Asymmetrical Information

"The charges have been dropped and the records sealed, suggesting something very odd indeed is going on here."

Er, perhaps, but I think the theory being floated is not that he's being blackmailed over this case in particular, but rather than perhaps, given that this case shows he might have sexual predilections of an inappropriate sort, he might have been blackmailed in some other case we aren't hearing about.

The main problem with a direct link being the implausability of Iraqi agents having influence over U.S. law enforcement... sounded like he was nabbed in a pretty standard cop-poses-as-a-young-girl online sting, from the article I read. I'm not one of the legal eagles around here (can't really throw a stick without hitting one, but none of them are me) --- but my guess would be given the nature of the crime, he got a good lawyer and the sealing of the records was part of the deal to drop the case...

Who is doing the blackmailing; who is the "they" that Dr. Weevil is referring to? Why whould a blackmailed person come across as passionate about Iraq's lack of WMD's as Ritter does in public? Finally, though the Ritter turnabout is abrupt, it is mere speculation that this arrest has any effect on his Iraqi view.

I'm no fan of Scott Ritter, but no one involved in the case, as far as I know, has suggested that blackmail is involved. Maybe we'll hear more but I think Dr. Weevil is being totally irresponsible speculating on something, that for now, seems like coincidence. Ritter can be a sicko and be anti-war with Iraq without all the blackmail intrigue, after all.

Pedophiles usually aren't very good at concealing their desires, particularly when subjected to stress, so if Ritter is a pedophile (and I'm not asserting knowledge of that alleged fact), it would not be suprising in the least if that alleged fact had become known to entities which had motivation to learn all they could about him.

On the one hand, if there was blackmail, everybody involved has a strong interest in keeping it quiet. At the time, Ritter was being praised by all sorts of *very pompous people* who wouldn't want their reputations sullied by association, UNSCOM wouldn't want to admit they have employees like that, and, well, Saddam would want to keep it quiet for leverage. A conspiracy of silence all the way around.

On the other hand, it's rather difficult to believe there was a conspiracy of silence, since such things rely on silence by everybody, and surely somebody since then would have found it useful to unearth such a charge to destroy Ritter's credibility (if he had any).

At this point, it's all purely speculative. There could be a perfectly innocent explanation to this. In any case, whatever curiosity we may harbor will probably be satisfied in the days ahead.

I wanted to find a quick and dirty way to test the blackmail thesis with regards to this particular case of soliciting sex from minors. Let me emphasize "quick and dirty."

Anyway, this is what I did: I looked at the date of Ritter's arrest, and the date of his other alleged attempt to solicit sex. According to the MSNBC article that Megan links to, the earliest incident was in April of 2001.

Then the question was: Did Ritter's story change after April 2001, in response to some blackmail based on these acts, or did it change before April of 2001?

The answer is that Ritter was singing a different tune at least as early as March of 2000. This is over a year before the arrest or any other incident mentioned in the MSNBC article.

Here's a quote from Ritter in March of 2000, from the link above:

"Let's talk about the weapons. In 1991, did Iraq have a viable weapons of mass destruction capability? You're darn right they did. They had a massive chemical weapons program. They had a giant biological weapons program. They had long-range ballistic missiles and they had a nuclear weapons program that was about six months away from having a viable weapon.

"Now after seven years of work by UNSCOM inspectors, there was no more (mass destruction) weapons program. It had been eliminated....When I say eliminated I'm talking about facilities destroyed....

"The weapons stock had been, by and large, accounted for - removed, destroyed or rendered harmless. Means of production had been eliminated, in terms of the factories that can produce this...."

[...]

"I, for one, believe that a.) Iraq represents a threat to no one, and b.) Iraq will not represent a threat to anyone if we can get weapons inspectors back in. Iraq will accept these inspectors if we agree to the immediate lifting of economic sanctions. The Security Council should re-evaluate Iraq's disarmament obligation from a qualitative standpoint and not a quantitative standpoint."

_______________
So, if someone blackmailed Scott Ritter in order to get him to change his views on Iraq, that blackmail was not related to the two incidents of soliciting sex from a minor that are mentioned in the MSNBC article. Those incidents happened in 2001, while Ritter's stance on Iraq was decidedly dove-ish by early 2000.

Doing this research took me ten minutes.

Now, maybe Ritter is being squeezed for other secrets earlier in his past. Who knows? But as of now, there's no evidence for the blackmail theory.

