W3vina.COM Free Wordpress Themes Joomla Templates Best Wordpress Themes Premium Wordpress Themes Top Best Wordpress Themes 2012

Home » News - National » Currently Reading:

Ritter’s Case

January 24, 2003 News - National 33 Comments

Yahoo! News – Former U.N. weapons inspector says timing of arrest reports is suspicious
Something’s rotten in the state of Denmark. The Ritter arrest, as I was lead to believe in my cursory glance of the story the other day, I had thought was recent (as in the arrest was made within the last month). Hey, I’ll freely admit I thought little of it. I’m no more fond of Scott Ritter than I am Jack Ritter.
Turns out the arrest was made in 2001, and the case was dismissed, and the records sealed. But as Drudge links more stories about “War Within Weeks,” Ritter, who despite his protestations that he is a leading antiwar agent, is nevertheless, one with a fair amount of credence in his arguments (compared to say, International ANSWER at least). So if the records are sealed and the case has been dismissed … how does one explain the timing of all this? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Currently there are "33 comments" on this Article:

  1. Ferris Bueller says:

    I’ll take a stab at it:
    “While he initially denied that he was the William Scott Ritter Jr. arrested in an Internet sex sting, he now admits he was arrested and the case dismissed.”
    or this:
    Do the allegations against Scott Ritter damage his credibility as a commentator on Iraq?
    (* 2144 responses)
    Yes 72% No 28%

    Not sayin’ for sure, just offerin’

  2. R. Alex says:

    The timing might be political (I have a hard time believing that someone who knew six months ago wouldn’t have released it then, since was has been “imminent” for a long time, but it’s possible). Same with the timing of the release of Bush’s DUI citation.
    None of that relieves them of their responsibility in the matter.

  3. Greg Wythe says:

    No argument that pedophilia is pedophilia is pedophilia. What goes off in my head, though, is considering who would leak something like this and why. It’s one thing to think of some renegade judge somewhere doing this, or a political hack here and there. But for some reason (and who knows, could be mere paranoia) I have a hard time thinking of any other answer than a mole in 1600 Pennsylvania (or the associated offices across the street).

  4. R. Alex says:

    And we all know that without White House intervention, leaks in police departments are so, so very rare.

  5. Greg Wythe says:

    The police department must have had impecable timing to know when Ritter was planning a trip to Iraq.

  6. R. Alex says:

    Blargh. Not police departments (since it was a court thing), but government (and non-government)operations in general. Coulda been any number of people, or a combination (one person tips off that Ritter’s been arrested, once released a clerk leaks the details, etc).

  7. Greg Wythe says:

    Either way, the timing of the situation is worth raising an eyebrow over. Daniel Ellsberg anyone?

  8. R. Alex says:

    Well, it wasn’t exactly news until Ritter made a name for himself, and like I said before, at what point wasn’t war with Iraq “imminent”? People have been saying “any day now” since September. The debate started in August.

  9. Ulysses says:

    I don’t see why the timing is worth raising an eyebrow. If you already think Ritter’s an idiot, would this make a difference? If you oppose the Bush administration on its Iraq policy, do you really need Ritter as the poster boy for your argument, or can you get along without him?
    Vast right-wing conspiracy? C’mon Greg, you’re better than that.

  10. Greg says:

    Considering that the inspector’s report is due next week, Condi is dropping Op/Eds into the NY Times this week, Powell even getting more strident in his language … might want to re-analyze that whole “its been immenint for a while” argument.

  11. Greg says:

    U -
    Didn’t you once tell me you read NewsMax regularly? Yeah, tell me about conspiracies.

