Ritter says Bush administration yet to prove Iraq a danger (USF fliers called him a molester)

Looks like he did come back!

"It's character assassination. I'm (the) father of twin 9-year-old daughters," Ritter said. "I support every law on the books to protect children from predators."

Reminds me of Mike Tyson using 'my mom is a woman' defense.

ALBANY - Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter was secretly prosecuted in Albany County in 2001 after he was snared in an Internet sex sting operation, law enforcement sources told the Daily News .

< snip >

He was arrested by Colonie Police in June 2001 on a misdemeanor charge after he allegedly had a sexual discussion on the Internet with an undercover investigator he thought was an underage girl, law enforcement sources disclosed on condition of anonymity.

Scott Ritter:
Show me tha money !

Scott Ritter was paid for his interest in a movie - $400,000. Some discussion on this article here on FR...

Also this FR article...

Scott Ritter in Pro-Iraq Movie Deal

Just start calling him Michael Jackson, his "career" is about to take a similiar turn.

It'll all be over when the first bomb drops.

Then look for the Ritter legal defense fund to start asking for contributions.

I could post a bunch of links, but Ritter needs more than a bunch of informative links to clear up his thinking process --- MY OPINION of course.

Ritter lashes out at U.S (at the Abu Dhabi-based Zayed Centre, affiliate of the Arab League)
gulfnews ^ | 2/9/2003 | Nadim Kawach

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/841298/posts?page=

Federal authorities have obtained Ritter's sealed records from an alleged Internet sex sting to review for possible federal charges. He has acknowledged on national television his June 2001 arrest on charges he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl to a restaurant. The charges were dismissed and the records sealed, and he has not admitted to involvement in the alleged Internet sting.

Still, fliers on the USF campus were calling him a molester.

AP

His brain is clouded by visions of little girls dancing in his head.

Ritter got paid $6600 for his screed and during his speech, Mrs. Sami al Arian was there and someone called him a child molester. I wonder which freeper did that?

Ex-weapons inspector brings antiwar message to USF

By BRADY DENNIS, Times Staff Writer
© St. Petersburg Times
published February 12, 2003

TAMPA -- It took only a glance to see that Scott Ritter was preaching to the choir Tuesday night at the University of South Florida.

Inside, past the metal detectors and beefed-up security, people wore pins that read "Peace is patriotic" and held small flags that declared "Just say no to war."

Green Party members sat in the lobby, handing out fliers that pleaded: "Don't invade Iraq."

There were the 26 rounds of applause that interrupted his lecture, two of them standing ovations.

Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, passed through USF on a worldwide tour to share his contempt for the Bush administration's push to invade Iraq.

He was paid $6,600 for Tuesday's speech, school officials said.

Before the lecture, the 41-year-old former U.S. Marine sat on a green couch in a small room off the stage, sipping spring water and holding court with several reporters and supporters.

He told them the same thing he later would tell a crowd of nearly 800: Iraq isn't a big enough risk to the world to sacrifice American lives.

Nahla Al-Arian, wife of controversial USF professor Sami Al-Arian, stood at the back of the room, shaking her head in agreement.

During his one-hour speech, Ritter criticized Secretary of State Colin Powell's Feb. 5 presentation to the U.N., saying he didn't make a valid case for war.

He said that people in countries around the world view America as a "rogue superpower," a "bully" that is looking for a fight.

He warned that an invasion of Iraq would prompt more terrorist attacks on the United States in coming years.

He said that Bush's stance has "nothing to do with national security" and "everything to do with domestic politics." He called President Bush "a weak man" who has been influenced by "neoconservatives."

He said that Saddam Hussein is a menace, but the Iraqis are cooperating with inspectors this time around. Give them more time.

But more than anything, Ritter said he didn't want to see soldiers die for a less-than-noble cause.

"They say I'm antimilitary. It's antimilitary to let our girls and boys go off and die in a war that doesn't need to be fought. War is not a game. It will be awful, horrible, horrific."

And he said it's that vision that keeps him globetrotting, shouting that the government's stance is wrong.

"I don't work for the president," Ritter said. "The president works for me. It's not unpatriotic to speak out and question the policies of our government. It's the most patriotic thing you can do."

The only tense moment of the evening came when a man called Ritter a "child molester," referring to his two arrests in 2001 on charges of trying to arrange sexual encounters with a teenage girl in what turned out to be an Internet sting.

The charges later were dropped, the case sealed by a judge. Ritter claimed Tuesday, as he has before, that the news of his arrests were leaked to silence him.