No, no, no, I wasn't suggesting he was being blackmailed over this arrest; rather, that if he is someone who solicits underage girls, someone may have gotten enough to blackmail him. I've always found his volte face astounding, regardless of what motivated it, but this suggests a possibility.

jim...

the contention among many people is that:

it appears that ritter has some preferences taht may cause problems werethey widely known

his story changed abruptly and severely, with no real reason/explanation

it therefore becomes coneivable that there may be evidence held by iraq of earlier episodes where ritter was acting on his interests...

no one really sees the arrests as blackmail worthy, especially seeing as how they were announced in the us (at least locally)... blackmail usually uses much more embarrassing material..

of course there's no proof, merely speculation, butit's fairly rational, and not dependent on any google searching

I have never stopped believing that Stalin, at Yalta, showed FDR some home movies of Lucy Mercer licking FRD's lollypop, thus getting FDR to sign away Eastern Europe.

Reminds me of a story from the Cold War, perhaps apocryphal, of a military officer (British?) posted to Moscow getting secretly filmed in a honey trap with a couple of KGB lovelies. When he was shown the tape by the KGB, with the demand to become a mole, lest the the pictures be sent to his wife back in London, the officer replied, "Go ahead, she'll be pleased to learn of my maintained virility." Undoubtedly, it is a little harder to maintain that stance with blackmailers who have proof that your tastes run to children.

The idea that UNSCOM would have been embarrassed to hire him is amusing since Blix's group hired someone that runs a swing club evidently.

Yeah, maybe the general environment these days is more permissive, but when Ritter used to be able to say "I'm an ex Marine" the average Marine will now respond that "Marines don't molest children." Brought disgrace on the Corps he did.

TonyB:

You ask who would be blackmailing him? Iraq, of course. They routinely do far worse to their own citizens, and I suspect they often try to tempt people who might be useful with sex, drugs, or whatever they think will work. They had means, motive, and plenty of opportunity when he was over there.

Jim:

I never claimed that Ritter was being blackmailed for these particular incidents, which do indeed postdate his 'conversion' on Iraq. As N.Z. Bear has already explained, they do look like clear indications of some very filthy and blackmailable habits.

Months before these incidents were revealed, I asked whether Ritter was possibly being blackmailed e.g. with compromising photographs or threats to his loved ones. I offered no suggestion as to what he might have done to leave himself open to blackmail.

If I've read the reports correctly, his lawyer has confirmed that he has been caught not once but twice soliciting underaged girls for sex. Once might conceivably be dismissed as some sort of fluke or case of mistaken identity, but twice implies a persistent problem. If (a) that problem goes back further than the reported incidents, and (b) Iraq knows about it, they could well be blackmailing him. The fact that he was caught doing it again just a few weeks after being caught the first time, suggests that he has compulsive pedophilic urges. Does such a perversion develop overnight? I wouldn't know, but it seems unlikely.

Tom Roberts:

Now Ritter can say "I'm an X-rated ex-Marine". Sorry, I couldn't resist . . . .

TO: Jane Galt
RE: Ritter Releases

I get the impression that the town Ritter lives in has a 'catch and release' program.

I hear there's some poor slob, ex-con, pedophile who's been run out of four states now. Maybe he should rent a room from Ritter. They'd make a great 'tag-team'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

I suspect that a lot of peculiar behavior in Washington could be traced to the FBI records that were shared with the DNC. I suspect that the reason we don't hear any more about who illegally ordered the records is that someone who should give those orders is represented within the DNC database.

Hmmmm ... is it worth considering the possibility that this story has been created out of whole cloth? To take it at face value would certainly seem to me to be a bit on the gullible side; after all, Saddam Hussein is not the only person in the world to employ an intelligence service.

I agree with dsquared. Coincidences happen all the time (and I'm in favor of the invasion!), but one of the foremost opponents of the Iraq war just *happens* to be arrested for meeting an underage girl online in the runup to the war?

We'll see.

But he was arrested before 9/11, Jason. The arrest took place in June of 2001. Do we think the Bushies are not only evil, but also subscribe to the Psychic Friends Network?

Blackmail is a possibility, but I don't think it has anything to do with arrests in the US. If he has a predeliction for teenage girls (which does not by definition make him a pedophile) he probably exhibited those tendencies in Iraq when he was with the UN. Simple to have the Security Forces either catch him at it or set up a sting where they have him on tape with a young girl in Baghdad. The only question would be timing, how long after he left did he change his tune and what else was going on at the time to force the Iraqis to activate him?

p.s. The story about the British officer is really about an African leader. When shown a film of him frolicking with several women, he immediately asked for a copy to show his people. I think Victor Suvorov (former GRU) told that one in one of his books

>>But he was arrested before 9/11, Jason. The arrest took place in June of 2001. Do we think the Bushies are not only evil, but also subscribe to the Psychic Friends Network?

