Timing, Oh sure, somebody skewered him! Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy!
And Denial is not just a big river in Egypt.
I am sure you have exquisite taste!
He’s not an angel (i am not entirely certain any mortal is), but he’s also not guilty of this filthy crime. Hey if there is something against him then CNN should file an appeal against the sealing order. Yes we agree on this much - someone did skewer him with impeccable timing, right before he was supposed to leave for Iraq. According to Catholic World News, the Pope has been planning to visit Iraq for a few years now; wonder if he will also be accused of being embroiled in a similar scandal. i hope not.
Nah, not exquisite taste, but selective; and it certainly doesn’t include Saddam or Ritter!
Nadia, this is the story from his hometown paper. Please note the “counselling”:
(updated: January 20th, 5:50pm) The spotlight is back on former UN Weapons Inspector and Delmar native, Scott Ritter. But it’s not over Iraq instead its over charges he talked with an underage girl on the Internet.
The Daily Gazette broke the story over the weekend. The paper says Ritter was arrested in June of 2001 after having a sexual conversation on the Internet with someone he “thought” was an underage girl. The girl turned out to be an undercover investigator.
Sources tell NEWS10 that Ritter contacted what he thought was a teenage girl on the internet for the purpose of a sexual interlude not once, but twice within a three month period back in 2001. Ritter also underwent court-ordered sex offender counseling from an Albany psychologist.
http://www.abc10.com/Global/story.asp?S=1090744&nav=6uyNDSWw
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**Ritter also underwent court-ordered sex offender counseling from an Albany psychologist.*
[/QUOTE]
The court ordered him to undergo sex offender counselling; hmm so what? That would be normal procedure for anyone arrested for this (or atleast it should be). Because he was arrested does not necessarily mean that he was, in fact, guilty. The same court dismissed the case. If there had been genuine evidence of this filthy crime, there would have been no grounds for this case to be dismissed.
Sorry, OG; i guess he is still a reliable voice for us anti-war activists :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
He's not an angel (i am not entirely certain any mortal is), but he's also not guilty of this filthy crime.
[/QUOTE]
The American (and all other) justice systems are not perfect. Sometimes people get off Scott-free for their crimes for any number of reasons. Does that mean they are not guilty? I mean outside of the judicial outcome - what about morally or ethically guilty? I suppose OJ was not guilty in your book either?
Similarly, since Hussein has had years to hide his toys somewhere within hundreds of thousands of square miles, he is not guilty. The difference with Sadaam is that millions of lives are in the balance with the assumption of 'not guilty'.
Seminole, granted all justice systems, anywhere, are not perfect. But what does a person have to do in order to be declared innocent, in your opinion? If Ritter had confessed, everyone in this thread would have declared him guilty; if the judge had ruled that he was guilty, then everyone in this thread would be jumping and down highlighting the verdict in bold. The guy hasn’t confessed, the court has dismissed the case - what else is he supposed to do in your eyes? As i stated earlier somewhere i think, it’s like arguing - we think you’re guilty, you’re going to be taken to the courts; when the court itself dismisses the case, we’re still going to believe you’re guilty at the end of the day. Then heck why bother with the judicial process in the first place?
As for Hussein - i don’t have the strength to address your last comments. i think we all know where each of us stands on this issue. You know i am as stubborn as anything and will not budge, so let’s just leave that for a separate thread.
Nadia:
It must be hard to watch someone you respect and admire fall from grace because his/her own moral compass isn't pointing North. Please don't take comfort in the presumption of innocence generally applicable in our justice system. Here's how it works. Some guy (normally a pretty well off chap who can afford a real good lawyer) gets arrested for some crime that he did indeed commit. The defense lawyer and the prosecuting attorney get together and enter some serious plea negotiations. The best deal a defense lawyer can get is an agreement from the prosecution that the accused will go to counseling, rehab clinics, AA meetings, etc. and stay out of trouble for some specified period of time. If the accused does that, the prosecution will dismiss the charges. These negotiations have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Most of the time, you see agreements like this in the case of hollywood stars or high profile people caught driving drunk or possessing or being under the influence of illegal drugs.
Ritter, because of who he is (or was), got a free pass on this one. The average Joe/Josephine Shmoe probably wouldn't have gotten off so easy. Sir Scott will NEVER file a defamation or slander action against the paper that broke the story because truth is an absolute defense in such action. If he filed a lawsuit, he would not be able to hide behind the sealed file in his criminal case.
Continue to believe in his opinions re Iraq if you want. But please don't delude yourself about his "innocence" or that he is a victim of a false character assassination. He is surely a victim of a truthful character assassination.
I say that if Nadia wants Scott Ritter,as sposeman for the anti-war movement,i,for one,am more than happy with it and we all know what side im on.
