Ex-u.n. Weapons Inspector Is Charged In Child-sex Sting Options

[paranoia]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/15arrest.html

The former inspector, Scott Ritter, was charged in November after the police said he exchanged messages last February with a police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl. The Pocono Record reported the arrest on Thursday.

In an affidavit of probable cause, Monroe County authorities said Officer Ryan Venneman was posing as 15-year-old girl named Emily in an online chat room when he was contacted by someone using the name “Delmarm4fun.” Mr. Ritter lives in Delmar, N.Y., an Albany suburb.

This person, whom the authorities identified as Mr. Ritter, told “Emily” that he was a 44-year-old man from Albany. Mr. Ritter asked the girl for a photograph of herself, and an image of a girl was provided, according to the affidavit. Mr. Ritter then sent the girl a link to his Web camera and masturbated on camera, the affidavit said. In the online exchanges, “Emily” twice wrote that she was 15.

The police said they traced the exchanges to Mr. Ritter through various means, including the cellphone number he provided.

Neither Mr. Ritter, 48, nor his lawyer, Todd Henry, responded to requests for comment. Mr. Ritter waived his right last month to a preliminary hearing and is free on $25,000 unsecured bail.

It is not the first time Mr. Ritter has been in trouble.

In 2001, he was caught in a similar Internet sex-sting operation when he was accused of trying to lure a 16-year-old girl to a Burger King in Menands, N.Y. The girl was actually an undercover investigator posing online as a minor.

Prosecutors later agreed to drop the charges in that case if Mr. Ritter stayed out of trouble for a period of time. The case was later sealed, so the terms of the deal have not been made public.

Mr. Ritter was the chief weapons inspector for the United Nations Special Commission from 1991 to 1998, when he resigned. He has been an outspoken critic of American policy in the Middle East.

abit of history (april 2003):
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/18/world/a-...-fruitless.html

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, is among small but vocal group of skeptics who doubt that stores of unconventional weapons will be found in Iraq; Ritter argues that weapons Iraq once had have been destroyed or degraded...

more ritter history/articles at nytimes:
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference...tter/index.html

This post has been edited by paranoia: Jan 16 2010, 03:03 AM

[albertchampion]

though ritter was accurate about iraq. i think it will be confirmed that he is a pedophile.

there are so many of them in the government. i cite the franklin cover-up.

[dMz]

My research so far has indicated that Offutt AFB and the "general area" nearby has/had VERY MANY, and some VERY LARGE "closets..."

[amazed!]

Too bad about this story. He is only human.

At least he had the dignity and honesty to call a spade a spade back in the day. That makes him a patriot in my book.

We're dealing with humans, not angels.

[nitatutt]

amazed:
Too bad about this story. He is only human.

At least he had the dignity and honesty to call a spade a spade back in the day. That makes him a patriot in my book.

Agree we are all human, but I'd rather Ritter is not an alleged patriot pedophile.
His weakness may have been known and exploited.

albertchampion:
though ritter was accurate about iraq. i think it will be confirmed that he is a pedophile.

there are so many of them in the government. i cite the franklin cover-up.

In my area local law enforcement constantly monitors public parks for pedophiles.
They have busted a famous local judge, clergy, lawyers, teachers, etc.
I understand the sexual side / nature of humans - whether opposite or same sex is up to each individual, but copulation with children, especially young children, is despicable in my mind.

dMole:
My research so far has indicated that Offutt AFB and the "general area" nearby has/had VERY MANY, and some VERY LARGE "closets..."

Agree, rumors abound re sinister "happenings" in NE, covered up by powerful and extremely wealthy sub-men.
Ignorance is truly bliss because sometimes the truth is horrifying - (there is much evidence, list of government pedophiles tried and convicted)

[Devilsadvocate]

Exactly what is 'Pedophilia' ?

Sex with someone who is legally under-age ?

One of the unfortunate aspects of the last few decades worth of 'developement' has been that objective analysis of societie's flaws very often has become obscured by selfrighteousness.
If i'm not mistaken, then the legal age in the Netherlands is precisely that- fifteen.
In that country, the idea of a police-officer posing as an under-aged girl would not work at all.

To an Australian Aborigine, the idea of someone trying to have sexual relations with a fifteen-year-old would seem extremely strange.
Aborigines undergo an initiation-ceremony at the age of thirteen.
After that, they not only are regarded as 'Adults', but are in fact fully capable to function as adults- within that culture.
They are effectively grown up.