You may not be aware of this, but some of us subscribe to the theory that the Bushies have been planning an attack on Iraq since well before 9/11. I realise that this is a minority opinion in the USA, but some recherche individuals in Europe even subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the 9/11 attacks were not necessarily even planned by Saddam Hussein.

Reminds me of a story from the Cold War, perhaps apocryphal, of a military officer (British?) posted to Moscow getting secretly filmed in a honey trap with a couple of KGB lovelies. When he was shown the tape by the KGB, with the demand to become a mole, lest the the pictures be sent to his wife back in London, the officer replied, "Go ahead, she'll be pleased to learn of my maintained virility."

Are you sure his name wasn't Bond? :-)

Jane, as far as Ritter goes, I'd simply assume him a crackup and therefore a nutjob. His flip(out) could be as simultaneously inexplicable and familiar as David Brock's; intensity and froth-flecked mouth from one ideological side or the other.

Or perhaps the UNSCOM man's fall from grace is more down-to-earth. I suspect that only a strong will could buttress itself against the mind-killing, Orwellian purgatory known as "weapons inspections inside Ba'athist Iraq". Add to the climax of deception an apparently indefinite withdrawal and retraction by the United Nations in 1998, and how vehemently Ritter reviled Congress soon after - how many of us wouldn't begin questioning our own sanity and beliefs? And then, finally succumbing to the relentless stead of Ba'athist truth-molding?

Paedophilia, if proven true, is just one more broken crown for Ritter to wear.

That's not what Jason said, first of all, and second of all, do you have any idea what you sound like when you suggest that in the run up to war with Iraq, the Bush White House somehow invaded the Albany Police Department, forced Scott Ritter to get online to solicit sex from a 14-year old girl, all so they could discredit a man who's done a pretty thorough job discrediting himself? It's a minority viewpoint here the same way it's a minority viewpoint that the sun revolves around the earth and Gorbachev is actually the anti-Christ.

When I saw the headlines, I said to myself "Ritter is out of the picture. Somebody, lots of somebodies, will use this to undermine his efforts to avoid war." What do you know -- somebody did. Even to make a stab at appearing open minded, though, the lead should be "This raises suspicions" rather than "This explains alot", since, of course, it doesn't.

Jane and Senor Weevil,

Just a repeat of something I said earlier:

"Now, maybe Ritter is being squeezed for other secrets earlier in his past. Who knows? But as of now, there's no evidence for the blackmail theory."

OK, so I'll cave in and edit that. Change "no evidence" to "only a very small amount of circumstantial evidence."

I agree with the argument that if Ritter is indeed a pedophile, then this makes him more blackmailable, which makes it more likely that he's been blackmailed.

As a theory, this is far from preposterous.

It just isn't very much to go on.*

At the end of the day, this issue is a sideshow to the main war debate, which can go on just fine with or without Ritter.

* Then again, how much of the entire war debate is based on speculation? We citizens rarely do have much to go on.

Odd to see the more liberal of the commenters coming out in defense of pedophiles. I guess it's that tolerance thing at work again.

>> second of all, do you have any idea what you sound like when you suggest that in the run up to war with Iraq, the Bush White House somehow invaded the Albany Police Department, forced Scott Ritter to get online to solicit sex from a 14-year old girl, all so they could discredit a man who's done a pretty thorough job discrediting himself?

I thought I sounded like someone who has a passing acquaintance with the actual, documented history of the intelligence services.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=colin+wallace+kincora+

Mmmm. To me, it sounds like a conspiracy theory out of the tinfoil hat crowd that emails me to tell me 9/11 was part of a diabolical Republican plot to make Dick Cheney Dictator for Life, or other assorted nonsense.

As far as I know, the Kincora scandal involved people who were already pedophiles, and who were blackmailed by one part of the British government. That's a long, long, long, long, long way from alleging that the Bush administration somehow set Ritter up to become a pedophile in order to discredit his position on Iraq as part of their ongoing plot to stage a war against Sadaam Hussein by any means necessary.