  12. Ulysses says:

    Actually, what I told you was that I go there to read the Late Night Joke archive where they post the previous evening?s monologues from Leno, Lettermen, Kilborn and Conan. I guess you chose not to hear that. But I like your methodology: Ritter gets arrested for attempting to sexually prey on children, and somehow it?s Bush?s fault that you?re just now hearing about it. And you don?t like my post, so somehow it?s NewsMax that gets your dander up. Anything short of a real argument seems to be the criteria for you in this thread. Ironic that, as it follows on the heels of your bemoaning the more ridiculous elements within your own party. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to offer in regard to your original post? Just one shred? Well then, better to slander your enemies and toss red herrings all over the place than make a real argument. Who knew that the ?Razzle Dazzle? number from ?Chicago? would make such a big impression on you!
    And you have yet to respond to the theory posted about why it’s coming out now. I posted it at the top, but you were more concerned with black helicopters than an actual explanation. You see, Greg, it wasn’t a leak. Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the term. The arrest was public information, but the connection wasn’t made until recently.
    Why is that? Because:
    http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/m265204.asp “> “While he initially denied that he was the William Scott Ritter Jr. arrested in an Internet sex sting, he now admits he was arrested and the case dismissed.”
    But go ahead and tell me all about those wonderful trees and how stupid the forest is, ya hypocrite.
    Well, on to TalkingPointsMemo.
    Wait a minute…., I don’t have to go there… I can read everything Joshua Micah Marshall posts just by coming here. How convenient. ;-)

  13. Greg says:

    So your take on why its coming out now is that Ritter originally lied about it? Might want to flesh that out some. What I posted was that the timing is specious and worth a raised eyebrow or two. Nothing more, nothing less. Regardless of how trusting you are of the current administration, I think its suspicious. You choose to disagree, such is life.
    If you want forests, you might also ponder the following: he was nabbed on similar charges before and got a warning … a warning!!! WTF??? In this case, he was nabbed, booked, and the charges were dismissed. Does that not raise a question in your mind? Are you that trusting of authority? I’m under the impression that if someone is on the books as a pedophile that they usually serve time for it. By all means, tell me where this story makes sense to you.

  14. Ulysses says:

    “I’m under the impression that if someone is on the books as a pedophile…”
    I’m guessing that if he were convicted, then it would, in fact, be on the books and he’d serve time for it.
    “Might want to flesh that out some.”
    Actually, since you started this post wondering whether “the leak” was orchestrated, I figured you’d want to do that with your theory. I won’t hold my breath though….

  15. Greg says:

    Didn’t know that a theory is hard to follow … Scott Ritter, annoying as he may be, is planning a trip to Iraq, potentially weeks away from a possible invasion, and suddenly, the story of his arrest is national news. Is it really difficult to see how one can have a sneaking suspicion that someone outside of the courthouse that this case was heard in *might* have had a role in either furthering a sealed court document or possibly even staging a setup?
    Then again, I guess its just easier to assume that Ritter is, indeed, a ped and just *happened* to get hooked on two separate incidents in which the case wasn’t definitive enough to be proven.
    You obviously choose the second case more believable. I consider the first, however theoretical, at least more than a passing possibility and far more troubling if there’s any truth to it.

  16. R. Alex says:

    Wait, Greg, so now you’re saying that you don’t think Ritter is a pedophile and this entire thing is a setup??
    You’re suggesting that the Justice Department tracked down his Internet Chat name, sent a cop or agent posed as a fourteen year old to lure him so that they could just let him go and have something to use against him roughly 18 months later? That strikes you as credible?
    First of all, as I understand it, it was local police departments that arrested him, not “Bush’s FBI.” So you’re not just accusing the FBI of harassing someone, you’re accusing the FBI conspiring with local authorities of doing so. You may think Bush is that scummy, but that at least makes it less plausible (and it’s already quite implausible). I’ll look it up and verify that it wasn’t the FBI that busted him, but I was under the impression it was the Albany PD.
    Secondly, when police departments castnet for pedophiles, they walk a fine line between investigating and entrapment. Usually, it’s not all that difficult for a lawyer to make the case for the latter.
    As such, the likelihood of a conviction rests largely on the character of the defendant. They are looking for a certain sort: uneducated and unwealthy. The type of person who would depend on a public defender.
    What they are not looking for is former marine and CIA agent. A hero-turned-activist who has both money and celebrity. Someone who could easily get the jury to believe that they are an upstanding man who wanted to help the poor little girl but was instead entrapped by the police.
    You castnet and catch a fish like that, you throw it back. It’s doubtful they were looking for anyone in particular (why I use the term castnet), and merely knocked around the Albany chatrooms with the bait and hook. Knowing what I do about chat rooms, that is usually all it takes.
    In any case, it’s possible that the cops were overzealous once they started talking to Ritter and he was entrapped. That, of course, legally obsolves him and would be a reason to let him go. Morally, though, if you were in a chat room, would you ask (or accept the invitation) of a 14 or 16 year old to come over and watch you masterbate? I’d say that qualifies as more than “annoying.”
    As for the fact it happened twice, there is a saying about needles and haystacks that I’m going to butcher cause I can’t quite remember it right: Find a needle in a haystack, lucky (or unlucky) you. Find two, there are probably dozens.

