.

And this proves your only intent is to be disparaging rather than have a civil discussion. You know damn well what I'm talking about.

Desecration
Protest

Desecrating a flag at a protest while in the US, not on base, not on duty, not in uniform, not breaking any law or breaching peace, and in a manner that does not incite violence is allowable under our rules of law, even in the military. (See Enclosure 3, page 8, paragraph 6 of DOD Inst 1325.06)

 

[PsyOps]

And that publication states the scope of its coverage as - "This instruction establishes policy and provides guidance for excellence in protocol, decorum, customs and courtesies during Air Force ceremonies, conferences and social events; in hosting distinguished visitors; and in honors afforded at military funerals." It does not, has not and never has said that it applies to all aspects of a service members activities.

ESTABLISHES POLICY! Military are required to COMPLY with it.

Social events. That can be any form of gathering, even civilian gatherings; formal and informal.

Desecrating a flag at a protest while in the US, not on base, not on duty, not in uniform, not breaking any law or breaching peace, and in a manner that does not incite violence is allowable under our rules of law, even in the military. (See Enclosure 3, page 8, paragraph 6 of DOD Inst 1325.06)

DODI 1325 leaves a lot of discretion to unit commanders:

No commander should be indifferent to conduct that, if allowed to proceed unchecked, would destroy the effectiveness of his or her unit.

The proper balancing of these interests depends largely upon the calm and prudent judgment of the responsible commander.

Enclosure 2

Applicable to All Persons - These sections of title 18, apply to all persons, military and civilian, who are subject to that title:

Section 2387. Activities affecting the Armed Forces generally.

Section 2388. Activities affecting the Armed Forces during war.

After 911 and when the wars began, there were a lot of protests downtown. We were given a brief that before participating in any protest we had to get the commander’s permission. I know of instances where some military folks wanted to go to some of these protests just to observe (not even participate); and they were told ‘no’.

Perhaps you’re reading too much into what I’m posting. I am not saying that every instance of a military person protesting or burning a flag, etc… would be prosecuted, or even punished. I am saying that commanders have a lot of discretion in applying what they think is necessary. In most instances it’s handled at the lowest level. I know of an instance of where an airman was going to be given a Letter of Reprimand and the commander told him he didn’t have to accept it, but not doing so would result in Article 15 proceedings.

I am saying in the case of the OP, that person holding that baby could be held accountable for misuse of the flag. It would all depend on the effects of the image of the commander’s unit and perhaps even the base or Navy in general. Again, these are left up to the discretion of the commanders.

 

[KDENISE977]

They should change the name of this thread to people will ARGUE about anything.

 

[Inkd]

They should change the name of this thread to people will ARGUE about anything.

No they won't.

 

[Ken King]

ESTABLISHES POLICY! Military are required to COMPLY with it.

Yes, it ESTABLISHES POLICY for exactly what it says in the remainder of the paragraph covering the SCOPE of that instruction.

Social events. That can be any form of gathering, even civilian gatherings; formal and informal.

What informal AF social event would require flag protocol?

DODI 1325 leaves a lot of discretion to unit commanders:

Yep and, as I posted, it says what the members definitely cannot do with regard to protests/demonstrations. It is laid out quite clearly under what conditions ones participation would not be allowed.

After 911 and when the wars began, there were a lot of protests downtown. We were given a brief that before participating in any protest we had to get the commander’s permission. I know of instances where some military folks wanted to go to some of these protests just to observe (not even participate); and they were told ‘no’.

Were those protests violent? Mostly I remember that Sheehan woman and her code pink wackos, but not much else.

Perhaps you’re reading too much into what I’m posting. I am not saying that every instance of a military person protesting or burning a flag, etc… would be prosecuted, or even punished. I am saying that commanders have a lot of discretion in applying what they think is necessary. In most instances it’s handled at the lowest level. I know of an instance of where an airman was going to be given a Letter of Reprimand and the commander told him he didn’t have to accept it, but not doing so would result in Article 15 proceedings.

I am saying in the case of the OP, that person holding that baby could be held accountable for misuse of the flag. It would all depend on the effects of the image of the commander’s unit and perhaps even the base or Navy in general. Again, these are left up to the discretion of the commanders.

Could be, I have conveyed from your postings that you think that what the sailor did violates the flag code and he could be(maybe should be) punished if his CO deems it appropriate. I simply have a hard time seeing what he could be punished for as this non-punitive code tells us what one should do with regard to the flag and not what one must do. To me should means preferred, not required. You seem to see the term should as will/must/shall.

 

[PsyOps]

Were those protests violent? Mostly I remember that Sheehan woman and her code pink wackos, but not much else.

I’d say that the commander had no idea if any of the protests would have been violent. I’m not sure, given your position on this, that it really matters. It seems you feel our military have all the rights civilians do when it comes to protests and such. But it seems you at least agree that potentially violent protests should be off limits to the military? But it extends beyond that. It extend to anything the military engages in that could bring discredit to the image of the military. A military person protesting against war certainly wouldn’t put the military image in a positive light.

Could be, I have conveyed from your postings that you think that what the sailor did violates the flag code and he could be(maybe should be) punished if his CO deems it appropriate. I simply have a hard time seeing what he could be punished for as this non-punitive code tells us what one should do with regard to the flag and not what one must do. To me should means preferred, not required. You seem to see the term should as will/must/shall.

By the letter of the code, and by extension the Navy equivalent of AFI 34-1201 (I wasn’t in the Navy so I don’t know what it is) using the flag this way is a violation. But I think when decisions are made by commanders they have to look at intent and how it affects the image of the military. I think the person gets a break on the intent part because it’s obvious their intent was to use the flag in an honorable way. But given the attention this has gotten, a commander might be inclined to focus more on the negative attention and admonish the Navy member to never do it again. The person taking the photo is a civilian; so nothing happens to her. If it were me, I wouldn’t waste any time on it. I was simply trying to point out that the military are held to a different standard than civilians when it comes to these things.

 

[PsyOps]

What informal AF social event would require flag protocol?

It doesn't have be an AF event. I consider this photo op an informal social event. Not to sound simplistic, but it was posted on social media. But the flag code covers any use of the flag. So the protocol is applicable in any event.

 

[MMDad]

It doesn't have be an AF event. I consider this photo op an informal social event. Not to sound simplistic, but it was posted on social media. But the flag code covers any use of the flag. So the protocol is applicable in any event.

"during Air Force ceremonies, conferences and social events"

You are taking the term "social events" out of context by ignoring the "Air Force" part. The sentence clearly means Air Force ceremonies, Air Force conferences, and Air Force social events.

When a member of the Air force gets married they have a ceremony. Does that make it an Air Force ceremony? Of course not.

If someone has a party in base housing does that make it an Air Force social event? Of course not.

Being a member of the Air Force does not make everything you do an official Air Force event.