Jim, I don't think it has much bearing for or against the arguments about Iraq -- as you know, I base my feelings on the issue on other things. But I have long been puzzled by Ritter's really astonishingly abrupt about-face on the issue, and this might explain it. I don't think of this as part of the war/no-war argument; only an explanation of a puzzling phenomenon. Certainly, if you've staked your entire argument against the war on Scott Ritter's credibility, you'd need to rethink, but I don't think many people have done that.

Another odd thing:

I'm pretty sure that if I were arrested for either of those two crimes, the result would be suspension of my security clearance pending disposition of the case. I'd think that a felony conviction (or even a plea-bargained misdemeanor) would result in immediate downgrade or suspension. I imagine that Ritter has a TS clearance with a rather wide need to know. Amazing that his clearance survived that one.

>>As far as I know

Which, unless you have investigated the subject at length, isn't very far, because there has never been a proper investigation into the matter (the 1990[?] investigation was headed by someone deeply involved in the cover-up and has been largely discredited).

>>the Kincora scandal involved people who were already pedophiles, and who were blackmailed by one part of the British government.

Not really. The only facts we know are that there was a boy's home at which acts of sexual abuse took place, and that an Army officer who threatened to expose this scandal was framed for a murder he did not commit. Everything else is in the realm of speculation, albeit persistent speculation. I simply raise the issue to establish the point that engineering a paedophile scandal to blackmail and/or destroy the reputation of a political enemy is not at all out of the ordinary course of business for MI5, and I see no reason to believe that the American equivalent organisations would be any different.

By the way, Paul Foot, the journalist who kept this story alive between 1980 and Wallace's final vindication in 1996 also had to put up with that sort of jibe from the kind of person who believes that it is intrinsically loony to mention that such things as intelligence services do in fact exist and perhaps occasionally do something to earn the large sums of taxpayers' money which is given to them, and he treated them with the same kind of dignified tolerance which I hope that I am currently exhibiting.

http://www.google.com/search?q=mi5+wallace+clockwork+orange&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Similarly, you've shown us no reason to believe that the equivalent U.S. intelligence organ would behave in a similar fashion. In short, you've shown us nothing relevant.

David:

I think that part of the answer to your question is that Ritter was never convicted of anything. From the article:

>>Ritter was charged with attempted endangerment of a child. The case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and was subsequently sealed.

I really don't know the import of "adjourned in contemplation of dismissal and subsequently sealed" in American law, but it seems like a somewhat strange way to deal with a child sex pervert.

I agree. But it's possible that the strangeness you suspect and the strangeness I suspect are completely opposite in nature. Given that neither of us is graced with any evidence at all in this case, it's probably best credibility-wise for both of us to avoid vocalizing unfounded hypotheses.

>>Given that neither of us is graced with any evidence at all in this case, it's probably best credibility-wise for both of us to avoid vocalizing unfounded hypotheses.

In an ideal world, perhaps we should be so lucky ... but given that there is no possibility that unfounded hypotheses will cease to be advanced, I regard it as a second-best solution that there be sceptical ones as well as credulous ones with respect to the truth of what is printed in the newspapers. I must say I find your default hypothesis that the US intelligence services are much more principled and less inclined to dirty tricks than the British ones to be very curious indeed.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cointelpro&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I never said that. I just said that the conlusion that because MI5 did it lends support that to the notion that we probably did it too, is ill-supported.

But since we're advancing ill-founded hypotheses, here's mine:

Someone in government leaned on the DA, the witness, or the judge to obtain a more favorable ruling in order to preserve his clearance.

There. Just as nasty; totally different outcome and completely different motivation. And just as well supported in fact and logic.

But if intelligence were trying to frame him, why would they want the records sealed? There were no actual children involved. The entire thing is very strange; sealing records in a case that's pending dismissal, unless for the benefit of a minor or a victim, is unheard of in my neck of the woods.

I take that back: possibly better supported. Good point, Jane.

>>But if intelligence were trying to frame him, why would they want the records sealed?

IIRC, MI5 classified a lot of the evidence in the John Stalker case (another Northern Ireland related frame-up and smear) on grounds of "national security" because they didn't want public scrutiny to reveal that the case against Stalker was actually extremely weak and in large measure fabricated. Of course, I have no idea whether or not MI5 are the only intelligence agency in the world to engage in such underhand tactics; I'm just sayin'.

But this evidence is not classified. Just sealed.

Same difference as regards anyone being able to look at it, surely? The point would be that there is a very nasty accusation attached to Ritter's name, while the public are in the inconvenient state of being unable to have a look at the evidence supporting that accusation.

Except in this case it would require the complicity of the court; a very different thing indeed.