Scott Ritter on CNN right after the Internet solicitation case was made public.... a fascinating interview and Aaron Brown got very irritated when Ritter wouldn't answer direct questions.

CNN NEWSNIGHT AARON BROWN

Aired January 22, 2003 - 22:00 ET

AARON BROWN, HOST: Good evening again, everyone. I suspect this is going to be dry as dirt, but on a day when there are lots of things to write about, I want to spend a moment tonight talking about what we don't report.
This has come up a lot this week. First over a story that UPI was runing about Israeli intelligence operations, and the other is a story about Scott Ritter, the one-time weapons inspector. A now full- time critic of the administration's policy with Iraq.

Earlier this week there were reports that Ritter had been arrested in a sex sting near Albany 18 months ago. For a couple of days we knew about the allegation and did not report it. Lots of notes 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.

Same with the Israeli intelligence report. Why no coverage? So here's how we look at this stuff. Whenever it's possible, 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 acknowledgement 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.

So now on to the day's news.

{snipped}

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.

Let's talk about the ramifications of it. It is my view, and, certainly I think as far as this program is concerned, and I think others, that you are, in a sense, radioactive, that these charges, I would submit, until they're responded to, will keep it that way.

But, in any case, in this moment, for the moment, nobody cares what you think about Iraq. You think that's why this stuff was leaked?

RITTER: Well, I have no way of knowing why this happened. But the effect is obvious. I was supposed to be on an airplane yesterday flying to Baghdad on a personal initiative that could have had great ramifications in regards to issues of war and peace.

I wish people would keep the eye on the ball here. It's about war and peace. It's about the potential of conflict with Iraq, many thousands of Americans dying. And whether you agreed with me or disagreed with me on the issue, there's no doubting -- and you can't rewrite history -- I was a very effective voice in the anti-war effort in the campaign to keep inspectors on the ground.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: What is stopping you from going to Baghdad?

RITTER: Well, look, what's stopping me is the reason why I'm sitting here before you, Aaron.

If I went to Baghdad and tried to talk responsibly about issues of war and peace, this issue would have come up. And it would have been a distraction and it would have actually been a disservice. There are people in Baghdad right now pursuing the initiative that I started. And I want to give them every chance of success. I don't want to provide any distractions.

BROWN: Well, one way or another, I hope all this stuff gets cleared up and you can get back to talking about the issues you care about. But, again, I'm not quite sure how that's going to happen.

I appreciate your time. This is not easy for either of us. Thank you very much.

RITTER: Thank you.

BROWN: Scott Ritter, from Albany, New York, tonight.

NEWSNIGHT continues in a moment. We'll listen to some fascinating audiotapes, little bits of it at least, from President Kennedy that came out today, the fine lines of history -- as NEWSNIGHT continues.

{snipped}

The charges later were dropped, the case sealed by a judge. Ritter claimed Tuesday, as he has before, that the news of his arrests were leaked to silence him.

And then there was the Cnn interview! What a little man he is. Even the democrats are finished with him!

HIGHTLITE OF THE EVENING CAME WHEN SCOTT ASKED WHO WANTED TO GO TO BURGER KING FOR A TREAT.............

GOOD NEWS FOR ANY LITTLE VEGETARIAN GIRLS WHO ARE LURED TO THE BURGER KING:

"As any vegetarian traveler knows, it can be awfully difficult to find a vegetarian meal on the road, but finding a Burger King is fairly easy. There's the convenience of it, the fact that children will be able to get veggie kids' meals, the reassuring notion that the lone vegetarian in a large group will be able to find something to eat. And don't underestimate the crossover factor: imagine the number of non-vegetarians who might, over a lifetime, occasionally eat a BK Veggie rather than a hamburger -- I'm sure the number of animals saved would be staggering. The BK Veggie is not vegan (even without the low-fat mayonnaise, which contains eggs, the bun has trace amounts of natural butter flavoring) but it has, nonetheless, won the support of PETA and vegan activists like Erik Marcus."

===============================

There is a meat joke in here somewhere but I won't say it.

Ritter speaks in Albany 2-13. Sponsored by taxpayer supported public radio.

Scott Ritter might get felony law named after him. Nice legacy!

." He called President Bush "a weak man"

A weak man is one that tries to seduce little girls Scotty. You need to take a look at the man in the mirror.

Ritter got paid $6600 for his screed and during his speech,

What I would like to know is why do some people profit after they have been found to have committed such acts as (Ritter, Clinton, Lewinski), while others get to serve prison time?

I am the one that called Ritter a child molestor.

The newspaper didnt print the whole story! I also asked him to explain to us what happened and he said that in america we have frredom of speech as well at the right to remain silent!