4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, July 13, 1998 Edited and managed by CHRIS FARAH DAVID WALLACE students at the Tr Editor in Chief Editorial Page Editor 4 University of Michigan Unless otherwise noted uni d tileditoriais n 1 th ein nf l the 420 Maynard Street inaorin ,of rite Daiidioioal honisl a l orr thiet I leo rs and Ann Arbor, Ml 48109 cartoons do noineessarili re/leemtie opiniot ofTie tn littan a)uilp A s Ann Arbor police made several arrests last week in conjunction with the May 9 Ku Klux Klan rally, the lawyer of several of those charged made accusations that the police are conduct- ing a witch hunt and using tactics remi- niscent of police states. While those accusations are probably little more than rhetoric, the AAPD needs to conduct a very thorough investigation that search- es out wrongdoing done by all parties involved so that the community can pre- vent future problems and heal from the latest rally and violence. So far, nine people have been charged with crimes related to the violence. George B. Washington, a lawyer repre- senting many of the accused, has assert- ed that his clients acted according to their Constitutional rights and are the victims of a witch hunt and police state tactics. The AAPD's methods do not appear to be questionable. They are using videotape, photographs and interviews Preventative measures AAPD must prevent future Klan rally violence with witnesses to find suspects who may have contributed to the violence that erupted at the rally. Using photos and films do not comprise unethical police- work: it is the same as using surveillance camera footage to identify a bank rob- ber. The AAPD must strive to identify those who committed crimes at the rally to prevent such actions from occurring again. Physical violence is not an acceptable form of protest, and such actions bruise the city's reputation as much as the Klan rally itself. During its investigation, the AAPD should avoid simply concentrating on one particular group. The rally was a failure on the part of everyone involved, including the police. As it investigates, the AAPD should run internal investiga- tions to find ways that it could prevent violence from occurring in the first place. Bringing those to justice who broke the law is an important part in pre- venting future violence, but so too is reviewing police procedures and strate- gies to make sure everything was han- dled correctly according to law enforce- ment protocol. Ann Arbor cannot simply allow the problems of the Ku Klux Klan rally and ensuing riot to go away now that things have settled down. The actions of May 9 and at the rally two years ago make the city appear to be a harbor for racism, a community unfriendly toward free speech and prone to violence. Residents know that none of these classifications are true, but the impression left by the rally is enough to damage the communi- ty. A strong investigation is necessary for the city's welfare. The feelings surrounding the Klan rally are highly charged; those conduct- ing the investigation must have a firm commitment to making arrests only when the evidence appears irrefutable. Further charges of police wrongdoing will only serve to incite more ill-will and produce fuel for violent protesters should the Klan return to Ann Arbor. After two rallies in three years, it appears that the Klan may return to Ann Arbor at some future date. The actions the AAPD takes now will affect the events that may transpire should another rally be held. The AAPD and the com- munity at large must make clear that the violence of the past two rallies is unac- ceptable. By taking sound actions now, a future Klan rally - or at least any accompanying violence - can be dis- suaded, and possibly prevented. *A Making change Congress reforms the Internal Revenue Service Not so secret Court rules Secret Service agents must testify I n session last week, Congress over- whelmingly passed legislation to reform the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS has long been in bad need of reform, and last week's actions should work to cre- ate a more efficient, friendly IRS while expanding the rights of taxpayers. The new legislation, which passed by the enormous margins of 96-2 in the Senate and a 402-8 vote last month in the House, will dramatically change the way the IRS operates. President Clinton will sign the legislation into law. For too many years, the IRS has been a feared agency - and often with good cause. Senate Finance Committee Chairman William V. Roth, Jr. (R- Delaware) held hearings last September during which many individual cases of IRS taxpayer abuse came to light. And just this past Friday, the IRS admitted that it improperly seized property in more than one in four cases studied. One case even involved the IRS trying to force a dying man and his family from their home. The IRS reneged when the man died, as an officer suggested it would be "seen as neg- ative to sell his widow & minor children's home when he has not yet been buried." An important new provision of the leg- islation requires that the burden of proof in many tax court cases lie with the IRS instead of taxpayers. Such a change in phi- losophy only makes sense in a country that generally operates under the idea of inno- cent until proven guilty. This should not be taken as an invitation to perform more prying audits, as Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York) warned. It is simply a declaration that when the IRS accuses someone of impropriety, they must be able to prove it in court. Several other common sense provisions should curb IRS abuses. For example, divorced spouses will only be held respon- sible for the amount of income they indi- vidually earned for their former house- holds. In the past, the IRS could go after one spouse for the entire amount owed, even if the other spouse was responsible for the problem. Taxpayers can now sue the government for damages of up to S100,000 in cases of IRS negligence. Taxpayers will also find it easier to be compensated for court costs of cases they win. And the IRS can no longer require people to pay interest and penalties when the IRS fails to notify them of a problem within 18 months of filing. One last important provision forbids the IRS from seizing a taxpayer's home without a court order. As the aforemen- tioned improper seizure rate indicates, this is an area that was in bad need of reform, and this provision should help prevent some improper seizures in the future. Perhaps the most important message is not a provision at all, but Congress' recogni- tion that the IRS has not been performing acceptably. This legislation, and the incredi- ble bipartisan support for it, should speak to every one of the 102,000 employees of the agency. The American people, and the IRS employees themselves, deserve a greater measure of respect. The IRS needs to reform its attitude to become less of an antagonist. By nature, as the tax collectors for the country, the IRS will never be a welcome part of the lives of American citizens. But it plays a necessary role, and with the new changes and a reformist attitude within the organization, it can increase its productiv- ity while decreasing its intimidating image and practices. L ast Tuesday, an appeals court ruled that Secret Service personnel must testify in the ongoing Monica Lewinsky investiga- tion. 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 cor- rect ruling - a ruling that should not jeop- ardize the President's trust or the Secret Service's ability to protect him. The Secret Service's opposition to tes- tifying 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 ful- fil (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 pro- tective function privilege. A district court did not recognize such a privilege, result- ing 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, gov- ernment, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be inter- preted 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 him- self 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 stat- ed in its decision, "the President has a cor- relative 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 pro* tection 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 Secre 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 enforce- ment.