EDITOR
Erin Gibson
OPINION
EDITOR
Cliff Hicks
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Nancy Christensen
Brad Davis
Sam McKewon
Jeff Randall
Bret Schulte
r--—
Our
VIEW
Strictly
confidential
Secret Service agents
shouldn’t have to testify
Who would have ever thought we’d be
asking the Secret Service to testify about
the president’s actions?
With the Clinton-Lewinsky spectacle
continuing ahead with no sign of stopping,
the Supreme Court now is hearing a case on
whether or not the Secret Service has the
privilege to keep private the things they
have seen during their time protecting our
president.
bnould the Secret Service have the kind
of lawyer-client privilege shared by attor
neys, psychologists and priests?
You’d better believe it.
When a person goes into a confessional
booth and says “Forgive me, Father, for I
have sinned,” courts have stood by the deci
sion that what was discussed is private
information said in confidence. The same
goes for what someone confesses to his
psychiatrist, or what a client tells his attor
ney.
Lawyers do not have to testify as to
what clients tell them. Otherwise, lawyers
wouldn’t be able to do their jobs properly.
If clients tell their attorneys they aren’t
guilty of one crime, but they are of another,
how could lawyers defend them, knowing
they could be called to testify against the
very person they are defending?
The same goes for priests and psychia
trists.
And the Secret Service. ,
We place these people in a position of
great importance. We trust them. We all
know the image - a big burly man in a dark
suit with a pair of sunglasses, one hand to
his ear, listening to reports of all the other
agents.
Lawyers protect the rights of the
accused. Priests protect the spirits of the
faithful. Psychiatrists protect die sanity of
the unstable.
Secret Service agents protects some
thing a little more tangible. They protect
the leader of our country.
If they are told they have to testify, they
won’t be able to do their job properly. Why?
Presidents may start ducking Secret
Service agents left and right, leaving the
president without someone to take care of
whatever threats occur.
This affair certainly wasn’t the first, and
somehow we doubt it will be the last, but at
least while these presidents have had their
affairs, someone has been protecting them.
The Supreme Court should agree that
Secret Service agents have to keep their
eyes on the president at all times and not
worry about when to turn away.
The Secret Service isn’t our watchdog
for the president.
Otherwise, why are we calling it the
Secret Service in the first place?
Editorial Policy
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of
the Spring 1998 Daily Nebraskan. They
do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nebraska-Lincoin, its
employees, its student body or the
, University of Nebraska Board of Regents.
A column is solely the opinion of its author.
The Board of Regents serves as publisher
of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The
UNL Publications Board, established by
the regents, supervises the production
of the paper. According to policy set by
the regents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely in
the hands of its student employees.
Latter Pcilcy
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief
letters to the editor and guest columns,
but does not guarantee their pubfication.
The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to
edit or reject any material submitted.
Submitted material becomes property of
the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
returned. Anonymous submissions will
not be published. Those who submit
letters must identify themselves by name,
year in school, major and/or group
affiliation, if any.
Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln,
NE. 68588-0448. E-mail:
letters@unlinfo.uni.edu.
Mook’s
VIEW
DN
LETTERS
Game on
They say hindsight is 20/20, and I
wholeheartedly agree. Last year, when
the senate under Curt Ruwe’s adminis
tration chose the migration game,
many factors came into play. Most of
the contributing factors influencing our
choice ofOSU over K-State were accu
rately listed in your editorial. Sure, the
seats weren’t as good as we would have
hoped for; but regardless I still think it
was one hell of a game to attend. You
can’t please 100 percent of the people
100 percent of the time. 1 just want
everyone to realize that with every
issue, there are going to be people who
agree, disagree, and are indifferent.
And although the editorial staff at the
Daily Nebraskan disagrees with
ASUN’spick, many students still agree
choosing the OSU game at Arrowhead
was a good decision. Additionally, it
may not have seemed like the best deci
sion to those who went and felt their
seats were lacking in quality, but tell
that to die approximately 300 students
who applied to the lottery, wanted tick
ets and didn’t get the chance to see for
themselves whether or not ASUN
made the right choice. (Sure, they
could’ve traveled down to Kansas City,
Mo., in hopes of getting a reasonably
priced scalped ticket, but who really
wants to rely on scalpers?)
<
Sara Russell
senior
mathematics
ASUN president
What a hoot
By one estimation, rape occurs in
this country at the rate of 78 per hour.
That is, one woman is raped every 46
seconds. When this figure becomes
obsolete, when rape and sexual assault
become as prevalent as cannibalism,
then you may convince me to listen to
your pretty, little defense of Hooters,
Ms. Kuxhausen. Until then, enjoy your
chicken wings.
Seth Felton
sophomore
undeclared
Who’s going to hoot?
M^thanks to Erin Reitz for making
everything abundantly clear. First she
tells us, “This big, wide, wonderful
world that we live in is a pretty sexist
place.” She then is thoughtful enough to
provide us withaprime example by say
ing, “Although I like them, men seem to
have an innate need to dominate pretty
much everything around them.”
Sexism is wrong, whether it’s com
ing from a man at Hooters or from a
woman in the paper. I’d take Erin^ con
cerns about it a lot more seriously if her
own biased stereotypes weren’t so well
displayed.
Brad Pardee
library services
UNL
S. •
1
Let freedom ring
In reading your student newspaper;
I found an interesting theme spanning a
number of the articles and columns
which I came across. One of your front
page articles mentions the regulation of
picketing outside a Presbyterian church
- no less the “regulating” of supposed
ly “free” expression. “... (I)t is constitu
tional because it does not outlaw what
protesters’ signs say - only when,
where and how they can be displayed.”
To me that sounds like a direct viola
tion of “free” expression since it is reg
ulated so heavily. Are we to regulate
“when, where and how” students can
assemble peaceably everywhere in
America? How about in front of every
church? This brings me to the other
front-page article about reported party
complaints decreasing. In this article,
Mr. Funk attests to an “increase in the
number of complaints during the last
few years” which leads me to believe
UNEs regulation of on- or near-cam
pus parties has only pushed an existing
problem into someone elseh backyard.
If students were allowed alcohol in res
idence halls, which they will find
regardless of any policies, then at least
parties could be watched over much
more freely and students wouldn’t have
to drive off campus, thus increasing the
risk of drinking and driving incidents.
Yet, as I made my way to your opin
ion pages, I found a very interesting
»head-to-head pair of columns. I was
immediately drawn to the candid
nature with which Mr. Cooper
l argues for First Amendment rights,
I rights which seem to be less than
| “free” in Lincoln as I know to be
the case here in Massachusetts.
Truly, America has lost sight of the
pure vision our founding fathers (I
guess the term is founding “parents”
these days) held fin* us back in the late
► 1770s. What is “free” speech or “free”
expression if we sue each other for pay
ing simple compliments to a member
of die opposite sex or outline, in our
“obscure and politically worded” doc
uments, the very nature of how we are
to go about our “free” expression?
Simple. We can’t Either it's “FREE”
or it isn’t and sadly I believe, as does
Mr. Cooper, that it isn't I notice, as I
read his column, a peculiar word
denoted as “s***.” Funny, but it’s
almost as if you prove his point by this
notation and by the very title you have
stamped upon the page.
Whether in Nebraska,
Massachusetts or die Pacific Coast I
think we have a responsibility to fight
for the basic rights our nation’s
founders granted to us - life, liberty
and the pursuit ofhappiness. Maybe we
at Harvard should look outside of our
immediate surroundings for the
answer. However, I think you already
have it Hopefully, you will choose to
listen.
Montgomery J. Kessler
second year
Harvard Law School
p C U/ 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 "R" St, Lincoln,
' _ yY fax to (402) 472-1761, or e-mnil <letters@unlinfo.unl:edti..
l<nrL Letters must be signed and include a phone number for verification