There's the problem:
In our society, you get people who are several times that age, but who are not capable of acting like adults- in this society, or any other.

Child-abuse has very little to do with sex. It's a power-game, based on exactly the same principles as the actions of the proverbial schoolyard-bully.
An abuser will do everything he can to gain the trust of a child- and then he will trample on that trust, on that child's sexuality, feelings, selfesteem...
It destroys a childs innermost sanctuary, for the sake of the abuser taking a seat there himself:
It's the concept of "Giving someone a piece of one's mind".
The piece of the abuser's mind consists of a single thought:

"You are absolutely worthless".

It comes to pass not through any sexual activities- but for example through the suggestion that "this has to stay our little secret".
The child is told (often in not-so-many-words) that no one must ever find out, because otherwise everyone will hate him or her.
That leaves the child with a dilemma:
There's no one to turn to (Lest they end up being hated by everyone), which leaves the abuser ironically as the only person the child can confide in.
So, the child could start hating the abuser- for all the ill fellings he left behind.
But that would result in the isolation becoming complete: There would be no one at all to confide in.

Children rely on a lot of external input for their developement, more than anything else.
An eight or nine year old would not be able to cope with that kind of isolation. The developement of that child's character would grind to a halt, which would ultimately result in self-destruction.

So- the abuser takes a central role in the childs life. There's a light shining out of his arse.
He couldn't possibly do any wrong.
As a result, abuse-victims often will do everything they can to protect their abuser...
And because there is no one else to blame, and no one else to hate, they begin to blame themselves (which is what the abuser suggested to begin with), and end up hating themselves.

...Anyone notice the similarities between that and what has been passing for 'policy', both foreign and domestic ? That too is based on the same principle...
Ask the Iraqis. The invasion of Iraq amounted to an act of rape, involving an entire nation.
The Iraqis were put in a very similar position to a rape-victim, or a victim of child abuse.

First their trust was gained. Then came the trampling-upon. Then they were muzzled...

The police officer in this case mentioned several times that she was fifteen.
Had this really been a fifteen year old, then she would have to be assumed to be quite mature and fully capable of understanding the implications of what was going on.
If Scott Ritter's intentions were to get into a young girls mind and play power-games may be a question which is more than justified:
By far most fifteen-year old westerners are not capable of functioning as adults in their society.

But the fact also remains that the word 'Pedophile' has a highly emotive quality which will get a lot of parents up in arms the moment it is mentioned:
That's were the problem lies.
It may turn into a wonderful way of hitting unwanted critics over the head with a very effective club one day- while not doing an awful lot to protect children from predators at all.

I just wish people would ask why on earth our society- which prides itself oh-so-much in its level of culture and advancement- is virtually riddled with abuse of any kind of description, while a society like that of the Aborigines (which is virtually the oldest continuous culture on earth) does not even have a word for it.
(Mind you- that only applies to those Aborigines who still life a traditional life- not to those who are supposedly "integrated" into "modern society". The latter are very often up-rooted and suffer from all kinds of problems.)
Finding an answer to that question may well provide a solution to the fundamental problem western society suffers from:
Namely that abuse is by now literally an integrated part of the psyche- the ugly underbelly of a world centered around the concept of dividing society into "Winners" and "Losers".

[nitatutt]

Devilsadvocate
Exactly what is 'Pedophilia' ?

Sex with someone who is legally under-age ?

One of the unfortunate aspects of the last few decades worth of 'developement' has been that objective analysis of societie's flaws very often has become obscured by selfrighteousness.
If i'm not mistaken, then the legal age in the Netherlands is precisely that- fifteen.
In that country, the idea of a police-officer posing as an under-aged girl would not work at all.

I hate this subject. I do not agree with all the statutory laws and "cut offs" in many instances. Common sense and decency come to mind. Contingent with the norm for a particular "civilization", tribe - the community in which you live.
I'm not an Australian Aborigine, or even remotely genetically related.
Not a moralist. Adult Men and Adult Women should not have sex with toddlers or 6-12 year old children.
Toddlers that are not potty trained, children that wear diapers can not consent to sex.
Children just a couple of years from diapers can not consent to sex, especially with an adult.
That's what I start with.
Adults that engage in sexual acts with prepubescent humans are perverts, most likely psychologically damaged . History is raft with pederast; civilizations or history that most reasonable humans on earth despise. I think that one of the "benchmarks" of real civilization is the banishment of pedophilia and pederasty.
I have compassion for those damaged humans - but that compassion stops when they threaten the well being - the psyche and minds, lives of innocent children. Those types of humans are thieves, they can not exist beyond their carnal sexual urges and will destroy their fellow humans, innocents - to satisfy their urges or for an addictive, psychologically damaged drug addict type sexual addiction, thrill.

Getting back to the thread subject - IMO the citizens of the United States have some very nefarious, sinister rulers.
They preach "family values", false religious affiliation; anti-sexual choice yet many have been exposed as frauds, deviants, hypocrites, the anathema of what their constituents believe they are.

Ritter has been completely discredited, because he is an alleged pedophile. It appears the definition of pedophile for Ritter is: He allegedly seeks to have sex with very young adult women, below the legal age of consent in the community that he resides. If the allegations against Ritter are true - why can't he find an adult woman (or man) in her 20's or 30's or early 40's to have sex with ? Reasonable question. Most of the hundreds of humans, male and female, that I have lived and conversed with in my almost 50 years understand this observation.

This post has been edited by nitatutt: Jan 16 2010, 10:06 PM

[Devilsadvocate]

Common sense and decency come to mind.

I don't disagree.

I'm not an Australian Aborigine, or even remotely genetically related.

I beg to differ. You are related by virtue of being a human being. Never mind genetics.
The point is that a thirteen-year-old Aborigine will be able to function as a responsible adult within Aboriginal society.
A thirteen-year-old American (or German, for that matter) will not be able to function as an adult within his society, or any other.

We live in a world in which children are not allowed to be children, and old people are not allowed to be old. It's that screwed up. And that's a major part of the problem.
An Aboriginal having sex with a thirteen year old Aboriginal does not commit child abuse- because he is having sex with an adult Aboriginal.
An American having sex with a thirteen year old American does commit child abuse, because a thirteen year old American is not an adult American.

Adults that engage in sexual acts with prepubescent humans are perverts, most likely psychologically damaged .

Of course they are.
But then you need to ask the question what damaged them. Because if that question is ignored, it will continue.
It would never occur to an Aborigine to have sex with anyone who has not undergone an initiation ceremony: Their 'dreamtime-ancestors' have forbidden that.
But the concept of "this has to remain our little secret" does not even arise with those people. The very structure of their society makes sure that it's quite simply impossible:
It can't happen to begin with. It's a society with very little privacy in the western sense.

Pedophiles don't enjoy sex with children, nor any other form of sex, for that matter.
To a pedophile, sex is a form of contest.
Like all contests, it carries with it the possibility of 'losing'.
Pedophiles are bullies- and like all bullies, the idea of being a loser is unthinkable.

If the basic principles underlying this problem are not questioned, then the problem itself will remain intact. That may satisfy an urge to feel angry about something like that, but it will expose children to the same problem even generations from now.

I'm saying that because i had to deal with that problem in the past, insofar as a friend of mine was a victim of child abuse: I've dealt with that for more than ten years.
And it allowed me to see the very depths of it.
I couldn't afford to be merely angry during that time:
Anger would have been counterproductive.
Instead i had no choice but to learn as much as i could about it.

If no questions are asked, then you will discover one day that the problem still exists, and children are still being abused- while at the same time, the very anger that people feel when they are confronted with a problem like this has become a wonderful way of dealing with critics.
Why lock someone up for propagating unwanted ideas, if he can be declared to be a pedophile ?
The moment he is tarred with that brush will be the moment nobody wants to know him.
Even if anything else he may have said or done may be important, or valid.
In Britain, there is an organisation called the 'Internet Watch Foundation'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation

It's not a government agency.
But it has enough influence to ensure that practically every Internet service provider adheres to its 'recommendations'.
As a result, there are websites i can no longer access: Websites at which i have uploaded things in the past, like videos which disappeared from youtube, for example.
I never came across any content on those sites which were related to child pornography.
But the IWF had them blacklisted nonetheless.
They are not required to explain how they came to the conclusion that the sites in question contain child pornography. They simply state that the site in question contains material illegal under British law- like child porn, material with a racist slant, or whatever.
That's it.
I can foresee a time were the same principle will be applied by those clowns to websites like P4T.
If they do- what is anyone going to do about it ? Complain ?

And- what is Scott Ritter going to do about the allegations against him now ?
Has there been a courtcase already, or have i missed something here ?
As you state yourself- he's discredited.
Despite the fact that the allegations against him are not even proven yet.
The status of being discredited will stay with him- even if the allegations turn out to be without foundation. Dirt sticks- especially this dirt.
And this discredited-status will unfortunately extend to the role he played as Chief Weapons Inspector as well...

This post has been edited by Devilsadvocate: Jan 17 2010, 12:12 AM

[albertchampion]

i think that ritter has been involved in two[2] other incidents. that reached the prosecuting legal authorities. i don't recall how those incidents were adjudicated.

in my view, once one ever becomes wrapped-up in that area of law enforcement, one needs to stay away from children on the internet, forever.

even more to the point, i think that staying away from all internet porn sites is an imperative. how many do you think are run by the secret state? seeking the mechanisms for extortion?

[Devilsadvocate]

This is what Wikipedia says about it:

Arrests
Ritter was arrested in April 2001^[32] and again in June 2001^[33][34] in connection with police stings in which officers posed as under-aged girls to arrange meetings of a sexual nature. The first incident did not lead to any charges.^[32] He was charged with a misdemeanor crime of "attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child" after the second, but charges were dropped and the record was sealed on condition that he avoid further trouble for a period of time.^[32][35] News of the arrests became public after sealed court records were provided anonymously to the press. Ritter claimed that the timing of the leak was a politically motivated effort to distract attention from his statements about Iraq.^[33][34][36]

Ritter was arrested again in November 2009^[37] over communications with a police decoy he met on an Internet chat site. Police claim that he showed himself masturbating via a web camera after the officer said she was a 15-year-old girl. The next month, he waived his right to a preliminary hearing and was released on $25,000 unsecured bail.^[38] Charges included "unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation".^[39] Ritter faces up to seven years in prison. ^[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

This post has been edited by Devilsadvocate: Jan 17 2010, 12:45 AM

[amazed!]

Devil's Advocate

Excellent posts! I agree completely.

Probably because of its "judeo-christian" heritage, this country has some weird laws.

And YES, the word "pedophile" carries very heavy connotational baggage, and our overlords make maximum use of that negative connotation.

[nitatutt]

Devilsadvocate:
But then you need to ask the question what damaged them. Because if that question is ignored, it will continue.

If the basic principles underlying this problem are not questioned, then the problem itself will remain intact. That may satisfy an urge to feel angry about something like that, but it will expose children to the same problem even generations from now.

And- what is Scott Ritter going to do about the allegations against him now ?
Has there been a courtcase already, or have i missed something here ?
As you state yourself- he's discredited.
Despite the fact that the allegations against him are not even proven yet.
The status of being discredited will stay with him- even if the allegations turn out to be without foundation. Dirt sticks- especially this dirt.
And this discredited-status will unfortunately extend to the role he played as Chief Weapons Inspector as well...

Agree with your points.
I did use the word "alleged"
Honestly the first thought that came to mind at the 1st allegation was "set up" ?
When this recent report came out, I thought - why would someone continue risky, illegal behavior, knowing he has angered certain "entities" and is most likely being monitored ?
Just questions, I have not contemplated the answers.
I have read many reports about young adult men, in their late teens or early 20's that are labeled "pedophiles" for life for having a sexual relationship with a young adult woman - say 15-17 years old (depending on the state).
Three or so decades ago this was not considered a sexual crime in the minds of most Americans (although statutory rape was a prosecutable crime). Ironic since the U.S. is completely saturated with sex - always seeking - never satisfied it seems - yet normal young people in a sexual relationship is considered a crime.
I'm not saying all young people should "hook up" whenever and with whom ever than can.
But it's going to happen, always has since the beginning of time.
I truly believe the increase of this type of behavior is propagated - humans are being manipulated.
I think this because of the "reptilian" mind; food and sex take precedence above all, "conquers" the logical mind (at least at youth, when hormones rage).
It's Orwellian manipulation- just another means of labeling and control. I don't believe all humans can be controlled by this method, but certainly many are.
Agree very little is work is performed towards solving, towards breaking the cycle of the deviant pedophiles that prey on young children, in fact the proof that it is encouraged by "entertainment" abounds.
The repercussions are horrid. A huge percentage of drug addicts, prostitutes, etc were sexually abused as children, as adults those humans commit crimes to feed their habits; everyone on earth pays a huge price.
I do believe however that there is a percentage of humans that are completely, unequivocally evil, ie; the NAMBLA types. Given what my brain and psyche has had to endure, the media reports of kidnappings, rape, torture and murder of innocents by those types - I have lost, have zero sympathy for those sub humans. Tragically, I have to conclude at least some of those types are our rulers - ahh, the "loop" again.

