Scott Ritter - What a piece of _____!

[Stormin Norman]

I no longer want to hear anyone use Scott Ritter as a credible source of information regarding war in Iraq. This man has been discredited on many fronts.

1.) He was under investigation for espionage for giving sensitive information to the Israelis during his time as a weapons inspector for UNSCOM.

2.) He has taken money from an Iraqi businessman to produce a sympathetic piece on Iraq.

Scott Ritter took $800,000 from Iraqi businessman. (http://wwwa.house.gov/gekas/press/september/2002/27-ScottRitter.htm)

3.) Scott Ritter is an admitted sex offender, and it is possible that the Iraqis blackmailed him with the thought of an embarrassing public disclosure of this fact.

NY Daily News: Yuck! (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/54727p-51227c.html)

[abstractmentality]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 5:01 am on Jan. 29, 2003
I no longer want to hear anyone use Scott Ritter as a credible source of information regarding war in Iraq. This man has been discredited on many fronts.

1.) He was under investigation for espionage for giving sensitive information to the Israelis during his time as a weapons inspector for UNSCOM.

2.) He has taken money from an Iraqi businessman to produce a sympathetic piece on Iraq.

Scott Ritter took $800,000 from Iraqi businessman. (http://wwwa.house.gov/gekas/press/september/2002/27-ScottRitter.htm)

3.) Scott Ritter is an admitted sex offender, and it is possible that the Iraqis blackmailed him with the thought of an embarrassing public disclosure of this fact.

NY Daily News: Yuck! (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/story/54727p-51227c.html)
1: During his time as a weapons inspector, he went to the Israeli government in order to get information that the CIA either did not have, or did not want to give him. the Isaraeli government was more than willing to help in information giving about Iraq, and the "epsionage investigation" (which, from what i can tell, did absolutley nothing and caused no elaborate court case) was simply a reaction from getting information from the Isaraeli government. from establishing ties of information between UNSCOM and Israel, UNSCOM was becoming independent of the CIA for information, and in that sense, was now out of control of the CIA. that is why the ongoing investigation has been ongoing without anything happening.

2: he made a movie called On Shifting Sands that was helped financially by an AMERICAN citizen, of Iraqi origin, who gave 400,000 dollars, not 800,000 dollars, for the movie to be made. all other organizations, ie PBS, CNN, Frontline, etc, did not want to pick up the tab for a movie about iraq the way Ritter was portraying it, so Shakir Alkafajii helped with the money. now, 400,000 dollars is not a lot of money for an hour and a half documentary of high quality, and the production actually cost 486,000 dollars, 56,000 of which came from Ritters own pocket. Ritter has told the FBI that if in any way they ever found out that Shakir Alkafajii was funneled money from Iraq, or given special things from the Iraqi government, that Ritter would terminate the film immediatley. nothing has been brought up. Ritter also says that the FBI actually thought the film as "pretty darned good."

(as a side note of the article of which you have linked, SN, i would like to point out something. "In fact, Ritter resigned from his post in Iraq in 1998, citing the ineffectiveness of the United Nations and the United States to act upon his warnings." thats actually not why Ritter left. he left because of conflicts between him and, i think, Richard Butler. Ritter did not like the illegal espionage type things going on for the US through Butler, and from these types of acts, Ritter left.)

3: i really do not know a lot about this accusation. all that i can say is that the case was dismissed.

EDIT: i just wanted to add that if Ritter has confesed to the accusations that have been dismissed, that does not take away from what he know about Iraq.
(Edited by abstractmentality at 8:31 am on Jan. 29, 2003)


(Edited by abstractmentality at 12:13 pm on Jan. 29, 2003)

[Stormin Norman]

Why are you defending this man? His credibility is shot. The case was not dismissed. It was adjudicated and sealed. He got a light sentence, which is typical of vermin in the judicial system who sympathize with crimes of this nature. The charges were deferred. I believe this man is a traitor and a piece of filth. The fact is, he has proven himself untrustworthy. Taking an Iraqi's money to produce a film sympathetic to Saddam Hussien definetely constitutes a conflict of interest, and his opinion on Iraq is no longer valid. Citing him as a source in the wake of all the questions surrounding this man also hurts the credibility of anyone who would use him as support for their weak argument against a war in Iraq.

