Not so secret

Court rules Secret Service agents must testify

Last Tuesday, an appeals court ruled that Secret Service personnel must testify in the ongoing Monica Lewinsky investigation. This decision conflicted with the Secret Service's contention that it should have a confidential relationship with the President and that making agents testify would damage the trust each president puts in the Secret Service. Though absolute trust is necessary between the President and his protectors, the appeals court made the correct ruling - a ruling that should not jeopardize the President's trust or the Secret Service's ability to protect him.

The Secret Service's opposition to testifying is summed up in a declaration made by Director of the United States Secret Service Lewis C. Merletti. Merletti says that "using Secret Service protective personnel as witnesses concerning the activities of a President will substantially undermine, if not destroy, the relationship of confidence and trust that must exist between the Secret Service and a President for the Secret Service to successfully fulfil (sic) its mission." He also said that presidents may "push away the Service's 'protective envelope,' thereby making them more vulnerable to assassination."

Agents refused to cooperate with Kenneth Starr's investigation, citing a protective function privilege. A district court did not recognize such a privilege, resulting in the appeal.

The three-judge federal appeals court quoted in its decision Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 501 says "the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience." Exceptions are only made when required by the Constitution or a Congressional act. The court did not find the Secret Service's argument persuasive enough to specify that they should be exempted.

This decision should not in any way endanger the President. Though the Secret Service reasons that making agents testify could cause the President to distance himself from his protection, it misses the underlying point that the President should never distance himself from the Secret Service in the first place. As the court stated in its decision, "the President has a correlative duty to accept protection."

Furthermore, as the court recognized, presidents face the greatest danger when they are exposed in a crowd. At such times, it is unlikely that a President would commit a criminal act, and the Secret Service should be in its closest proximity to the President at these times. It is more likely that a President would engage in criminal activity in private, such as in the White House, where no assassination attempt has ever been perpetrated and protection is likely less intense anyway. With the protective function privilege, the Secret Service's proximity to the President would logically not change.

The President is at heart a public servant. He works for the American people, and while certain special privileges come with the position, the President should not be allowed to commit a felonious act and then be protected by the silence of his Secret Service detail. The Secret Service is a part of law enforcement, and agents have just as great a duty to facilitate the discovery of truth as any other branch of law enforcement.

07-13-98