Scott Ritter Internet Sex Arrest Exposed?

OhioGuy,
Sorry but how does his visit to a prison have any bearing upon this? So he visited a prison - yes, what next? Those who are criticizing this guy should really read up on some of the articles that Ritter has written - nowhere does he praise the Iraqi govt. That’s completely inaccurate. Far from it.

i am not entirely certain how unbiased this source is that you quoted in your last post, FrontPage magazine. Looks like a pretty right-wing publication to me (…ahem, not that there’s anything “wrong” with that, just that it’s quite hawkish and almost seems ‘extremist’ in its views). Kinda like how some laugh when i quote articles from ultra-leftish sources.

Haven’t seen so many defending an obsessed guy with child endangerment. I wonder what would the critics say if something were to come out about Bush? I don’t wish to know. Timing…yeah sure. But excellent timing. I believe that the people deserve to know. Particular when it comes to the welfare of children.

Exactly..NYA, these are same people who were trying to find a link between the Venezuelan Kookaberra and Donald Rumsfeld housekeeper to show some conspiracy against the Iraqi camels.

Nadia,

Just posting it, not vouching for it......

But if Mr. Scott does have, ahem, shall we call it a "weakness", could it explain his sudden change of heart from a rough and tough Marine, to the guy who was addressing the Iraqi parliament on the anniversary of 9/11?

During the cold war the Russians were very adept at finding the weaknesses of Americans in sensitive positions. Just speculating. But I would guess that Mr. Scott will be doing a lot fewer TV interviews for a while!

mainstream media wouldn't give Ritter the time of day.. scandal or no scandal.. unless... he changes his views.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
mainstream media wouldn't give Ritter the time of day.. scandal or no scandal.. unless... he changes his views.
[/QUOTE]

He is certainly going to have some ten-foot-pole marks all over him now!

OG,
His addressing the Iraqi parliament detracts from him being a "rough and tough Marine"? How do we know - maybe he was addressing the Iraqi parliament in order to lay out the objectives that Iraq should undertake in order to prevent a war, maybe he was laying out Iraq's obligations vis-a-vis the UN?

Apart from yourself and a FEW others in this thread, one interesting aspect of those who have replied is that the majority do not even realize that some of Ritter's views vis-a-vis Iraq are in conflict with the perspectives of some anti-war activists. This is due to the reason that Ritter has, constantly throughout the past few years and up until today, insisted that inspections are the best approach towards Iraq. The sticky point is that he does not focus as much upon implementing 687 in its entirety, as many activists do, (which would entail disarming Israel and other US allies in the region, a separate 'hot' topic on its own). So he is not as much of a leftie-darling as he is being presented in some of the op-ed and news pieces posted earlier in this thread.

Anyways, if these 'accusations' continue (which unfortunately we will not hear too much about due to the sealing order), i am certain Ritter will come out and present his defense. i am certain, by now, he is used to these personal defamations coming out at particular timings.

Nadia,

Ok, sure, Scott is not a leftie-darling......

But what if these allegations are indeed true?

Does that not throw his credibility into the toilet? I have a 14 year old daughter, and I do not want her meeting up with the likes of Mr. Scott at the local Burger King.

Or is this another Clinton? I don't like who the man is, but I like what he says? Can the two really be separated?

IF.

IF the allegations are true, which Ritter has stated they are not ('you have the wrong man' or something to that effect, as quoted in one of the earlier news pieces in this thread). Let's wait until he is interviewed by a major newspaper and offers his rebuttal. Until then, i personally don't believe that it is accurate at all and yes everyone will have their own opinions which is wonderful.

If there is any truth in these reports, let those who accuse him of it present their evidence up close and directly without any obstructions, or stop this foolish charade. i think, in the meantime, the alleged, supposed, and lurid details of an individual's personal life shouldn't detract from the more looming issue that a war might occur in which thousands of children will actually be killed.

Nadia,your efforts to believe in this Ritter are comendable.However i am afraid your flogging a dead horse.The truth is that Ritter is a nobody,a lightweight and totally irrelevant,whether he is a deviant or not.

