Posted on 01/23/2003 11:21:11 AM PST by Shermy
Scott Ritter said he doesn't want forgiveness.
Speaking publicly for the first time about the sex charge he was arrested for in 2001, the former U.N. arms inspector and one of the leading critics of the Bush administration's plans to attack Iraq said he has been held accountable for breaking the law. And it would be a shame, he said Wednesday, that his arrest could derail his efforts to help prevent a war in the Middle East.
"I think it's important to put a human face on this, to remind people that there are issues out there bigger than a two-year-old dismissed case," he said. "I'm not asking people for forgiveness.
In June 2001, he was charged in a police sting operation with trying to lure a 16-year-old girl he met on the Internet to a Burger King. Later in Colonie Town Court, the case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal after six months. Half a year later, the case was sealed.
"I was arrested on June 15 (2001) and charged with a class B misdemeanor," he said. "I think it's important for people to know that I stood before a judge in a public court, with my wife by my side ... and the case was dismissed."
Ritter, 41, a Delmar resident, spent Wednesday afternoon in a frenzy of television and newspaper interviews. He had been at the center of a national controversy that exploded this week when the arrest came to light.
A former Marine, Ritter served as a U.N. weapons inspector for seven years. He resigned in 1998, saying that Iraq remained a threat. He also accused the United States of damaging the inspection process by using intelligence from the U.N. to determine subsequent bombing sites.
In September, Ritter visited Iraq to urge Saddam Hussein to allow inspectors back into the country. Hussein agreed to do that a few days after Ritter left.
On Wednesday, Ritter said he's trying to put his life back together after the attention of the last few days. He declined to speculate on who may have released information from the sealed file.
"The timing is definitely suspicious," he said. "I have no insights as to who or why. I know what the impact is, which was to prevent me from getting on an airplane as I planned to do so ... to fly to Baghdad."
Ritter was to fly to Iraq on Tuesday to meet with the country's government, along with many other figures in the peace movement, to help avoid a war. Ritter bowed out of the trip because of the recent attention.
Colonie police Chief John Grebert said he did not blame any of his staff for the controversy. Though the case was sealed, he said, his detectives were not barred from talking about it, according to two lawyers he consulted. Furthermore, the case had been reported on Channel 13 in 2001 and many people were already familiar with it.
"This case is going on two years old," he said. "This case has been discussed fairly openly over the past year. A person who becomes more and more of a public figure increases the chance that anyone's going to talk."
WNYT Ch. 13 had the story on the arrest in 2001, but did not identify the man charged as the former weapons inspector. The station has said Ritter was charged under his given name -- William S. Ritter -- and the station did not make the connection at the time.
Ritter said this would be the last time he plans to discuss the situation with the media. He said he has been encouraged by hundreds of positive e-mails from around the country. His family is also with him.
"I'm very supportive of Scott, 100 percent or more," said his wife, Marina. "I'm very proud of him and everything that he has achieved."
Ritter and Marina, who married 12 years ago after they met in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, are parents of two young children. Ritter said it was difficult explaining to his kids about what happened, but expects to soon put this behind him.
"I will continue to speak where I'm invited and permitted to speak," he said. "This will not silence me."
Staff writer Mike Goodwin contributed to this report.
Um, no, not at all. He was reading from prepared remarks....he was very good at answering the questions, but none of the assembled reporters asked the question--or at least the parts of the Q & A I saw on the tube over the lunch hour.
And I do remember Richard Butler saying to Ritter on Donahue last week something about Ritter's lovely wife & their contributions--and I was puzzled, because I didn't think Ritter's wife worked for the inspections team.
Say, I was just wondering, BF -- what's the policy of the NY Child Protective Services concerning a known, repeat-offending child molester who has custody of two little girls? Do they periodically check these kids or do they just let nature take its course and say "too bad, so sad" when the pervert winds up doing what perverts do?
I haven't had time to read the thread on the Wolfowitz remarks,yet, but while I was away I was mulling this over. That if the implication of his words is so obvious to us, I would hope that some reporters would see if these dots are connected. It is beyond depressing to think that this wasn't the deep dark secret as the police chief said and that major media types just *may* have known about this. Now practically a neon sign is flashing as Wolfowitz made his prepared remarks, as you point out, and he is certainly aware of the Ritter story.
"well children, I just wanted my weapon inspected...."
Assuming "mail" wasn't a typo for "tail," that would be Bonior, McDermott and (Mike) Thompson (CA). All three went to our enemy's capital city and did perfect impersonations of Hanoi Jane.
Ritter said it was difficult explaining to his kids about what happened, but expects to soon put this behind him.
It was difficult explaining to his kids. What about the people's children that he has wooed on the internet or could have wooed. I guess he thinks that they are not as important as his. This sorry SOB needs to be locked up. And his sorry arse wife that is so proud of him better watch her children.
And as far as I am concerned any more air time on tv should only be for his confession of being on a chatroom trying to lure teenage girls and or perhaps boys, and should be taped in advance. Other than that Scott can go and get himself on Iraqi tv.
See my post 107. At this point, Saddam realizes Ritter could soon be turned. That's why I think Ritter did not go ahead with his trip to Baghdad -- because the Iraqis, quietly told him to stay put.
"And these are just the two we know about. How many other times has this happened? How far back does this go? How far forward does it go? In what other jurisdictions has Ritter offended like this? Why are the legal and judicial systems shielding and coddling this particular defendant? Most importantly, why is nobody outside of Free Republic raising these issues?
A question I posed on another thread was, "why would the police put their manpower and resources into such a sting operation and then not refer a perpetrator to the DA for a disposition?" What is the point of running a sting? Is it to turn these same pedophiles loose so they can re-offend? And would that be a decision for the police to make? Or would it properly be up to the DA and the court? Since when do cops adjudicate in these matters? This whole affair stinks to high heaven.
And there are some other intriguing aspects to all this. A long-time ADA basically threw away her career to run interference for Ritter. Why? No DA in his right mind would ever trust her again. In fact, it's unlikely that any senior partner would ever trust her, because if he ever got burned he couldn't say he didn't have fair warning. It will be most interesting to see whether she finds work again and, if so, in what capacity and with whom. Further, there is now a public perception that the Albany criminal justice system accords special treatment to certain favored defendants. Will anybody be demanding that the state of New York look into this? Will the state sweep it under the rug? Because if they do, the public perception will only worsen. And there are federal implications here. We're all supposed to be equal under the law.
When you get to that thread, take about 5 to 10 minutes to read Mr Wolfowitz's speech. You are right on track with your reply and suspicions!
Um, just how old *is* his wife, anyway?
Here's another "gem" from the same interview:
The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.In other words, things really *are* so bad in Iraq for the Iraqi people that it would be a good thing for war to topple Iraq, but Ritter would rather hide the truth so it can keep going on...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.