Ryan's Divorce Records released, Kerry's next?

[insein]

http://www.zwire.com/site/12134258.html

Its an editorial so ignore the bias on the writer and focus on the implications of the facts.

Editorial: Unsealing of divorce records a slippery slope

06/29/2004

The unsealing of divorce court records of a Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois could impact the presidential aspirations of Sen. John Kerry, who has his own divorce records under seal in Massachusetts. The publication of accusations made by Jack Ryan’s ex, actress Jeri Ryan, led him to withdraw from the senate race last week. Both Ryans had asked that the records -- in which Mrs. Ryan claimed her husband had tried to get her to go to sex clubs and have sex with him while others watched -- be kept secret.

But, at the behest of the Chicago Tribune, a California judge overruled the divorced couple’s attorneys, who asserted the public’s right to know took a back seat to protecting the Ryans’ child from the embarrassing publicity the release of the records would generate.

In his ruling, Judge Robert Schnider said of the Ryans, "They were aware they were in a public court system, and protection from embarrassment cannot be a basis for keeping from the public what’s put in public courts."

Schnider also said "the openness of court files must be maintained, so that the public ..can be assured that there is no favoritism shown to the rich and powerful."

Jack Ryan, a handsome, rich Wall Street financier turned inner-city school teacher, was a very interesting Republican candidate. But he concluded that he couldn’t overcome the negative publicity surrounding the revelation of his ex-wife’s allegation.

Now that the unsealing of court documents has chased one candidate from this November’s ballot, will it chase another?

We hope not.

It is difficult for us to argue that public court records as a matter of course should be sealed because they might cause embarrassment to the people involved. We think Judge Schnider is right, not only as a matter of law but also as a matter of fact.

Normal people aren’t routinely accorded the benefit of having their court disputes kept secret. Why should the rich and powerful be treated any differently? They shouldn’t be.

Still, the media shouldn’t be in the business of gratuitously printing the embarrassing details of people’s private lives, even when they are brought up in court. The key word here is "gratuitously."

Some people reasonably believe that how people act in their private affairs can be a window into how they will act in their public dealings. If a person has a messy, undisciplined private life, it is not unlikely some of that will spill over into how they conduct themselves in business or politics. Some voters put a lot of stock in the private lives of candidates. It’s why many candidates seek to portray themselves of solid, decent family people. Politicians know that voters don’t just vote for the political positions candidates take. They often vote for the person they feel most comfortable with and like personally.

Likeability and personal magnetism go a long way in politics.

Which brings us to Sen. Kerry.

In 1988, he and his first wife got a divorce. They asked that the court records of that divorce be sealed, and a Massachusetts judge granted that request.

But now that Judge Schnider has opened up the records of the Ryan marriage, it will be difficult for Kerry to keep his sealed.

Already, his operatives are calling any effort to unseal his divorce records political "gutter ball" and a "trash hunt."

Internet muckraker Matt Drudge is quoting one senior Kerry source as saying, "I would argue, adamantly, the records should remain sealed -- and out of the hands of John’s political enemies."

But that can’t be a good enough reason for public records to remain sealed. Imagine what Republican partisans will have to say if John Kerry’s divorce record is left sealed after one of their candidates felt the need to bow out of a race after his was made public.

Of course, after having access to the records, the media will have to judge for itself how newsworthy any of the information contained in them is.

Ten years after their divorce, the ex-Mrs. Kerry wrote a book about her "suffocating marriage" to, she claimed, help other couples trapped in such unhappy relationships.

We, in the media, will have no such excuse for printing the sordid and unhappy details of the Kerrys’ break-up.

We will say the people have a right to know as much as we can find out about any man or woman who wants to be president of the United States.

What they do with the information after chewing it over is up to them. If that includes changing their reading habits or canceling subscriptions, that’s fair, too.

©The Daily Times 2004

Kerry should have to release his records. Why is it that they scream for Bush's record to be released when he has fully and unconditionally in 2 separate elections now and yet Kerry combats every attempt to see his full record? This guy is not fit to be president in so many ways. I wish people weren't blinded by hatred.

 

[DKSuddeth]

its going to suck for kerry, but the democrats screamed about open court records for ryan, it should apply to kerry. It will all depend on the massachussets courts ruling.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Kerry will open his divorce records when Cheney reveals the names of his energy task force.

 

[NATO AIR]

and when the white house fesses up to whatever dirtbag leaked the cia agent's cover to novak, the traitor...