Nadia,

Just saw an interview of Scott Ritter on CNN. He flat out refused to deny the case or talk about it in any regard, citing advise of his legal counsel. He claimed that the law "prevented" him from discussing the case.

Aaron Brown then declared that until he is ready to discuss the case that he is "radioactive", and will not be taken seriously until he comes clean about the details of the case.

Given the fact that he did not declare that he was "innocent", or that he was "set-up", he sounds like a guilty guy who is hiding behind the sealing of the case.

He's toast.

OG, so because Ritter is abiding by the advice he has been given by his legal counsel, that deems him guilty? This is similar to saying - hey it’s upto you to prove that you are innocent, but if you refuse to admit you are guilty, we’ll just consider you guilty anyways. :confused:

Innocent until proven guilty, remember? i should add that the onus is upon those who are accusing the other party to present their evidence. Why the sealing order - why not just release in public everything you have got? If the evidence is so damning, just release it all to CNN - what’s the big deal in that?

This is pretty pathetic if some individuals are resorting to a deliberate smearing campaign against Ritter, in order to discredit his perspectives vis-a-vis Iraq and the US. They surely could have concocted something more believable than this.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Braveheart: *
Nadia,your efforts to believe in this Ritter are comendable.However i am afraid your flogging a dead horse.The truth is that Ritter is a nobody,a lightweight and totally irrelevant,whether he is a deviant or not.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, BraveHeart, but why, merely because you don't agree with his political perspectives?

Poor Nadia,

Mr. Scott did indeed admit to his arrest on CNN. Sounds like they even cut him a break…

MEDIA MATTERS
CNN admits sitting on Ritter story
‘We’d rather be a little slow and 100 percent right’


Posted: January 23, 2003
3:52 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Cable News Network, which markets itself as “the world’s news leader,” says it sat on the Scott Ritter sex-scandal story for several days without a whisper of it, and other major news outlets have avoided extensive coverage – if any coverage – as well.

Scott Ritter on CNN ‘Newsnight’

The former weapons inspector admitted on CNN’s “Newsnight with Aaron Brown” program last night that he was in fact arrested in June 2001, but he refused to disclose if it had to do with allegations he was looking to meet underage girls from the Internet.

“For a couple of days we knew about the allegation and did not report it,” said Brown at the top of his show. “Lots of notes [were sent] to us this week about why we were silent. Many – not all, but many assumed it was a political decision because some people see everything that way.”

The Schenectady Daily Gazette and New York Daily News originally reported on Saturday and Sunday respectively that Ritter allegedly had an online sexual discussion with someone he thought was an underage girl. The “girl,” however, turned out to be an undercover police investigator, according to the Daily News, whose sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

But the story has failed to gain much national publicity until now. In fact, a document search using the Lexis-Nexis archive system reveals the Associated Press national wire has still not published the Ritter sex scandal as of the posting of this article. The story has only hit the local and state AP wire in New York.

Scott Ritter mug shot (courtesy WNYT-TV)

It has received coverage among Albany, N.Y., area media, and a few mentions on national programs such as the Rush Limbaugh radio show, and “Buchanan and Press” on MSNBC, which discussed the matter briefly yesterday with the news director of WNYT-TV, the station which had footage of Ritter’s mug shot.

WorldNetDaily has done at least four stories following Ritter since the news broke last weekend.

CNN’s Brown did provide an explanation as to the delay in the network’s reporting of the matter:

“Whenever it’s possible,” said Brown, "we don’t report what we, CNN, cannot confirm. In the case of the Ritter story, we worked it for a couple of days, trying to find the facts, but we were not willing to run with someone else’s reporting.

"We needed to find sources. We needed to vet them as best we can. And when we as an organization are comfortable with what we know, then we report it. Now, it’s not perfect. Sometimes we do rely on other reporting if we’re unable to get to an area, for example.

"Sometimes we report what others have with an acknowledgment that the story is based on someone’s other work, according to AP or according to ‘The New York Times.’ But that is more the exception than the rule. We do it because we are responsible for what we put on the air. It’s really that simple.