[abstractmentality]

the sex offender case has NOTHING to do with what he knows about Iraq, so i do not see how that affects his credibility. i saw him on Court TV the other night speaking about this, and both him, and the legal analysis talking with him agreed that the case was dismissed. maybe both of them were lieing, but i doubt it.

the Iraqi that you say he took money from was an american citizen. although, yes, he was of iraqi origin. once again, he only made the movie in an attempt to show what is truth, and not propaganda. i have not seen the movie, so i can not speak for that portion of it, and have to rely on ritter for that information. ritter has openly, in published books said that if in any way the FBI (who was conducting the investigation) could prove that the money for the film came from Suddam, he would stop production of it, stop everything about it, but nothing has been proven. he even says that when the FBI saw the movie, they thought it was "pretty darned good." i know i am repeating myself, but i just dont see where his credibility has been lost. and the article you use to make the claim of the money being from saddam cant even get the reason for Ritters departure from UNSCOM correct, so why should we believe anything else in the article? to me, the credibility of George W. Gekas has been flushed down the toilet there, and can not be trusted. Ritter is an ex-marine republican voting patriot. i dont see in any way how you, or anyone else, has brought down his credibility, and i will continue to use Ritter as a source of information.

[Stormin Norman]

the sex offender case has NOTHING to do with what he knows about Iraq, so i do not see how that affects his credibility.

Ever heard of blackmail?

[kylie]

null

[Michael De Panama]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'd just like to take the time to compliment Stormin Norman for going out of his way to make sure everything was P.C. and non-offensive in the sub-title to this thread. Good job.

[abstractmentality]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 1:02 am on Jan. 30, 2003

the sex offender case has NOTHING to do with what he knows about Iraq, so i do not see how that affects his credibility.

Ever heard of blackmail?


The case you have mentioned has been out of sight of the public since it happend, and to be honest, i dont even remember it then. If the Iraqi government was using it as blackmail against him, then why would they bring it back up right now? it makes no sense. Ritter is one of the most outspoken people against the war, and it seems like the US is getting the gears rolling on beginning this war, so why would Iraq want to disprove ritters credibility? it makes absolutley no sense.

And just to add something to the money being given to him to make the film, Ritter had the idea of what the film was going to be about, and how he was going to make the film BEFORE he asked Shakir Alkafajii, since Ritter went to CNN, Frontline, PBS before Alkafajii. Therefore, Ritter was not influenced by Alkafajii's money on the content of the film.

[Exploited Class]

The charges were dismissed without a plea.
The assistant district attorney involved was fired from her job two weeks ago

http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/m267466.as...?0ct=-302&cp1=1 (http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/m267466.asp?0ct=-302&cp1=1)

The people that want war, did a good job at getting one of the loudest opponents to be silenced.

[Stormin Norman]

The case was adjudicated.

"According to the media reports, the local district attorney was so angry at not being told of Mr. Ritter's arrest that he fired the prosecutor who adjudicated the case without notifying him.

When contacted about the reports, Mr. Ritter told the paper, "Sorry, you must have the wrong person.""

source: http://washingtontimes.com/national/200301...22-67149979.htm (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030122-67149979.htm)

It sounds as if this is a case of adjudication withheld. This type of judicial decision is commonly applied in juvenile cases where they want to give the offender another chance without having the burden of a dirty record. Here is the legal definition:

Adjudication Withheld - while accepting an agreement to resolve the charge, there has been no final adjudication pending completion of certain requirements.

Adjudication -The giving or pronouncing a judgment in a cause; a judgment.

In cases of adjudication withheld, the defendant acknowledges culpability in the crime, while the justice department agrees to forgoe blemishing the record of the defendant. As mentioned earlier juvenile diversion programs employ this tactic, with the thought that young people make mistakes, and should be given a second chance. Scott Ritter is not a child, and the prosecutor who agreed to adjudicate the case has been fired by the District Attorney for poor judgement in this case. Considering what I know about this man, he was more than likely guilty of the crime in question. Apparently the feds have unsealed the case, and he may get his day in court. If he did sign papers that state his guilt in return for an adjudication, whoever prosecutes his case will have an easy time proving their case. Most people who work for a living would refer to this as a gravy job. It might not require a jury trial if he did not live up to his end of the bargain. If he violated the terms of the agreement, the adjudication will automatically go on his record as a conviction, and he will have to appear in a court for sentencing.

Why are you guys so willing to defend a sexual predator? This man is a has been. The D.A. is right for being upset; this sounds like an open and shut case that should have been decided through conventional means. Using juvenile crime tactics on an adult sex offender is unscrupulous, and the prosecuting attorney deserved to lose his/her job.

The fact that he lied to a reporter about the case, again goes against the man's credibility. The man is a liar and is not to be trusted. Anything coming from his mouth is more than likely a lie.