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
and when the white house fesses up to whatever dirtbag leaked the cia agent's cover to novak, the traitor...

Guess this is messing with your mind, huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/30/o...00&en=ab54475416140727&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

....But certitude is an uncertain thing. Take, for example, the assumption now taken as fact that Saddam's Iraq was not seeking the raw material for the production of atomic weapons.

Remember Bush's claim in last year's State of the Union address about Iraq's negotiating with an African nation for the "yellowcake" refined from uranium ore? When it turned out that this suspicion was based on forged documents, the embarrassed C.I.A. and humiliated White House confessed error. Great and gleeful derision was heaped on Bush for misleading the world on one of the three bases for intervention.

If anything in the intelligence world can be a sure thing, the conclusion that Bush had blundered badly was it. The husband of a C.I.A. employee was lionized by the antiwar left for having doubted the fraudulent report; Joseph Wilson is promoting his book about alleged intimidation in the exposure of his wife's job, and the ensuing leak investigation has been making headlines ever since.

Comes now a front-page story in The Financial Times by Mark Huband, that international newspaper's security correspondent, headlined "Intelligence Backs Claims Iraq Had Talks on Uranium."

Were the documents on which Bush based his charge fake? Yes; though "legal constraints" prevent the F.T. and the Italian magazine Panorama from identifying the suspected forger, the source is reportedly a convicted con man who tried to peddle phony yellowcake papers to several spy services. No wonder everybody belatedly ran from any notion that Iraq sought the uranium product from Niger.

But hold that horselaugh: "Embarrassment on fake documents obscured earlier intelligence that Iraq may have been trying to buy uranium," notes an F.T. subheading. Huband writes: "Three intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence . . . had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq. This intelligence provided clues about plans by Libya and Iran to develop their undeclared nuclear programs."

A close reading of the article suggests the original human source was Italian, whose tip was confirmed by British and French electronic intercepts. C.I.A. analysts, who often disdain data not gathered by us, ignored the real thing until they were suckered by the forged documents.

Was Iraq, like Iran and Libya, in the secret market for atomic material? This article does not yet prove it, but neither does the falsity of some of the data prove the opposite. A safe bet for thee and me is to dispense with certitude.

In the months and years ahead, we are highly likely (almost wrote "sure") to get more evidence from seekers after W.M.D. truth. These range from the new Iraqi government to ousted officials, from the coalition's official team to freelance former spooks and serious journalists.

Don't jump to hasty derision. As Mark Twain advised, the problem is not just what we don't know, but what we do know that ain't so.

 

[NATO AIR]

respectfully, what does that have to do with a cia agent's idenity being revealed?

even if her husband was wrong (which he could be according to that article), did that warrant her cover being blown?

whoever did that is a traitor beyond belief, and the journalist who did it (novak) is a traitor as well.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NATO AIR
respectfully, what does that have to do with a cia agent's idenity being revealed?

even if her husband was wrong (which he could be according to that article), did that warrant her cover being blown?

whoever did that is a traitor beyond belief, and the journalist who did it (novak) is a traitor as well.

I agree with you that a cia agent should not be outed. The really confusing thing with this IS that everyone knew who she was and what she did. WHERE was the outing?

 

[NATO AIR]

i didn't know, so it can't be everyone

seriously, where is that "everyone knew who she was"? i thought her front as some sort of lawyer or biz exec or something was good.

and, under no circumstances, should a journalist, columnist, newscaster, whatever they call themselves, ever reveal the identity of a CIA asset or CIA agent. people can get killed, but then again, when have journalists (from the right, center and left) cared in the past few years?

and a note, i do think this is very bad, not just for kerry but for all politicians. i don't think ryan did anything wrong other than be insensative and sexually adventuresome (in questionable moral territory for some).

of course, if kerry is forced to withdraw before the convention, i think edwards is the better CANDIDATE for the dems anyway, maybe not president, but CANDIDATE for sure. he connects with people, makes logical arguments and i have rarely seen him badly cater to the left left, perhaps just the same liberals like gephart who believe in some outdated economic philosophy and too much protectionism.

kerry is just a stand-in for all the hate people on the left have for bush and the discontent and uncertainity people in the center and right feel about bush. he just doesn't do it as a CANDIDATE.

 

[dilloduck]

We shall see but I think it would be a mistake for the Reps to go this route. Let Kerry squirm in his own guilt but muck raking such as this reflects poorly on the GOP. It's time to be positive and proud.