“We have rules and standards. We know them, we’re comfortable with them. Even when it means we sometimes get beat on a story. We’d rather be a little slow and 100 percent right.”


http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30635

OG, so he was arrested - lots of individuals are arrested for crimes they did not commit. Do you have a CNN link to this, please?

What next - Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck are involved in smuggling, or the mafia? i am certain something similar of this nature will come out closer to an invasion against Iraq. Since the Pope has been so consistently outspoken against a war on Iraq, i suppose we will be hearing some scandalous accusations against him as well. All becoming a tad bit far-fetched i'm afraid.

Nadia, CNN link? Sure, here is the transcript from last nights’ broadcast:

BROWN: And Scott Ritter joins us next to address the allegations that have been floating out there about him.

We’ll take a short break first.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Scott Ritter has a knack for making headlines.

Last year, the former weapons inspector, who used to drive the Iraqis crazy, started driving the White House crazy by saying that there was no evidence that the Iraqis still had weapons of mass destruction and that war was a huge mistake. Then there were accusations, fiercely denied, that his old boss at the U.N. had turned the inspection program into a U.S. spying operation.

This all became a bit of a circus, with Ritter as the ringmaster. Now comes another furor, but this is a very different sort: reports that Scott Ritter was arrested in 2001 for trying to lure a teenage girl he had met on the Internet. It was a misdemeanor charge. It was ultimately dismissed and the record sealed. Some of this has leaked out this week.

Mr. Ritter joins us tonight from Albany, New York.

Nice to see you, sir.

SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Thank you.

BROWN: All right, here we go. What happened in June of 2001?

RITTER: In June of 2001, I was arrested by the Colonie Police Department and charged with a Class B misdemeanor.

BROWN: And what was that Class B misdemeanor?

RITTER: Aaron, we’re dealing with a case that has been dismissed and the record has been sealed by a judge’s order. And I’m obligated, both ethically and legally, not to talk about that case.

But I will tell you this. I stood before the judge in an open court session, public session. And that judge, together with the police of Colonie and the assistant district attorney and my attorney, agreed for an adjudication in contemplation of dismissal. And the case was dismissed and the file sealed.

And we should never forget that, when a case is dismissed, what the law says is that, by dismissing the case, it brings with it the presumption of innocence. And by sealing the file, it’s designed to prevent the stigma attached with any unsubstantiated allegations from arising. So, as far as I’m concerned, as far as everyone should be concerned, this is a dead issue.

BROWN: Well, first of all, obviously, it’s not a dead issue, because it’s been out there all week. So let’s – I want to go back to some of this.

Scott, we spent a fair amount of time today looking at New York law on this. There is nothing in a sealed case, zero, that prevents you from talking about it. The point of the seal is to protect you from the state, not to protect the state from you.

Now, you can – it seems to me, you can choose not to talk about the specifics of this. That’s always the right of the guest. But I’m not sure that there is – I’m not sure what the ethical question is about talking about it. And none of our lawyers can find the legal one, OK?

So, what happened in 2001?

RITTER: Well, Aaron, What I’ll say is this. What I’ll say is this, Aaron, is, in 2001, I stood before a judge.

BROWN: Why? Why were you before the judge, Scott?

RITTER: Because I was arrested, Aaron.

BROWN: Why were you arrested?

RITTER: I’m not asking for your forgiveness or anybody else’s forgiveness.

BROWN: I’m not…

RITTER: I am held accountable to the law. And I was held accountable to the law. And that’s what everyone should remember here. I stood before a judge and the due process of law was carried forth. And now we have a situation where the media has turned this into a feeding frenzy. This is not an extrajudicial proceeding, Aaron. I do not stand before you where I have to testify to anything. The case was dismissed. The file was sealed.

BROWN: Scott, Scott…

RITTER: End of story.

BROWN: Scott, respectfully here, you’re creating a straw dog in me. And I’m not playing that game. I am not the prosecutor. I am trying to give…

RITTER: OK.

BROWN: Excuse me. Let me finish here.