In regards to listening to a sex offender, I would not care to visit the state prison in order to discuss foreign policy with child molesters, nor would I care to hear what Scott Ritter has to say on such matters. I regard Scott as I would any other predator of children. Hopefully justice will be served, and he will get his days in prison, where I am sure the inmates will treat him like they do any other sex offender.

The case has not been dismissed, it has been deferred. The federal government is looking into prosecuting him for the charges filed in this case.

[Stormin Norman]

feoric,

You are an idiot. Not only do you defend an alleged child molester, but you defend cop killers as well. Mumia has been convicted of the crime of killing Daniel Faulkner. Every appeal has lost. The facts of the case are overabundant. Four eye-witnesses and scores of forensic evidence don't lie, not to mention the fact that the prosecution was able to produce witnesses who had heard Mumia brag about the killing. This man is a scum sucking loser who deserves the punishment he will get. The only people who deny the facts of the case are Mumia himself, and people who believe that cops deserve to die, or that our justice system should be nuetered even further. Before you speak about an issue it would serve you better to actually investigate the facts of the case you are discussing.

Well, here they are: Execute the killer of Daniel Faulkner! (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/indexcasefacts.html)

Do you expect me to believe that you know better than the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which upheld the decision? Here is the opinion of that court (http://www.danielfaulkner.com/indexSupreme.html).

What kind of a disgraceful person would champion the cause of Mumia. I hope they mummify Mumia when they are done killing him. No punishment is to great for this murderer.


(Edited by Stormin Norman at 10:12 pm on Feb. 4, 2003)

[kylie]

null

[kylie]

null.

[kylie]

null

[Hampton]

What a bunch of crap. You talk about facts and use as your source the site which is named after the cop who was killed on December 9th, 1981. Gee, do you think they would want Mumia dead? Isn't that the same when someone quotes The Guardian then they get criticized for quoting a "liberal" newspaper? Do you want me come back with evidence to oppose your viewpoint from the different Mumia sites?

Stop the madness. Free the MOVE 9, Jamil Al-Amin, Dr. Mutulu Shakur, and Mumia and all other victims of COINTELPRO.

[Stormin Norman]

Hey Hampton, you moron. The site does have the name of the victim. However, the page I linked you to has a summary of the case facts which are backed up by the evidence that was submitted during the court proceedings. I also linked you to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision. You wouldn't say that that is a biased opinion, would you?

[Stormin Norman]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'd just like to take the time to compliment Stormin Norman for going out of his way to make sure everything was P.C. and non-offensive in the sub-title to this thread. Good job.

I wasn't trying to be politically correct. I was trying to get the audience to use their imaginations. There are a wide range of words in the English language that will also work in the case of Scott Ritter.

[Hampton]

Seeing how it's kind of hard to take you seriously when you go about calling me a moron, I would say that courts are biased. Hear about Tulia, Texas recently?

[Stormin Norman]

Not aware of the Tulia case. I wouldn't think of you as a moron if you didn't go around supporting proven cop killers.

[Eastside Revolt]

Stormin' Normin', I hope that one day you will get framed for something. Oh, wait you're not black, and you're not a political leader, I guess that kinda fucks it up for me, eh?

[Hampton]

Info on Tulia:

More than ten percent of the African-American community in this tiny town were arrested in a drug sting conducted by a single undercover officer with no corroborating evidence. Tulia, Texas, population 5,000 of which about 250 residents are black.

All of the arrests were the result of unverified undercover work by a sheriff's deputy with serious credibility problems, Tom Coleman. He was recently fired from another narc job in Dallas County, accused of sexually harassing one of his informants, then revealing her name to drug suspects after she refused to give him sex.

Court watchers say no drugs, money or weapons were seized in the roundup, and there is no information to back up the undercover agent's word that he bought drugs from the accused. Eleven of those arrested in Tulia were found guilty and another 17 accepted plea agreements.

The people of Tulia reelected both the sheriff and the district attorney last year in the midst of the national attention focused on the town by allegations of racial bias in the bust, and they have no problem with the harsh sentences handed down to town "drug dealers."

Copied from the Times (http://www.kunstler.org/herbert7.html)

More (http://www.november.org/razorwire/july-aug-sept2001/page2.html)

Media Awareness Project (http://www.mapinc.org/tulia.htm)

American Travesty (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0820-06.htm)

[Stormin Norman]

Scott Ritter and James have a lot in common. They are both sexual degenerates and cowards. The only difference is that James is gay.

[Hampton]

Nice to see a educated well thought out response.