As i said before,he is a nobody,he was a nobody before this story and now he will have lost his voice entirely,good riddance.
In answer to your question Nadia,why?Scott Ritter is a turncoat,his views can be bought and sold and have been already.If you knew me at all you would know that i am quite willing to respect anothers views,even if opposed to mine as long as they are firmly held views.
I would say from reading your views,that they are firmly held,that you truly believe in them and although stubborn as a mule,i would say you have a good heart.
That is why i said you were flogging a dead horse and i am sorry to see you putting your faith in someone who talks out of both sides of his mouth,depending on how much he gets paid.
So you see Nadia,i am really trying to help you here.Is Ritter really worth your faith in him?
MyVoice,
Please tell me how you would, in light of what you stated in your previous reply (particularly in the first paragraph), believe in the innocence of ANY party. If i apply the logic illustrated in your most recent post, then by definition everyone should be guilty - maybe you believe that anyone who has had any contacts with the police, is guilty of some crime or the other. Maybe because i have been questioned by Canadian police at anti-war demos., i am guilty of some crime or the other in your books? i am curious to know, in your opinion, what constitutes an individual being innocent and what s/he must do to satisfy this requirement.
BraveHeart,
Thanks for your words, although i disagree with the majority of them. IMHO Ritter was certainly not a "nobody" prior to this case, and he will continue to command respect amongst us anti-sanctions activists. Ritter continues to be "worth" my faith in him because i do not believe there is any merit in these allegations. The exclusive purpose served by these allegations is merely to distract from the validity of the perspectives that he has been airing these past couple of years. Mark my words - he'll come out of this no worse for it. (Yes, laugh if you want).
Just one question for yourself: why is Scott Ritter in your opinion guilty of this crime even though his case was dismissed by the court, the then-presiding judge as well as by the DA?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**MyVoice*,
Please tell me how you would, in light of what you stated in your previous reply (particularly in the first paragraph), believe in the innocence of ANY party. If i apply the logic illustrated in your most recent post, then by definition everyone should be guilty - maybe you believe that anyone who has had any contacts with the police, is guilty of some crime or the other. Maybe because i have been questioned by Canadian police at anti-war demos., i am guilty of some crime or the other in your books? i am curious to know, in your opinion, what constitutes an individual being innocent and what s/he must do to satisfy this requirement.
[/QUOTE]
No problem Nadia. In the US, innocent people plead not guilty if and when they are charged with criminal offenses. Inocent people who are arrested do not plea bargain for light sentences or adjournments in contemplation of dismissal. Innocent people do not agree to go to counseling/drug centers/AA/etc. to cure them of problems that they do not have for crimes they did not commit in exchange for having charges dismissed. The dismissal of Scottie's case after he satisfied the terms of his agreement with the prosecution and the sealing of the file merely means that he is not a CONVICTED child molester, sexual predator, or sex offender and the facts and specifics of the agreement will not be available to the public. It doesn't mean he didn't do it. Nor is he saying he didn't do exactly what the press is now reporting that he did. Nor is he in the process of filing a defamation action.
If he had plead not guilty after being arrested and if a trial was pending for the government to prove its case, I would stand right along with you saying he is innocent until proven guilty. I'll agree with you that he has never been found guilty of committing a crime (because of the nature of how he cut an agreement with the prosecution). That is something totally different than being innocent of committing the act.
Thanks, MV, for a detailed and to-the-point answer. i'm slightly confused regarding the following two statements (particularly those in bold):
>>If he had plead not guilty* after being arrested and if a trial was pending for the government to prove its case, I would stand right along with you saying he is innocent until proven guilty.<<*
>>I'll agree with you that **he has never been found guilty...<<
Unless i have read OG's news articles inaccurately (particularly the last CNN one), Ritter HASN'T plead guilty to the charges. Right? Therefore, atleast *in the eyes of the law*, he is innocent. Beyond this - whether or not each individual chooses to believe this, is up to each individual. God knows best. My personal opinion, of course, sticks as it always was - infact, subsequent to reading everyone's posts and their eagerness to jump on the accusatory bandwagon, i think i have more faith in him than ever before.
Cheers,
nadia
Sounds like any of the Iraqi posts…
Seminole, Sorry, i don't accurately comprehend what you are trying to state. Do you mean that i sound like an Iraqi, or that my last post sounds like one of my usual Iraq-related posts?
In answer to your question Nadia,i havnt really given that much thought to whether he is guilty of this little piccadilo,its pretty meaningless in the greater scheme of things.
I thought the guy was bad long before this thing,he sells his opinions and his voice to the highest bidder,that showed me his character straight away.i am also pretty sure that he has left a really bad taste in the mouths of the marine corp,so if i were him,i would watch were i went out for a beer in the future.
