portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

9.11 investigation

Scott Ritter Framed? A couple of articles

Ritter's interview with WRGB-TV (see link at bottom) is a not so subtle hint to reporters that they should dig, as the story is here, and the seal of cort record prevents him to fully speak [hand hold for reporters]

TARGET: SCOTT RITTER
The War Party gets ugly

By Justin Raimondo

Scott Ritter, the former UN weapons inspector who quit in 1998 and now says the U.S. is intent on manufacturing phony "evidence" of arms violations as a pretext for war, is the victim of what may be the sleaziest set-up job in recent history, a smearing so foul that it makes the Clinton crowd look like a bunch of amateurs. The news that he may have been arrested, in June 2001, as the result of an internet sex sting, in which an undercover cop posing as a sixteen-year-old girl lured him into "sex chat" over the internet, came to light in a very strange way. A local newspaper, the Daily Gazette, of Schenectady, New York, was first to pick up the dirt, which apparently came to light when an assistant district attorney was fired for settling the case and not informing the D.A. According to the Gazette:

"Police and prosecutors have declined to discuss the case, which involved at least one class B misdemeanor, because it was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and ordered sealed by a Colonie Town Court justice. The Daily Gazette's request for access to the arrest report was denied by the Colonie town attorney's office, which ruled disclosure was barred under the state Freedom of Information Law."

So the police just happened to conduct a "sex sting" operation against the one man who had exposed the lies of our war-mad rulers from the inside. On the eve of war, as hundreds of thousands protest in the streets, this staunch Republican and solid family man who has become one of the War Party's most formidable enemies is suddenly "exposed" as a child molester.

Since the court records have been sealed, and the case was merely "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal," the authorities will say nothing, at least in public. The entrapment was apparently so transparent, so obviously the clumsiest sort of Cointelpro-style operation badly bungled by our newly-empowered political police, that the charges were dropped to the legal equivalent of a traffic ticket. Could it be that the records were sealed not to protect Ritter, but to protect whomever tried to set him up?

Anybody who doesn't believe that Ritter was specifically targeted on account of his political activities needs to seek help: that sort of naivete can be terminal, and the patient probably shouldn't be trusted to cross the street unattended.

In the post-9/11 era of the "Patriot" Act and the Office of Total Information Awareness, what is happening to Ritter is meant as a warning to anyone who dares oppose this government. Former UN inspectors, it seems, are a special target. Remember that other inspector, Jack McGeorge, also an American, who was "outed" as being a member of a sado-masochistic "advocacy" organization? Just as our war birds were wailing in bitter disappointment that the inspections process would delay or maybe even derail the much anticipated bloodbath, suddenly one of the inspectors is "exposed" as a sadomasochist. The point was not to somehow prove that this made him unfit for the job, but simply to degrade him, to make the experience so painful that he would immediately withdraw - which is precisely what happened.

There's nothing at all fishy about a "sealed" court record leaked to reporters, complete with an alleged "mug shot" of Ritter broadcast on television and republished by MSNBC. It's all a coincidence that this comes out just as the war crisis reaches its climax - or anti-climax - and the administration is desperate to come up with a half-way convincing rationale for war. What are you - a conspiracy theorist? Everybody knows the U.S. government is inherently and constitutionally incapable of pulling off such a dirty rotten lowdown trick. After all, isn't that why they hate us - because we're so wonderfully "free"? Free to be spied on; free to be set-up and smeared if we defy the powers-that-be; "free" to be entrapped by cyber-cops who randomly chose the single most convincing opponent of the War Party to snare in a web of deception.

The reaction to this is really a sight to behold. The same "conservative" movement that reveled and rolled around in the muck of the Clinton years like a pig in a deluxe pen, luxuriating in the filth that bubbled up like a perpetual hot bath, is all abuzz. With all the defiant malignity of Lucianne Goldberg and her son, what's-his-name, rolling the latest Clintonian dirtball around on their tongues as if it were the last bon bon in the box, they are drooling over this one. (Look at bottom-feeder Jonah Goldberg lap it up.)

It's sickening, really, to even contemplate what is going on here, but we should look at this ugliness full in the face. Because in forcing ourselves to see it, we can see the War Party - the gang of lying, thieving, conniving thugs with delusions of grandeur who dominate this administration - in its essence.