Yeah, they'd have to have wrapped up the Albany Police department, the entire court, and numerous civilian employees. The system here is very different from the system that was in force in Northern Ireland at the time; for one thing, Albany isn't under quasi-martial law. For another, the British judiciary is highly centralized, and more receptive to the intelligence services.

Still misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the solutions Krugman is advocating are the same as the "let the rot work itself out" -- I'm saying that the diagnosis sounds a lot like their diagnosis. Not mathematically; just stylistically. That's all. It wasn't meant to be major commentary.

I have never stopped believing that Stalin, at Yalta, showed FDR some home movies of Lucy Mercer licking FRD's lollypop, thus getting FDR to sign away Eastern Europe.

Gene, it's a good thing we had the movies of Stalin and those Russian nesting dolls, or we would have had to give away France, too. Though now that I think about it...

I'm a little skeptical of the various blackmail scenarios folks have discussed; the glaze in Ritter's eyes the last couple of years inclines me to think he just went off his rocker. But the ACD business is a red herring. The fact that there's an ACD in the picture does not by itself make a blackmail conspiracy more or less likely.

"Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal" under article 215 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law (assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=25&a=34) is a fairly routine thing when somebody without a record has a first brush with the law. If you don't get in trouble again in six months, the thing goes away. I don't know whether ACD's for charges like those Ritter faced were common before this week; I expect that it probably varied from county to county, and even from ADA to ADA. (ADA's statewide, however, will have learned from this experience. I doubt that we'll see another ACD in a child-sex case any time soon unless it's personally approved by the elected DA, which means it won't happen.)

That's a long, long, long, long, long way from alleging that the Bush administration somehow set Ritter up to become a pedophile in order to discredit his position on Iraq as part of their ongoing plot to stage a war against Sadaam Hussein by any means necessary.

I see I need to clarify:

1) Coincidences happen all the time.
2) I don't think Bush did anything, and will be awfully surprised if so.
3) However, there's lots of, shall we say, not too stable right wing groups (American Spectator, et al.) who I wouldn't put it past.
3) That said, maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. I'll need a *lot* more information before I'm going to buy "one of Bush's chief critics on Iraq turns out to be a pedophile," though. Jesus, you couldn't invent a more serendiptious coincidence.

Oh, and the reason I brought it up is that the immediate conclusion "Saddam is blackmailing Scott Ritter!" is just silly. The right has been flailing around trying to figure out his 180 for a while now, insisting it just has to be something other than what it looks like, but you know what? It's entirely possible he changed his mind. God knows I did; it is possible.

Not mathematically; just stylistically.

But this doesn't make sense: how are Krugman's suggestions, which all involve no short-term pain whatsoever (print money/fiscal stimulus and you're done) stylistically like the old bad Austrian prescriptions?

Okay, we're on the wrong thread, but one more time: his description, not his prescription, remind me of the writing. Not the math, not the prescriptions. Just the writing.

Why do I have the feeling that a couple of noted leftist proponents in these comments are defending Ritter without having read the linked article or investigated Ritter's history, including speculation about Iraqi blackmail?

The article says several very interesting things: Ritter apparently tried to approach a 14-year-old girl in April 2001, and was met by police and released without being charged. In June 2001 he was caught in an underage-girl sting, arrested, and then had the records sealed. The Assistant DA responsible for this allegedly common procedure was fired by her boss when he became aware of the details. Most unusual... especially since it was the second time he'd been picked up for such actions.

The linked article also says that the June 2001 arrest was reported on local TV news (that's where the mug shot and other information comes from), and Ritter's attorney confirms that he was arrested at that time -- making it unlikely that this is a recently-manufactured story, eh?

Some history: Ritter said in his searingly-worded resignation letter to UNSCOM, dated 26 August 1998 (still several months before Iraq would completely block the inspectors):

"As part of the Special Commission team, I have worked to achieve a simple end: the removal, destruction or rendering harmless of Iraq's proscribed weapons. The sad truth is that Iraq today is not disarmed anywhere near the level required by Security Council resolutions. As you know, UNSCOM has good reason to believe that there are significant numbers of proscribed weapons and related components and the means to manufacture such weapons unaccounted for in Iraq today."

In the following year he published Endgame, which made his position very clear: Iraq still has weapons and is hiding them. But he also declared that then-chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler had ordered him to create a confrontation which would allow the US to bomb Iraq.