  17. Greg says:

    What I’ve said and what thoughts are attributed to me are two entirely different things. I stand by my assertion that something is fishier than normal about this. Lord only knows where I would ever suspect that government is capable of this.

  18. Greg says:

    And I presume that neither of you saw anything untowards about this?

  19. R. Alex says:

    Ahhh, okay. Make a casual accusation, disavow it, leave it out there, make allusions about government tactics during the height of the Cold War, equate deleting files with framing an innocent person, link to an anarchist site of dubious credibility at best, and rest assured that you have… well, stunned me into silence, I guess.
    I thought Ulysses was exagerrating when he was talking about your black helicopters.

  20. Ulysses says:

    Interesting sites, Greg. Is there anything in any one of them about, I dunno, Scott Ritter?

    Give ‘em the old razzle dazzle
    Razzle Dazzle ‘em
    Give ‘em an act with lots of flash in it
    And the reaction will be passionate
    Give ‘em the old hocus pocus
    Bead and feather ‘em
    How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
    What if your hinges all are rusting?
    What if, in fact, you’re just disgusting?
    Razzle dazzle ‘em
    And they’ll never catch wise!
    Give ‘em the old razzle dazzle
    Razzle dazzle ‘em
    Give ‘em a show that’s so splendiferous
    Row after row will crow vociferous
    Give ‘em the old flim flam flummox
    Fool and fracture ‘em
    How can they hear the truth above the roar?
    Throw ‘em a fake and a finagle
    They’ll never know you’re just a bagel,
    Razzle dazzle ‘em
    And they’ll beg you for more!
    Give ‘em the old razzle dazzle
    Razzle Dazzle ‘em
    Back since the days of old Methuselah
    Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-ler
    Give ‘em the old three ring circus
    Stun and stagger ‘em
    When you’re in trouble, go into your dance
    Though you are stiffer than a girder
    They let you get away with murder
    Razzle dazzle ‘em
    And you’ve got a romance
    Give ‘em the old Razzle Dazzle
    Razzle dazzle ‘em
    Give ‘em an act that’s unassailable
    They’ll wait a year ’till you’re available!
    Give ‘em the old Double whammy
    Daze and dizzy’em
    Show ‘em the first rate sorcerer you are
    Long as you keep ‘em way off balance
    How can they spot you got no talents?
    Razzle dazzle ‘em
    And they’ll make you a star!

  21. Greg Wythe says:

    Had I but a fraction of the imagination of both of you, I’m sure I could outdo the late night radio host who does a far better job than anyone here. Nevertheless, you two have professed your unwavering infallibility of the entirety of the federal law enforcement community while I have stated that there is room for some doubt. However you choose to spin that, have a blast. Meanwhile, the court documents (ya know, the ones that were “sealed”), have now been handed over to FBI hands. Nothing going on there, huh? Just a routine ped getting the once over, right? Surely those locals just got it all wrong when they let him off the hook.
    A week or so before a guy goes to Iraq, on the approaching eve of an invasion of Iraq, with plummeting support for the war showing up in poll after poll and when a “sealed” court case about an arrest which didn’t lead to a sentence (coming on the heels of a “warning” to not be a pedophile) becomes public, none of you have even a *shred* of doubt about the circumstances. I’m certain that had the party/ideological roles been reversed the same would be true, right? Your obviously superior judgement on these matters is so important to me.

