Re: Does Team Judyth *Really* Object to the Use of Leaked Material?

"John McAdams" <john.mcadams@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:3vrf84hbcocoi6g5qag2u9a9mr41cervti@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:29:51 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
> <barbREMOVEjfk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On 23 Jul 2008 00:00:11 -0400, pjfk <pamelajfk1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>How about McAdams taking down the purloined do***ents from his web page

>>>on
>>>Judyth?
>>
>>Neither John nor the ones who sent him anything he has up engaged in
>>dumpster diving to get them.
>>
>>John was the recipient of material sent to him by some who were listed
>>as recipients when the materials were sent out.
>>
>>Lost on you, most likely.... but apparently okay in your book for
>>the most recent travesty. No concern on your part where ... or how ...
>>Judyth came into possession of the Dean do***ents.
>>
>>Telling.
>
> I've pressed Martin on this, Barb.
>
> I've asked him whether, when a journalist gets a leaked do***ent from
> an employee of (say) the Pentagon or a tobacco company showing
> misconduct in the organization, they are not allowed to use it.
>
> Martin, a leftist, is *fine* with the use of leaked do***ents in this
> case.
>
> Journalistic norms are clear:  you can use anything you legally get
> your hands on.
>
> But Martin thinks Judyth, his pet project, should be an exception to
> the rules.
>
> Equally revealing, Martin is (or at least was) a member of the ACLU.
>
> But the issue of the Paine's tax returns has come up.
>
> The government, of course, won't give your tax return or my tax return
> or Ruth Paine's tax return to some buff who thinks we might be part of
> a conspiracy.
>
> But Martin has clearly said that the Paines' tax returns ought to be
> released.
>
> So much for the government protecting privacy.
>
> These folks simply don't understand that the same rules that apply to
> everybody *else* apply to them too.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm


I seem to remember Alan Dershowitz back in 1991 urging that someone go 
through Clarence Thomas's garbage in order to see if evidence of smut 
could be found.

Seven years later, he would be pleading hysterically on Bill Clinton's 
behalf for a zone of privacy.

Voltaire died over 200 years ago, and today no one really believes in 
civil liberties for all or for anyone outside their circle, least of all 
the people who are most vocal in sup****t of them.  It's a good reason to 
deprive those people of civil liberties.  In a world with no civility, 
there is a good reason to question the concept of there being any "right" 
to liberty in the first place.  There's a good reason to regard such 
issues as matters of power politics rather than of inherent right.