Skip to comments.Flag at Half Staff for Tucson Shooting Victims (Vanity)
Posted on 01/10/2011 5:00:10 PM PST by pfflier
First, I would like to express my condolences to all of the victims' families from the January 8 shooting in Tucson. It is a tragedy and I am sorry for your loss.
That being said, does anyone else see the presidential directive to fly the flag at half staff as inappropriate? I know that Title 4, Chapter 1 section 7m of the US Flag Code allows that it can be done at the direction of the president or state governor. But the criteria in the code says in part:
"By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. ..."
The presidential directive issued Jan 9, to fly the flag at half staff is "...As a mark of respect for the victims of the senseless acts of violence perpetrated on Saturday, January 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona, "
According to the directive exactly which victim meets the criteria of the flag code?
I invite opinions on this issue.
The order was issued by Arizona’a Governor, not the President.
The White Hut and Democrats have blamed their murder on Conservatives and those opposed to Obammy. Disgusting.
In addition to a congressional aide being killed during the course of his work, a Federal judge was slain.
I'd say the federal judge qualifies.
You may win today’s prize for idiocy.
The same order was given after the Ft. Hood shootings and other national tragedies.
I believe that Brewer ordered the flags at half mast in the state, then Obama ordered it for the nation.
Do you believe that President Bush was correct when he ordered flags to be flown at half-staff following to Attacks of 9/11?
Ah, thanks, I had not heard that.
Too much time stuck at work...
Random thought: this thread is typical of why vanities should be discouraged.
You’re right about Fort Hood. In that case the flag code specifies half staff for slain military.
Yes because many of the casualties were active duty military, retired military and reservists.
I do not understand the pejorative remarks here. It’s a question, not a request for personal attack.
Perhaps we all have raw emotions because of the tragedy and the unwarranted attacks on conservatives.
Good point on the judge. But why didn’t the presidential directive specify that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.