Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

UN's Ritter faced sex rap
New York Daily News ^ | 1/19/03 | Joe Mahoney

Posted on 01/19/2003 1:15:49 AM PST by kattracks

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.

Ritter, who lives in the Albany suburb of Delmar, is now a high-profile critic of President Bush's war preparations.

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.

The case was sealed, and Colonie officials declined to release the arrest records, explaining the matter was adjourned in local court in contemplation of dismissal.

The Schenectady Daily Gazette reported yesterday that Albany District Attorney Paul Clyne fired veteran Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser last week for failing to inform him of the case against Ritter.

Clyne said that as a "sensitive" case, it should have been brought to his attention.

Ritter, who has made frequent appearances on network television after speaking to the Iraq National Assembly last year, could not be reached for comment.

Joe Mahoney



TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: napalminthemorning; pedophile; scottritter; treason; un; weaponsinspector; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 601-617 next last
To: Miss Marple
You apparently have decided that this is a Republican operation. Why, I have no idea, since most of the players in this are democrats.

Nooooooooo... but I'm not running around like a partisan trying to blame Hitlery, either.

But you keep avoiding that there's no way that Ritter could even sneeze without Federal agents knowing about it. The same Federal agents who now answer to Bush. Perhaps this is a red herring. Or not. YOU don't know any more than I do.

No, but I know not to let partisanship cloud my thinking. BOTH sides are capable of being bad apples.

The wife connection is interesting. Perhaps there's an external threat.....

521 posted on 01/19/2003 6:45:04 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 506 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
My apologies if someone has already posted this. I haven't been through the entire thread yet.

Biden's testimony before Senate Committee, (Biden), September 3, 1998.

http://existentialmoo.com/politics/archives/cat_scott_ritter.shtml

Old FR article from National Review on Clinton bombing Iraq

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a369d47ef5c1e.htm

President Clinton explains Iraq strike - Dec. 16, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

The first articles I can find where Riter changes his tune are March of 2000. Example:

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/irscott.htm

Article from Time detailing how Ritter changed his mind. (Barf Alert) - Interesting, he changed his mind right about the time he went to Iraq to film his yet to be sold documentary and received his $400,000.00.

http://www.time.com/time/pow/printout/0,8816,350809,00.html
522 posted on 01/19/2003 6:45:10 PM PST by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
you're rude.

That I am.

523 posted on 01/19/2003 6:46:01 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
This is a lie! You are a slanderer

Ummm no, because I haven't slandered.

But if it didn't come from Saddam, this is the first I've heard of it. Please present a reference or evidence.

I'm as anti-sheep as you can get.... without wanting to start hunting them.

524 posted on 01/19/2003 6:47:52 PM PST by DAnconia55 (And somedays I'm tempted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
And I'm not the one calling for the legalization of the possession of images of rape and torture of children out of concern for the grandparents holding innocent bathtub photos. You are.

Produce one post where I said that child sex photos should be legal to possess, liar.

525 posted on 01/19/2003 6:48:44 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: terilyn
Thanks for the links!
526 posted on 01/19/2003 6:48:56 PM PST by Cultural Jihad (Time to change this tag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
2 of a prostitute : to offer to have sexual relations with someone for money

Well, I get it from this. My mistake. I thought it required payment.

527 posted on 01/19/2003 6:50:00 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz; Miss Marple
SO why wasn't it leaked when it happened. IMO, it's not the first/only time he used the internet in this way
Locally the embarrassment of being caught (name in paper etc) is sometimes the only punishment given for this level of crime. Was Ritter's name in paper at the time of his arrest? What doe the arrest papers say? Aren't they public knowledge?

OTOH didn't Saddam repeatly call him a spy? Maybe he was just going out into town to often?? Just a thought!

MM I agree with most of you posts.
528 posted on 01/19/2003 6:50:03 PM PST by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55; Boot Hill

To quote an 'unimpeachable source':


Is the possession of child pornography a crime? Either/Or. Choose. Now.

Is it? Yes.
Should it be? No.


You then went on to claim that at most the issue is merely one of copyright infringement! Perhaps next you will claim in a Clintonian way that child pornography does not depict sexual acts.
529 posted on 01/19/2003 6:56:33 PM PST by Cultural Jihad (Time to change this tag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
You're welcome!

I find it interesting that three months before Clinton bombs Iraq, Ritter is yapping about how evil Saddam is and all the WMD he posses.

I also find it implausable that Ritter is the only former weapons inspector with a conscience. I have seen interviews with many others that were there in the 90's and not one other person that I have heard agrees with his point of view.

530 posted on 01/19/2003 6:57:53 PM PST by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: terilyn
To the best of my knowledge, I hadn't seen Ritter on any of the talking head shows before last years SOTU address.

Oh Scott Ritter was all over the TV shortly after the first inspections were stopped. See Senate hearing link below. Then he made a 360 turnaround and went to Iraq and made a documentary. See link below

I think the traitor has been under watchful eyes.

MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee; last week I resigned my position out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq. I can speak to you today from firsthand experience about the effectiveness of American policy or lack thereof, with respect to the United Nations's effort to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. I sincerely hope that my actions might help to change things.It was very sad to hear the secretary of State on Tuesday night giving an interview from Moscow challenging my credentials. She told the world through CNN that Scott Ritter doesn't have a clue about what our overall policy has been, that we are the foremost supporters of UNSCOM. I do have a clue, in fact several, all of which indicate that our government has clearly expressed its policy in one way and then acted in another. Such clues include various statements by the secretary of State, a report to Congress on 6 April by the president of the United States and several statements made to me and to other UNSCOM officials at a variety of inter-agency briefings held at the State Department, the Pentagon and the White House. If these were the only clues, the administration's record would be impressive. However, I can say without fear of contradiction and with the confidence that most of my former colleagues agree with me that those clues derive from the practical experience obtained on the ground in Iraq and behind the scenes at the United Nations tell another story: that the United States has undermined UNSCOM's efforts through interference and manipulation, usually coming from the highest levels of the administration's national security team, to include the secretary of State herself. Iraq today is not disarmed, and remains an ugly threat to its neighbors and to world peace. Those American who think that this is important and that something should be done about it have to be deeply disappointed in our leadership. I'm here today to provide you with specific details about the scope and nature of interference by this administration in UNSCOM, the debilitating effect that such interference has on the ability of UNSCOM to carry out its disarmament mission in Iraq and to appeal to the administration and to the Senate to work together to change America's Iraq policy back to what has been stated in the past: full compliance with the provisions of Security Council resolutions, to include enabling UNSCOM to carry out its mission of disarmament in an unrestricted, unhindered fashion.

Ritter Senate Testimony 9/3/1998

"Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter has said that Saddam is not a threat;that while he was an inspector about 95 percent of his (WMD) capability was destroyed," Russert announced.But while the former Marine who was booted out by Iraq in 1998 continues to be cited reverentially by Russert and others, they never seem to get around to mentioning Ritter's reported involvement in a pro-Iraq movie deal that depends on financing from an Iraqi-American supporter of Saddam Hussein."The U.S. will definitely not like this film," Ritter himself admitted to the Weekly Standard last November, as he described a return trip to Baghdad in July 2000 that was accomplished with Saddam's blessing.He was visiting the terrorist state to work on his documentary film, "In Shifting Sands," the goal of which was to chronicle the weapons-inspection process and, according to Ritter, "de-demonize" Iraq.
Scott Ritter In Pro-Iraq Movie Deal

531 posted on 01/19/2003 6:59:09 PM PST by Spunky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: Spunky
I found this especially interesting (from your link about Ritter):

Saddam's one-time nemesis managed to secure the unprecedented access through the help of Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American real estate developer who ponied up $400,000 for Ritter's movie.

Ritter confessed that al-Khafaji, who accompanied him to Iraq, is "openly sympathetic with the regime in Baghdad." The well-connected businessman was apparently instrumental in getting him interviews with top Iraqi officials.

532 posted on 01/19/2003 7:01:18 PM PST by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: Spunky
You're right. He was all over in 1998. But it seems there was a lapse in his face time for a couple of years until about a year ago now.
533 posted on 01/19/2003 7:03:33 PM PST by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is the possession of child pornography a crime? Either/Or. Choose. Now. Is it? Yes. Should it be? No. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of naked pictures, No.

But possession of SEX pictures are EVIDENCE OF A FELONY. It's like possessing photos of a murder. You can't do that....

Your way has parents who have innocent pictures of their kids at the mercy of the police and a jury. A photo of this type CANNOT Be (morally) illegal. You cannot make it illegal to view a naked child, or you'd have to arrest parents for bathing their kids. A thing cannot be legal when one person holds it, and illegal the second that he hands it to his neighbor.

But then, that's not your point. Your point is to try to use whatever you can to drive anti-government posts from the forum.

And I'm going to stick it to you ever chance I get, without budging. Count on it.

534 posted on 01/19/2003 7:08:53 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: Zviadist
Saddam's one-time nemesis managed to secure the unprecedented access through the help of Shakir al-Khafaji, an Iraqi-American real estate developer who ponied up $400,000 for Ritter's movie. Ritter confessed that al-Khafaji, who accompanied him to Iraq, is "openly sympathetic with the regime in Baghdad." The well-connected businessman was apparently instrumental in getting him interviews with top Iraqi officials.

Scott Ritter In Pro-Iraq Movie Deal

Article contains above quotes about source of funds. It didn't come from Saddam, but the difference is merely one of degree.

535 posted on 01/19/2003 7:12:47 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55; Boot Hill
Apparently, you smartly decided to change your ideologue tune. Before, you claimed that child pornography should be legal. Now you claim you had meant merely bathtub photos which many parent cherish and own. That is good. We don't like seeing ideology turn people into sub-humans.
536 posted on 01/19/2003 7:16:19 PM PST by Cultural Jihad (Time to change this tag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: terilyn
But it seems there was a lapse in his face time for a couple of years until about a year ago now.

I am pretty sure I saw him several times in connection to the documentary he was making which was 2000-2001.

537 posted on 01/19/2003 7:16:53 PM PST by Spunky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

538 posted on 01/19/2003 7:18:10 PM PST by syriacus (What if Washington stayed at Mt. Vernon, because he was afraid soldiers would be killed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Apparently, you smartly decided to change your ideologue tune. Before, you claimed that child pornography should be legal

I have NEVER claimed that child sex pictures should be legal to possess. They are evidence of a crime, and should be confiscated.

I guess the Koran doesn't have a prohibition on lying, eh, Jihadi?

539 posted on 01/19/2003 7:18:37 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
What do you think "child pornography," which you previously called for the legalization of, depicts? Apparently English is not your first language.
540 posted on 01/19/2003 7:21:28 PM PST by Cultural Jihad (Time to change this tag!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 601-617 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson