Where I Stand -- Mike O'Callaghan: Not just a piece of cloth

THE TIME HAS ARRIVED to again irritate many of my fellow members of the press and the ACLU. Members of Congress have already started the 1999 debate about the proposed flag protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although a year has passed since my last column on this subject, the scramble for a two-thirds vote to pass an anti-flag-burning amendment is on again.

There's really no good side or bad side to the arguments for and against this amendment. I have the highest respect for former Sen. John Glenn who opposes this measure. He has proven himself as a patriotic American in combat, in space and in public service. They don't come much better than John Glenn. I just disagree with his stand on this proposed amendment.

Glenn, like many journalists, views the passage of a flag protection amendment as infringing on the freedom of speech. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "it would indeed be a hollow victory to protect a symbol by taking any chance at chipping away at the freedoms themselves." Of course, I see little, if any, relationship between desecrating the flag and freedom of speech. We can write and talk all day long about our dislike for our country and even go as far as renounce our citizenship without fear of being jailed. Even I can distinguish between speech and desecrating the flag of my country.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has also earned my respect and the respect of fellow Americans for his conduct as a fighting man, POW and member of Congress. He very clearly sees the difference between flag desecration and freedom of speech. McCain's respect for the flag became especially deep during the terrible five years he spent in captivity. He recalls the severe beating another American prisoner received for hiding an American flag and taking it out daily for a secret recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Following the beating, he collected enough red, white and blue cloth to make another flag and continued the secret pledge ceremony.

Last week, Staff Sgt. Christopher J. Stone was released from captivity by the Serbs. Among his possessions, when returning to freedom, was an American flag he had drawn on a piece of toilet paper. He kept it with him as a "symbol of my country." As McCain pointed out in his testimony, "All of us are products of our experience in life. ..." He went on to say that American blood has been shed all over the world for this flag and he believes "it deserves respect."

Despite the thinking of people with McCain's experience the screaming and crying from some of the press and the ACLU will make people believe this proposed amendment will destroy the First Amendment. The proposal reads: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." If these 17 words will destroy or even damage the First Amendment then it must already be in terrible shape. In reality, the First Amendment is probably stronger today than it has been in any time of our country's history. These 17 words added to our U.S. Constitution will have nothing to do with weakening our freedom of speech.

Four years ago, Thomas Begay, a Native American from the Navajo reservation, wrote a letter in support of the flag-protection amendment. Begay's letter summed up the situation when writing: "Passage of this amendment is but one small step toward restoring some accountability for one's actions. Responsibility for one's actions is part of being a citizen of this country. Responsibility, values, a sense of what's right and wrong, are taught at a very early age here on the Navajo reservation. These values come from the family and are reinforced in our school. Respect for the flag is one of the basics that every Navajo child is taught before they even start school. Our nation as a whole could still learn a lot from its Native American population."

The writer of these words fought as a Marine on Iwo Jima during World War II and five years later fought again in North Korea.

Again it appears that our personal experiences have a great influence upon how we view this proposed amendment. It's certainly not a matter of liberal vs. conservative. U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice Hugo Black are well-recorded defenders of the First Amendment yet their writings clearly show that under the Constitution we have a right to protect the flag.

Former Sen. Robert Dole, who spent his share of time in infantry combat and military hospitals, took the First Amendment arguments a step further when writing: "And whether flag-burning is considered conduct or speech, the First Amendment is not absolute. One cannot resort to libel and claim First Amendment protection. Obscenity, 'fighting words' and yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater all fall outside the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee."

While respecting the views of those who oppose any constitutional protection of Old Glory, I have to come down on the side of people like McCain, Begay, Dole, Black and Warren. She's the only flag I have and I don't want her publicly embarrassed by anybody.

archive