  22. Ulysses says:

    “Nevertheless, you two have professed your unwavering infallibility of the entirety of the federal law enforcement community…”
    What a lovely straw man you’ve constructed, Greg!
    “I’m certain that had the party/ideological roles been reversed the same would be true, right?”
    And I’m sure you were equally suspicious over the death of Vince Foster, right?

    They’re coming to take me away, Ha-ha
    They’re coming to take me away, Ho-ho
    Hee-hee-haa-haa
    To the funny farm
    Where life is beautiful all the time
    And I’ll be happy to see those
    Nice young men in their clean white coats and
    They’re coming to take me away, ha-ha!

  23. Greg Wythe says:

    With all the brilliance you’ve been blessed with, the best you can do is insult? Quite frankly since you make no case of your own (aside from musical numbers), I’m left to deduce your logic from such. For a change, try pinning it down some. Try telling the world why you aren’t the *least* bit suspicious of this. Hell, put it into song if you wish. But exercise that gray matter a little more at least. Mockery does not make your case.
    I’ve stated the reasons for suspicion … surely you have the wit to challenge the assertions. I mean at least Alex kept it pretty close to that line of reasoning. If not, keep digging through the Dr. Demento classics.

  24. Ulysses says:

    Yes, the best I can do is unsult.

  25. Ulysses says:

    I don’t have to make a case; I’m not alleging anything. That onus is upon you, and you’ve contributed absolutely nothing but hysterical conspiracy theory. I can see now that there won’t be any evidence forthcoming from you, just more absurd ranting and raving, so in that sense it is pointless to argue. Enjoy your fantasy.

  26. Greg Wythe says:

    a) My fantasies are far more involved and usually include a really hot redhead.
    b) What … no song?

  27. Ulysses says:

    That drummer looks like a blond… what’s up?

  28. Ulysses says:

    BTW, if the Ritter thing is a conspiracy, Howell Raines sees right through it: as The Corner points out, the NY Times has yet to report the story.
    Of course!

  29. Ulysses says:

    And per your request:

    Day after day, alone on the hill
    The man with the foolish grin
    Is keeping perfectly still
    But nobody wants to know him
    The can see that he’s just a fool
    And he never gives an answer
    But the fool on the hill
    Sees the sun going down
    And the eyes in his head
    See the world spinning round
    Well on the way, head in a cloud
    The man of a thousand voices
    Talking perfectly loud
    But nobody ever hears him
    Or the sound he appears to make
    And he never seems to notice
    But the fool on the hill
    Sees the sun going down
    And the eyes in his head
    See the world spinning round

  30. R. Alex says:

    Greg, I’m not arguing that the release has something to do with Ritter’s recent activity, rather that it most likely wasn’t a case of “We’ve got this info, let’s hold on to it until we really need it” but rather “Let’s find all we can on this Ritter guy”… and it’s not a matter of law enforcement, the arrests are a matter of public record.
    And whatever the case, it doesn’t matter cause the dude is guilty and just as Bush is responsible for handing the Dems the DUI card, Ritter is responsible for handing the hawks the I-am-a-creep-that-likes-to-pick-up-girls-on-the-internet-heehee card.

  31. ttickledpinkk says:

    U- Sometimes I think I could love you. I’ll be at the show this weekend, dear… I hope you’ll forgive me missing your Frank-ness, but you’ll HAVE to do it again soon so I can see it! Great choice of songs!

  32. Ulysses says:

    Now this is a conspiracy theory we can all get behind.

Search This Site:

Categories

Comment on this Article:

Related Articles:

Archives

Blogroll (apolitical)

Newsroll (Int'l)