Then by early 2000 he was saying that Iraq no longer had the WMDs and manufacturing capability the UN inspectors had not been able to find and destroy by the end of 1998, in direct contradiction to all his earlier statements (he would have us believe that Iraq destroyed them voluntarily, after evicting the inspectors? Please...). He was then approached by a pro-Saddam Iraqi-American and invited to Iraq to make the infamous documentary, in which he repeats the claims of disarmament.

It was this rapid, inexplicable turnabout (read some of the links at the bottom here!) which led people to wonder what the hell had happened to Scott Ritter. Speculations about possible causes, including both bribery and blackmail, were making the rounds almost immediately after the documentary was shown to journalists in July 2001. Dr. Weevil said back in early September 2002 on Sgt. Stryker's comment board, "His transformation has been so complete that I've long wondered whether he's being blackmailed as well as bribed." This is far from the only speculation I've seen on this, although it's the quickest link at hand; check LGF's comments for plenty more.

This was all before 9-11, people!

As to the notion that US intelligence was responsible for framing him, then causing the records to be sealed... and finally releasing the fact of the arrest but no confirming facts to the public? Whatever for? How could that possibly help them?

Someone needs better quality tinfoil in his hat...

>>It's entirely possible he changed his mind

In actual fact, the explanation for Ritter's turnaround is well-established and I never understand why so many people pretend incredulity.

1. It is well known that the 1998 and 1999 arms inspection missions were used as a cover for spying in Iraq. Nobody is bothering to deny this these days. It is also pretty well known that Ritter knew of the intelligence involvement and highly likely that he was involved himself.

2. However, we *were* bothering to deny the spying charges in 1998 and 1999. There was an official party line at that time, and Ritter was expected, as a serving intelligence officer, to follow it.

3. Around 2000, Ritter appeared to part company with the American intelligence community. At this time he began to say what he thought. By comparison, I note that a whole lot of ex-employees of Enron appear to have startlingly changed their tune in recent years.

Also, at about the time that Ritter parted company with American intelligence, he apparently began to run into trouble with the law. Particularly he appeared to suddenly develop a penchant for committing offences which would have the effect of blackening his character, but which were not so serious as to require a trial in open court at which the evidence would have to be scrutinised. The fact that 9/11 happened later is an obvious red herring; it was not the case that the US government was on friendly terms with Iraq in April 2001, and nor was it the case that the hostility of intelligence organisations to loud-mouthed ex-employees is a post-9/11 phenomenon. People.

(In passing, I have to say that I find it bizarre that people on this board will apparently believe anything they read in the newspapers as gospel truth unless it appears in the New York Times)

David Perron: Why would you be surprised (evidently!) to discover that the CIA is capable of committing sins comparable to the MI5 affair? The agency as it stands presently is nearly exempt from legal scrutiny and has access to fantastic quantities of both information and dangerous toys.

Browse your way through the essays in Borjesson's recently-published Into the Buzzsaw (and try to ignore the blithering idiocy contained in Gore Vidal's Forward, the remainder of the book is quality equal-opportunity bashing) and see what kind of conclusions you draw.

Let's try the parallel-universe version of this story on for size (WARNING: Save for the known facts and until proven otherwise, the following is fictitious):

(begin_parallel_universe)

(1) Ritter, for one reason or another, encounters information that leads him to doubt the work he is doing in the inspections and parts company with the intelligence community. Freed from his official obligations, he begins speaking his mind and has the misfortune of saying things his former higher powers do not like.

(2) Sometime around April 2001, Ritter got curious after meeting a girl online, and arranged to meet her in person. He met police instead, but since he was reportedly released without being charged, we don't have too many details -- such as whether or not Ritter himself had reason to believe he was meeting an underage girl, for example. But the female police officer says "Oh yeah, remember when I told you I was fourteen and you said 'budding' girls were a real turn-on for you, and -- well, we don't want to take this further now, do we Mr. Ritter?" It doesn't matter if that never happened, who is going to have more credibility in court? Party bonus, only a couple people in the P.D. have to be "in" on the scam. The other officers, some of whom might talk, are simply (as they see it) participating in a routine sting operation. Thus this is a warning: You're screwing with the wrong people, Mr. Ritter. Care to quiet down?

(3) Mr. Ritter doesn't quiet down, and simultaneously has seen his potential friendly and/or romantic interest blow up in his face, so he goes exploring again and strikes up another online female connection. In June 2001, his curiosity gets the better of him again, but once again he does not necessarily expect to meet a minor (or knows she claims to be 16 but does not necessarily intend to solicit sexual acts -- a shame the records are sealed, and easy to forge, isn't it?). We have the same thing happen again, but this time ending in an arrest. Ritter has been warned more clearly, but this time even if he doesn't shut up, the effect succeeds. He now has "potential pedophile" attached to his name, which pretty much destroys any possibility of future credibility. It's like finding "salvage" on an auto title.

