Improvements in scientific analysis and improvements in humanity’s knowledge-base of cause-and-effect relationships regarding the natural world translate neither obviously nor easily to the political and social world. As any teenager clearly demonstrates, knowing about or simply being told about dangers doesn’t necessarily lead to personal belief alteration or behavior changes. It takes a certain level of maturity to separate viable truth from probable rubbish. It then takes a level of credulity to accept viable truths without needing to personally verify them (Did you *see* the White House tree fall?). One of the best mechanisms for inspiring credulity is deference to authority. If a teacher, a policeman, a minister, a scientist, a judge or a President says a thing, it is more likely to be accepted as truth, at face value. If a person (or group) acting as a recognized authority on an issue makes a claim, it sometimes takes tremendous effort and vocal skepticism for a contrary view to make headway in society. A common problem is an authority venturing in to territory where he has no expertise – A minister declaring scientific truths, or a Judge ruling on religious doctrine. In general, the young are often overly skeptical and risky while adults are often too trusting and risk averse. It is a hard-won and delicate skill to be able to separate wisdom from prattle, truth from speculation and fact from dogma. A person can spend a lifetime cultivating the skill and still be vulnerable to lies, baseless claims and sensationalism. Because each of us is gullible to varying degrees, ensuring our authority figures deserve their titles and roles – which in turn entitle them to an automatic assumption of credulity – is a profound responsibility we must all fulfill. Whether our authorities are professors, mayors, priests or Presidents, it is our preemptive duty of due-diligence to first assess their integrity before handing them a title that garners immediate and little-questioned credibility. In the end, a voice of integrity, before all other things, resonates most strongly with the chorus of liberty.

To become skeptical of an established or vested authority is a hard struggle against mass gullibility. Contrary to the truism “first you have to earn my trust”, it is often more difficult to earn distrust once trust has been granted, or taken for granted. In the 1770s the colonists acquired a growing skepticism about their being recognized and treated fully and equally as English citizens. This skepticism had been growing slowly (as a social movement) for many decades. In 1773 one of America’s most incisive skeptical and pragmatic thinkers – Ben Franklin, still held out hope that Britain would indeed live up to the ideals (and his ideals) for honorable and trust-worthy behavior as he pleaded for reconciliation between it and the Colonies in London. Sometimes it takes an obvious breach of trust which cannot be ignored – a faked claim, an uncovered bribe, overt aggression or an obvious lie – to tip the balance of trust for many people. The issue with President Bill Clinton was for most people, and for the law, not whether he had a messy private-life, but that he lied about it. Now many people accepted that if a man is most expected to lie about anything at all, it would be that; however the core issue was one of trust. Citizens found themselves having to decide how much and what kind of lies they could accept and still retain political trust. It was an excellent time for all Americans to be introspective about the issues of trust, authority and the relevance of context.

Now is another similarly good time. Recently, three profound decisions have been made by our government: One by the U.S. Senate, one by the Supreme Court, and one by the President. The Senate quashed by one vote, further progress on a constitutional flag-burning amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the Executive Branch’s legal treatment of Guantanamo “Enemy Combatants” is non-constitutional. The President huffed and fumed against reporters who uncovered a covert executive-branch program to monitor banking transactions. Allow me a few words about each…

In a famous 1786 paining “The Battle of Bunker’s Hill” by John Trumbull, a prominent foreground feature is a red regimental flag bearing an image of a Liberty Tree. Herein, two profound symbols in one, a flag and the Tree are carried into battle against the imposing British regulars. Whether it’s a flag in a painting, on the Moon, atop rubble of the World Trade Center or on a bloody hilltop in Iwo Jima, or flown from the antenna of a car, there is no single portable symbol to compete with a flag in terms of impact, statement and implication. Other iconic symbols of America such as the Liberty Bell, the Statue of Liberty, the Capitol, the Declaration of Independence, and the Washington Monument are profound only as the original, as reproductions and representations of them are not imbued with the same significance as a flag. A flag is seldom a reproduction or a symbol of a flag (unless perhaps it’s a sticker or a plastic toy), but a thing profound unto itself. In this way, the flag stands unique and most prominent in the pantheon of American (or arguably any national) iconography. Because of this innate profound nature, the old Stars and Stripes is capable of eliciting strong reactions in any context in which it is displayed, and it is apt to never be mistaken as anything other than a symbol of America, its people and/or its government. The act of intentionally burning a flag (unless as a formal act of destroying a soiled or weather-beaten one) is similarly virtually incapable of being misunderstood as anything other than a condemnation of America, its people and/or its government.