I’m trying to give you an opportunity, if you want to take it, to explain what happened. And here’s the point of that. And you know this is true. You are radioactive until this is cleared up. Until people understand what this is about, no one is going to talk to you about the things that you feel passionately about.

And as uncomfortable as it may be, I submit to you that it is in your interests to explain what happened. Otherwise, lord only knows what people will say.

RITTER: Well, Aaron, lord only knows what people are already saying. And, frankly speaking, I have no control over that.

But, again, with all due respect, Aaron – and I totally understand your question and where you’re coming from – but the bottom line is, the rule of law must apply here and we must never lose sight of that. I think you hit on something. I was a credible voice. I am a credible voice. And I will be a credible voice in regards to issues pertaining to Iraq.

And, obviously, what you’re not mentioning here is the timing of all of this. Why did this come up now?

BROWN: No, we’ll get to the timing of all of this, OK?

RITTER: No, because I have already told you…

BROWN: No, no, no, honestly, believe me…

RITTER: I’m always honest here.

BROWN: We’ve done business together before. And I think I have a reputation in these things of being fair. And we’ll get to the question of timing. But I think we have to deal, I believe – and I guess I get to call the shot on this one – that we have to deal with the issue itself first. Let me try it a different way and then I’m not going to spend the rest of our time beating my head against the wall.

Did you ever go into an Internet chat room looking for teenage girls to have a sexual encounter of any sort with? How about that?

RITTER: Aaron, again, have I to respectfully reply by noting that I am obligated legally not to discuss matters pertaining to a

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: Can you tell me, under what provision of what law are you referring to?

RITTER: Well, Aaron, you know I’m not a lawyer. And have I sought legal counsel on this. And I’m strictly abiding by legal counsel.

BROWN: So, I can dance around this a thousand ways and you’re not going to tell me why you were arrested at that Burger King on that day in June. Is that right?

RITTER: Aaron, I will respond the same way, this way, until Sunday. I was arrested in June 2001, charged with a Class B misdemeanor. I stood before a judge and the case was dismissed. The file was sealed. And I certainly wish you and everyone else would respect that.

BROWN: OK. Again, I’m not going to beat my head against the wall. If you don’t want to talk about it, you don’t want to talk about it.

OG, Thanks for the CNN link. So he was arrested in June 2001, one year and seven months ago. Go figure why it is only revealed by CNN at this particular moment in time, so close to an invasion against Iraq. Saving these issues for a rainy day.

**I stood before the judge in an open court session, public session. And that judge, together with the police of Colonie and the assistant district attorney and my attorney, agreed for an adjudication in contemplation of dismissal. *And the case was dismissed and the file sealed.

And we should never forget that, when a case is dismissed, what the law says is that, by dismissing the case, it brings with it the presumption of innocence*. And by sealing the file, it's designed to prevent the stigma attached with any unsubstantiated allegations from arising.**

i think the italicized parts of Ritter's excerpts pretty much sum it up.

Nadia,

My guess is that they had Ritters computer bugged, and found out his little secret. Please point out to me where Mr. Scott says, "I didn't do it", or "I was set up". More than likely the search warrant was specific as to national security issues, but the investigators stumbled upon his distateful little habit. They were obligated to disclose it to the prosecutor, but the way that the evidence was collected would have made it inadmissable for his pedophic indictment. A compromise was reached that if he was a good boy for 6 months, the report would remain sealed. Sounds like Scott actually got lucky....

The guy is guilty as sin.

And why would he say, "I am not asking for forgiveness"!

The timing is very suspect, I just wonder how they kept it silent THIS long.

Good bye Scott, your 15 minutes of fame are over.

But Nadia still likes you!

hahaha OG :) i don't like Ritter. First i am accused of liking Saddam, now Ritter. My taste is a bit better than these two, i assure you. :~)

Just have two statements: the case was dismissed a year and seven months ago by the presiding judge (of this case), by the police of Colonie and the assistant DA; therefore, the presumption is that he is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty, case closed, unless further evidence is brought forth.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
The timing is very suspect, I just wonder how they kept it silent THIS long.

[/QUOTE]

ooh wait, i didn't pick on this before - so you believe that the timing is highly dubious?