arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

Scott Ritter set up?
by Guido Thursday January 23, 2003 at 04:16 PM

Scot Ritter, a former UN-inspector who critisized the war-plans of Bush a lot, is now been accused ot having sex with children. First you can read part of the transcript of the CNN-interview, than an article on this subject from Justin Raimondo.

A part of the interview on CNN:

"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?

Transcript of Scott Ritter on CNN by WorldNetDaily.com

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

more info on Scott Ritter
by Guido Thursday January 23, 2003 at 07:47 PM

More info on his arrest you can find at:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=scott+ritter+colonie

Pour mémoire
by R.B. Friday January 24, 2003 at 09:36 AM

Pour l'instant personne ne sait avec certitude ce qui s'est passé.
Pour mémoire : dans els années "guerre froide" (autres temps autres moeurs) quand on avait besoin de discréditer quelqu'un on l'accusait d'homosexualité.