(4) The Assistant DA who handled Ritter's case found something that left her vaguely suspicious of how the arrest was handled -- say, a glitch in the online conversation transcripts that looked a little like an artefact of post-editing, or a small discrepancy in the female officer's testimony that confuses the age issue -- and after brooding on it for a very long while, goes to her superior. Unfortunately, he has reason, or has been 'given reason,' to supress it. She is fired and leaves quietly, possibly in exchange for not becoming the next Scott Ritter. (We have the power, Ms. Preiser. It would be a shame if social services came for your children tomorrow, wouldn't it? Did you know an anonymous phone call to the "tipster" hotline can do that?) At the same time the Ritter records remain conveniently sealed, so an odd inquisitive reporter can learn nothing by looking at them.

(end_parallel_universe)

Hmmm...the shoe is dangerously close to fitting, AND has precedent. Black Helicoptors are not always fictitious, sometimes they're just a little camouflaged by River-In-Egypt modes of thinking. Mind you, I have no inside info on the case, I'm just (skeptically) open to darker explanations.

Mousie:

David Perron: Why would you be surprised (evidently!) to discover that the CIA is capable of committing sins comparable to the MI5 affair?

Big jump to conclusions, there. I never said I'd be surprised or unsurprised. All I said was that it doesn't logically follow that, stipulating asserted actions by MI5, that one of our related organs had done the same thing. Or even has a significantly nonzero probability of having done a similar thing in the Ritter case.

I have an even better scenario. Scott Ritter gets abducted by a UFO and is subjected to the Alien Anal Probe of Mind Change, and does a complete about-face just so a bunch of aliens can laugh at our resulting bewilderment.

There. Isn't that a bit more glamorous than the black-helicopter story? And probably even more precedent, if one accounts for all those alien-abduction stories.

We know this much for sure: Iraqi intelligence would not hesitate for a moment to blackmail Scott Ritter! And this theory makes far more sense than any other concerning Ritter’s peculiar 180 degree reversal of opinion. One can easily imagine this gentleman getting himself into an awkward predicament in a country which is more likely to deal with him in a very cruel manner. Some Muslim nations chop off the hands of thieves. What body part might they be inclined to sever in a child molesting case?

David, as far as I can see, your point appears to be that the totally unsupported hypothesis that you favour is in some way better than the totally unsupported hypothesis that you don't. Do you have some reason for believing this, or is there some other reason why I should continue to be interested in you, or what?

I still like the alien anal probe explanation the best.

“The right has been flailing around trying to figure out his (Scott Ritter) 180 for a while now, insisting it just has to be something other than what it looks like, but you know what? It's entirely possible he changed his mind.”

Indeed, there is nothing wrong in changing one’s mind. John Maynard Keynes was absolutely correct in pointing out that this is exactly what we are supposed to do if further evidence contradicts our previous belief. Heck, Karl Popper even developed a whole school of philosophy devoted to this principle. Scott Ritter, however, has been making a fool of himself for the last few years. His reasons don’t pass the smell test. I have spent considerable time viewing Ritter on countless TV interview shows. Ultimately, I found his reasoning to be severely flawed and even sometimes downright goofy. I’m putting my bets on the high likelihood that Ritter has been compromised by Iraqi intelligence.

“Do you have some reason for believing this, or is there some other reason why I should continue to be interested in you, or what?”

There is one thing which unites you and Jason McCullough: your intense hostility towards the so-called mother fu_ken Bush administration. This rage is so visceral and out of control that its distorts your ability to follow a logical argument. Saddam Hussein is a very evil man with a well established track record. We know damn well that this dictator desires to murder the citizens of the West. The only question is whether he will do so overtly, or be sneaky about it. I suspect that Saddam prefers the latter option. A few years ago, Iraqi intelligence even plotted to assassinate George W. Bush. Last but not least, thank God the Israelis bombed Saddam’s nuclear reactor some twenty years ago. Israel may have saved us from a nuclear holocaust.

>>We know this much for sure:

I was with you right up to the colon, David, then you started talking outside the scope of anything you might possibly have knowledge of. Why don't you get a firm grip on your reasoning faculties, retreat backwards past the colon, and have another stab?