There will always be those who set themselves the task of detecting errors in the workings of the machine of society. Among our most cherished rights as Americans is the right to speak up, and to do so without fear of physical reprisal or abuse. Whether in speaking up a person is correct or not, whether his fear is warranted or not, and whether the problem is big or not, we all should be prepared to shed our own blood guaranteeing his liberty to speak up – to be unmolested as a claxon of warning. If he raises a false alarm, we can variously ignore pity or argue with him. We can also keep him from molesting us with his warnings – and the balance is maintained. As a means for intrepid claxons to get our attention, or display discontent no act short of blood-letting is more potent than to abuse a flag – step on it, burn it, etc. If a person truly loves his country, surely it makes more sense to constitutionally guarantee a right to burn the flag, than the contrary. Similarly, if a person loves his country profoundly and is deeply ashamed, frightened or angry about a course it pursues, I can imagine tears of sadness falling into the smoldering ashes of liberty at his feet- a strong statement should not be confused with full-scale rebellion. Further, I propose that our political machine is already moving down a dangerous course if the very consideration of either law is viewed as legitimate and necessary. Our liberty to speak out is already guaranteed, let us neither take it away nor re-assert it redundantly. For our congress to waste time on the issue is an embarrassment.

If any person is ever mistreated for burning a flag, I’ll be fighting for his protection with my very life. And though my heart would break, shame for liberty’s loss would impel me also to strike a match against freedom’s most symbolic cloth.

The second recent action by our government which should cause introspection is the decision by the Supreme Court that the Executive branch has neither the authority nor the legitimacy to proceed with military tribunals and indefinite incarceration of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay facility. I should quickly correct myself and call them “persons of interest” or “enemy combatants” instead of prisoners, because apparently this subtle distinction is of tremendous import. It reminds me of the philosophical pondering, “it depends on what the definition of `is` is.” In general, if somebody is looking for a semantic loophole, they’re violating at least the spirit of a law or agreement, if not the very substance. Nobody looks for a way out unless they’re trapped or are worried about becoming trapped. One specific thing about the recent ruling is particularly disconcerting. The Court did not say that those incarcerated at Guantanamo could not be held nor tried. They did not assert that America was wrong to find, hold and prosecute those who seek to do harm to its citizens and institutions. What they did declare was that the method of such prosecution and incarceration was extra-legal, and being so was thus illegal. The Court left plenty of opportunity for the Administration to alter its approach and conform to legal norms and treaties. Thus, the substance of the ruling was one of method, not outcome. Most disturbing, was that some Court luminaries disagreed, and especially that the Administration groused at the ruling. To state that by changing our methods to ones which are legal somehow compromises the effectiveness of our struggle against (extra-legal) antagonists is deeply insulting. America is at its best when it is impartially applying fair and just laws to all comers. Why would we not combat the worst the world has to offer with the best? Granted we must sometimes crawl secretly into dark and dirty places to find and eliminate or capture these perpetrators of anti-freedom, anarchists or theocrats. But once we’ve got the squirming zealots by the tail or throat, we should haul them out into the sunlight of liberty and display to the world the fair and humane manner in which we prosecute and incarcerate them, and release those who are innocent. There is absolutely no need to bend the law to deal with illegals. If we need a new law to cover some loophole they are using to escape our justice, that’s fair and reasonable – let’s get the law in place immediately. But to operate prima fascia outside our own laws is (once again) an embarrassment. Further, it is a condemnation of our Nation, claiming in effect that we lack the will, the law and the means to prosecute these destroyers legally. It strikes me, as I’m sure it would Jefferson were he here, to be the behavior of an Executive with delusions of autocratic authority. Some distance down that path, my countrymen, lurks tyranny.