Being ex military myself i know that for an esprit d`corp to exist,you need to be able to depend on the men around you,so this is how i usually judge people.Now i know that being anti-war,no matter what,you will say that this clouds my judgement but i can assure you,it has never let me down yet.
The only reason that i am expending this amount of energy just talking about this guy and i dont want to sound patronising here,is that you are too good for him and he is not worth your respect.
Now here is a good one!
Wolfowitz implying that “an inspector” may have been blackmailed by Saddam. The article wondering what caused Ritters’ sudden change in ideology. Hmmmmm, the plot thickens!
The significance of former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter’s arrest, allegedly in a police sex-sting operation a year and a half ago, was underscored today when Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told of Baghdad’s use of personal information to intimidate the inspectors.
Ritter – who confirmed yesterday that he was arrested in June 2001 but refused to give details – has dramatically reversed his position on Iraq’s weapons threat and become an outspoken critic of the U.S., telling WND last week that President Bush should be impeached for his policy toward Baghdad.
“In the past, Iraq did not hesitate to use pressure tactics to obtain information about the inspectors,” Wolfowitz said today in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
Noting that often the pressure was “quite crude,” Wolfowitz said that during the previous inspection period in the 1990s, “one inspector was reportedly filmed in a compromising situation and blackmailed.”
Ritter served during this period under the auspices of UNSCOM, the United Nations Special Commission.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Dave Lapan told WND today he would seek further elaboration from Wolfowitz concerning his remarks about the inspectors.
Ritter Says Timing of arrest reports is suspicious
*“When you dismiss the case and you seal the files, … it maintains the presumption of innocence,” Ritter, 41, said in a Court TV interview Wednesday. “So I’m sticking to my ethical and legal obligations not to discuss this case. I wish other people had done that.” *
"I wish other people had done that."
I bet he does!
Such cases should be made public so you know not to leave your children with such people.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: Unless i have read OG's news articles inaccurately (particularly the last CNN one), Ritter HASN'T plead guilty to the charges. Right? Therefore, atleast *in the eyes of the law**, he is innocent. Beyond this - whether or not each individual chooses to believe this, is up to each individual. God knows best. My personal opinion, of course, sticks as it always was - infact, subsequent to reading everyone's posts and their eagerness to jump on the accusatory bandwagon, i think i have more faith in him than ever before.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia:
Your post illustrates a certain level of confusion about the American justice system. People are NEVER found "innocent" of committing some act. People are found "guilty" or "not guilty." A finding of "not guilty" does not equate with being "innocent." "Not Guilty" means that the prosecutor has not been able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We adopted this rigorous standard of proof under the tenet that it is better that 9 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail. Thus, in our system we know that certain people who commit heinous criminal acts will not be found guilty by a jury and thus will not be punished for their acts.
The OJ Simpson case is a great example of how this comes into play. He was found "not guilty" of criminal charges of killing his wife and the other guy. Does this mean he was innocent? No. In fact, in a civil case, a jury concluded he was responsible for killing his wife and Mr. Goldman and awarded the victims family a whole bunch of money. The standard of proof in the civil case was lower than the standard of proof in the criminal case. In the civil case, the family just had to persuade the jury that OJ more likely than not killed his wife. Did he, in fact, kill them? I don't know but neither the "not guilty" verdict in his favor in the criminal case nor the verdict against him in the civil case answer that question.
If you are interested in the "truth", the question you need to ask is did someone do the act that they are charged with doing?
In cases like Sir Scotty, we never even get to a determination of "guilty" or "not guilty" because some other disposition has been agreed upon between the prosecution and defense. So we look at other facts to make our determination of whether he is innocent or did the act for which he is now accused. It is pretty clear that he was, in fact, arrested and charged with going on the Internet, chatting with what he believed to be an underage girl, arranging a personal meeting with the girl so that he might sexually gratify himself while she watched.
Rather than plead not guilty to the the charges, in exchange for the government dropping the charges and sealing the court records, he agreed to go to counseling and stay out of trouble for a fixed period of time. Now, he admits that he was arrested but refuses to discuss the facts and circumstances that led to the arrest. He doesn't deny what the papers are saying and he has not filed a defamation action against them.
I find it hard to believe that any rational person could come to any conclusion/opinion other than Scotty did, in fact, do what the papers are reporting he did.
If, in your eyes, he remains a credible and decent person because he was not found guilty in a court of law for committing the act, well....that's fine. I set a higher standard than that for people I respect, admire, and/or find credible and decent. I suspect that even you do not believe he is "innocent." If you had a 13 year old daughter, would you demonstrate your faith in Scotty's innocence by letting him babysit her for a few hours?