Oddly, dsquared, this is precisely the source of my disagreement with you. You are conjecturing based on no knowledge and no data. So I guess it's a free-for-all now, isn't it?

Well, this has clearly degenerated...

>>You are conjecturing based on no knowledge and no data

I seem to remember providing two data points from the UK and one (Cointelpro) from the USA. Anonymouse cited the collection "Into the Buzzsaw".

While we're at it, I'll raise you one Martin Luther King, from general knowledge and google:

http://archive.aclu.org/congress/mlkreport.PDF

(I'd also note in this case that I'm trying to argue that there is evidence that such a thing is possible; David is trying to argue that there is no evidence).

I loaned my copy of _The Threatening Storm_ to a friend but I recall Kenneth Pollack mentioning (with sources) that the Iraqi intelligence groups were noted for making repeated efforts ranging from blunt to subtle to find weak spots in the UN inspectors - sex, drugs, booze, etc. This sort of thing would be completely in character with the routine blackmail they use internally.

Ray - it's rather unlikely that a coverup at UNSCOM would be from the top down but it's entirely plausible that they don't know any more about it than we do - after all, if true the only other people who would definitely know would work for Iraqi intelligence. Besides, the various sex-slave/drug rings some peacekeepers have been running are a great reminder that the UN is no more incorruptible than any other organization - upper management isn't going to know anything the people on the scene don't pass along.

Shall I now submit some personal accounts of UFO abductions as evidence for my argument? They have as much relevance to this particular case as anything MI5 did.

I didn't say you didn't have evidence. I said your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your evidence. Do I actually need to rephrase this again, or do you now understand me?

David, as far as I can see, your point appears to be that the totally unsupported hypothesis that you favour is in some way better than the totally unsupported hypothesis that you don't. Do you have some reason for believing this, or is there some other reason why I should continue to be interested in you, or what?

Actually, my entire point is and has been that any unsupported hypothesis is as good as any other. If you want this to be a giant make-wrong for you, fine. But that's not the intention. Although I did go to some extreme lengths in order to induce chagrin on your part. If I offended, I apologize.

Jane merely introduced an odd juxtaposition of events. I have no issue with that. I think that in itself is cause to do further digging. What I do have issue with that is immediately jumping to the some conclusion that conveniently places the current administration in some evil light, and then attempting to justify that conclusion through a lot of arm-waving and pointing that it's been done before, by completely different people. Conspiracy theories are fun, but that's about all they're good for.

And, to be fair, if there were any political capital to be reaped from attempting to place blame for this on Clinton, I think there'd be those out there doing it. Maybe even me. And if that were the case, you'd probably be bludgeoning me about the head and shoulders with the same points I'm attempting to make with you.

But I haven't seen any of that.

Peace?

Dave

Scott Ritter, however, has been making a fool of himself for the last few years. His reasons don’t pass the smell test.

In other words, you don't agree with his new positions, so obviously he's being blackmailed!

Christ.

"In other words, you don't agree with his new positions, so obviously he's being blackmailed!"

I have tried to be very fair towards Scott Ritter. Unfortunately, the reasons he offerred for his change of mind simply never made any sense. I would therefore place my bets on blackmail. By the way, I also found this interesting article on today’s National Review website:

“In my drinking circles when the question of Scott Ritter came up it was never in the context of "Why did he change his mind?" but always, "What do the Iraqis have on him?" “

http://nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins012403.asp

>>What I do have issue with that is immediately jumping to the some conclusion that conveniently places the current administration in some evil light

Oh I see, you're a Republican hack. Makes it so much easier to understand.

Scroll back up the thread. My contention was that the CIA were setting this up in April 2000, around the time that Ritter changed his mind. I seem to remember that this was under Clinton; your man certainly hadn't been sworn in.

The intelligence services operate their own policy all the time, with very little regard to democratically elected governments (remember those? :)). That's one of the things that is wrong with them.

I know, dsquared, that it's always easier to make an argument that attempts to discount my credibility rather than to make an argument that actually addresses what I say. But I'm sorry you felt you had to resort to that.

Nothing you said lent any further support to your prior arguments. Was there a point, here?

"My contention was that the CIA were setting this up in April 2000"

Gosh, is this the same CIA that assassinated JFK and is responsible for the Bubonic plague of the Middle Ages? Poor Scott Ritter never had a chance. Someone should make sure that Oliver Stone knows about this travesty of justice. I’m sure that Saddam Hussein will agree to play a part in the movie.

That was the sharpest bit of debate I've run into.
More of the same, please.

Comments are Closed.