Comment at end
14th January, 2010
DOES THIS MEAN THAT UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS AREN’T ALL ABOVE REPROACH?
NOT NECESSARILY ANGELS IN DISGUISE? PERHAPS NOT THE “WE ALL KNOWERS” OF “THE TRUTH”? NOT AS “HIGH-MINDED” & PRINCIPLED AS SOME OF THEM WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE?
If this world were more balanced in reporting the causes/reasons/motivation for the Iraq war I wouldn’t dream of transferring anyone’s misdemeanours in one area of life to another. But I am constantly irritated by the claims of the WE ALL KNOWers” – those who dislike our former Prime Minister – that now that he is “so rich” everything he did regarding his time in office and/or in supporting the USA over Iraq was with the “future riches” aim in mind.
But since the anti-Blair/anti-Iraq dailies have repeatedly taken this stance on such as Tony Blair, they have changed the rules. It’ s now open season on those who have wrongly claimed the “moral high ground” on Iraq.
And the UN’s former weapons inspector SCOTT RITTER is first in line.
[Fox article follows]
Former Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Nabbed in Teen Sex Sting
Former chief United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter was arrested in a Pennsylvania sex sting in November on a litany of charges involving a lewd Internet conversation with a person he thought was a 15-year-old girl.
Ritter, 48, allegedly masturbated in front of a Web camera while he was engaged in conversation in an Internet chat room with an undercover cop posing as the teenage girl.
The chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-98 and harsh critic of the war in Iraq, Ritter is accused of contacting the “girl” while using the handle “delmarm4fun” last February.
Ritter, of Delmar, N.Y., allegedly told the girl, “Emily,” that he was a 44-year-old man from Albany, N.Y., according to an affidavit of probable cause.
The undercover officer then told Ritter he was a 15-year-old girl from the Poconos region of Pennsylvania, at which point Ritter asked for a picture in addition to one “Emily” had posted on her account, according to the affidavit prepared by Barrett Township Police Det. Ryan Venneman.
Ritter then sent a link to his Web camera and began to masturbate while it was focused on his genitals, according to the affidavit. The former U.N. official then allegedly provided his cell phone number.
“He then continued to masturbate on web cam and he again asked how old I was,” the affidavit continued. “He was advised again that I was 15 years old. He said he didn’t realize that I was 15 years old and turned off his web camera. He stated that he didn’t want to get in trouble.”
Ritter then allegedly told the “girl” that he fantasized about having sex with her, to which the officer replied, “guess u turned it off [no problem].”
Ritter then asked the girl if she “want[ed] to see it finish” before reactivating his Web camera and ejaculating, the affidavit read.
The conversation with the girl allegedly took place on Feb. 7, 2009, but the police investigation lasted until November. Ritter was arrested on Nov. 9 and charged with unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation.
Ritter waived his right to a preliminary hearing on Dec. 17 and remains free on $25,000 bail.
Attempts to reach Ritter’s attorney were unsuccessful Thursday.
A press release issued by the Barrett Township Police Department in November noted that the incident wasn’t the first time Ritter had been arrested on similar charges, but that he had not been formally charged.
Ritter was reportedly charged in a June 2001 sex sting in New York, but the case was dismissed. He had been charged with attempted child endangerment after arranging to meet a person he thought was a 16-year-old girl at a fast-food restaurant. The girl was actually an undercover police officer.
The New York Post reported Ritter was caught in a similar case in April 2001 involving a 14-year-old girl, but he was never charged.
This guy talks a lot. A lot about conspiracy, a lot about Saddam, a lot about WMDs, a lot about “lying”, a lot about Bill Clinton and Bush Snr & Jnr, a lot about regime change, a lot about the American constitution and a lot about the law.
Presumably he’ll be a lot happier now that the law has caught him red-handed, as it were.
Read the whole of the below on Oct 26th 2005 – The Nation interview. Excerpts:
MR. RITTER: “Well, I view that Iraq is a nation that’s on fire. There’s a horrific problem that faces not only the people of Iraq but the United States and the entire world. And the fuel that feeds that fire is the presence of American and British troops. This is widely acknowledged by the very generals that are in charge of the military action in Iraq. So the best way to put out the fire is to separate the fuel from the flame. So I’m a big proponent of bringing the troops home as soon as possible.”
MR. HERSH: There’s always the argument that one virtue of what we did, no matter how bad it is, we’ve got rid of a very bad dictator. What’s your answer to that one?
MR. RITTER: “That invokes the notion of the ends justify the means. I mean, that’s basically what we’re saying here is that who cares about the lie, who cares about the WMD. You know, we got rid of a bad guy. The ends justify the means. And I have to be frank. If there’s anybody here who calls themselves a citizen of the United States of America and you endorse the notion of the ends justify the means, submit your passport for destruction and get the hell out of my country. Because this is a country that is founded on the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution that the men and women who serve us swore an oath of allegiance to, the Constitution that our government, every government official swears an oath of allegiance to, and it’s about due process. Democracy is ugly. Sometimes it doesn’t work as smoothly as we want it to. But if you’re sitting here and saying that when it comes to Saddam, that the ends justify the means, where do you draw the line? Where do you draw the line?
And you can’t tell me that it’s only going to stop here. It’s about the rule of law, it’s about the Constitution. And if we wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, then we should have had a debate, discussion, and dialogue about the real reasons and not make up some artificial WMD.”