Look on the face of evil, and, if you don't turn to stone, remember it well. Because this is what we're up against, in America: an evil that is almost demonic in its pure malevolence, a dark destructive spirit that feeds on pain and is animated by the will to crush its enemies underfoot. This is the face of an enemy that must be defeated.

SOURCE: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j012203.html

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1564686.php


Men are evil 23.Jan.2003 08:07

Nancy

Disgusting article trying to defend a 'man' who is obviously guilty. Gross!

Yeah, right 23.Jan.2003 11:43

David B.

Disgusting article trying to defend a 'man' who is obviously guilty. Gross!
Yeah, right. If he's so "obviously guilty": a) how can you tell that without seeing the court records (which are sealed), b) why were the courts so eager to back away from the charges.

Even if the charges against Ritter are every bit as damning as his critics claim they are, they do nothing to address the soundness of the arguments Ritter is making. To pretend they do is engaging in the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, arguing about the person making a statement instead of the statement itself.


Portland, OR

Pseudo-Feminists are Evil 23.Jan.2003 12:36

National Organization of Warmongers

"Disgusting article trying to defend a 'man' who is obviously guilty. Gross!"

Nancy must be a card carrying member of the War Party if she believe the timing and probable substance of these charges have nothing to do with smearing Ritter and his opposition to an American colonization of Iraq.

The American warmongers will stoop to anything, including the manipulation of child-molestation charges or feminism in order to justify their war.

These pseudo-feminists like Nancy are no different to all those war-feminists like the National Organization of Women who supported the American invasion of Afghanistan, because they believed the lie that is would "liberate" the Afghan women from their burkas.

Ha.

obviously guilty? Wrong framework 23.Jan.2003 14:26

x

The only thing that is obvious about this case so far is that it's EXTREMELY ODD that a sealed court case would suddenly be pushed into the public eye. That is a fact.
Did Ritter commit naughty behavior? Perhaps. It would seem so, but the charges were dismissed in favor of a lesser charge and the case was sealed. So, the guy, as he has said in a television interview, has gone before the law and made himself 100% accountable. That's far more than you can say for people like George W. Bush, who flat-out go AWOL on their Texas Air National Guard service for about a year, and have the entire thing covered up. Or, to mix things up here, it's far than you can say for slick Clinton, who had the insanity to go before the American people and try to slip a line like "I did not have sex with that woman" passed us as if oral sex didn't count.
No, Ritter isn't in the same league, regardless of what happened. He was 100% accountable to the legal system and the case was closed AND SEALED. And SOMEONE made damn sure that this SEALED record was leaked to the press, one way or another. That's the story here, not Ritter's behavior. You can pass your distortion off easily on freeper boards or in the mainstream media, but over here we'll just give you a passing smirk. There are many right-winger drive-by postings on indymedia these days, but we haven't lost our ability to think clearly and research, thank you very much.
TV interview of Ritter is located here:
In the interview, he makes a not so subtle hint to investigative journalists:
Wells: "Do you think this was an attempt to silence you?"
Ritter: "Again, I don't want to get into that, I think that is a question that maybe you journalists should be delving into more....

He can't talk about the case, as it's a sealed case. But sealed cases don't just jump out of file cabinets and into journalists hands by magic, and the pretext in this instance is the flimsy notion that canning the assistant district attorney last week required a statement in the press to be made to explain that incident. AGAIN, IT WAS A SEALED CASE, and there was no reason or justification for disclosing what the case was. The district attorney could have easily said the assistant district attorney was fired, end of story, and not provided a reason. Think critically here people! Dang. I have no idea what happened here. But I do know enough to know without a doubt that:

1) it's not an accident that the decision was made to reveal that it was the Ritter case that got the assistant DA in hot water

2) that extensive information, including a mug shot, was provided to the media, that it was a direct hand-off and had to be orchestrated

Again, to reiterate, Ritter may have been doing some naughty things! But that's irrelevant. He went before the law, was accountable, and the case was closed and sealed.


Slandered 24.Jan.2003 12:05

Slackboy

Gee Nancy, I don't know why you don't like men cuz we can do cunnilingus too.