This post has been edited by nitatutt: Jan 21 2010, 12:17 AM

[Devilsadvocate]

Ritter may well have become an important witness, if there had been any major courtcase relating to Iraq.
Most people will almost certainly react with anything between anger and disgust the moment they hear about the allegations.
Reacting emotionally is only human- but unfortunately the true perpetrators (which may have less of a profile at the moment than they had a year ago) make use of precisely those weaknesses.
When they invaded Panama, the keywords were "Noriega- the criminal", or "Noriega- the drugdealer".
Back in the eighties, America was suffering under a crimewave. Criminals and drugdealers could not expect any sympathies.
So, people reacted emotionally. No one asked why Noriega was on the CIA's payroll.

Then it was Saddam Hussein. Saddam, the criminal. Saddam, the second Hitler.
And people reacted emotionally.
Again- no one wanted to ask questions.
The Iraqis paid a horrific price for that over the years.

When Iraq was finally invaded, it was the same game all over again:
The less-than-independent media were not talking about weapons of mass destruction at first.
Instead, Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
That was enough to get people in line.
They reacted emotionally- as before.

Every time they allowed themselves to react emotionally, they got played like a squeeze box.
The perpetrators are still masters of manipulation...no one plays the squeeze box as well as they do.
It won't be any different with Scott Ritter and the allegations against him, i fear.
He'll be discredited:
The dirt they are slinging at him will stick.
As a potential witness, that will leave him with little credibility...

[Ricochet]

Had Scott Ritter been in Canada nothing would have happened. Age of consent 14 unless in a position of authority (teacher, clergy...)

This post has been edited by Ricochet: Jan 21 2010, 02:35 PM

[nitatutt]

Devilsadvocate:
then it was Saddam Hussein. Saddam, the criminal. Saddam, the second Hitler.
And people reacted emotionally.
Again- no one wanted to ask questions.
The Iraqis paid a horrific price for that over the years.

And most don't realize Iraq is now free - America emancipated them - from

Electricity
Clean Water
Safe Streets
Schools
Livelihoods
Adequate medical care

Richochet:
Had Scott Ritter been in Canada nothing would have happened. Age of consent 14 unless in a position of authority (teacher, clergy...)

In most instances, ie; "online dating" "hook ups" * G E N E R A L L Y * (not teacher, clergy, etc interpersonal relationships) I agree with that that benchmark (so long as no coercion, crime committed), problem is most parents that claim to care have no idea what their 14 year old offspring are up to. You don't have to constantly spy or intrude on a 14 year old to have an adequate idea of what they are up to.

If true, I still find it odd that a 40+ year old man seeks young teenagers (strangers) on the internet.
He's not a rock star or other idol, I can't imagine why the average 14-15 year old would find him attractive. Not my kind of "guy".

This post has been edited by nitatutt: Jan 21 2010, 09:20 PM

[Devilsadvocate]

The inspectors under Hans Blix actually gave a press conference in the run-up to the invasion 2003, even though they were not really allowed to do so.
During that press conference, they claimed that the evidence provided in respect to WMD's ranged from "unreliable" to "faulty" to "primitive fake" (the latter in respect of nuclear material which Saddam Hussein allegedly tried to buy in Africa.
(One of those inspectors even published a book).
Their criticism of those WMD-claims and the resulting sanctions against Iraq go back much further then that, and two high-ranking UN-officials actually resigned in protest against those sanctions (Denis Halliday in 1998, and Hans Graf von Sponeck in February 2000).
They called the sanctions by their proper name:
"An act of Genocide".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Halliday

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Sponeck

Their successor at the UN, Benon Sevan, managed to turn any criticism of the sanctions into a joke. With him as director of the food-for-oil programme, the operation was turned into a morass of corruption. Subsequently, any previous criticisms were simply drowned out, while the reputation of the UN took a serious knock.

I don't know what Scott Ritters stance in respect of the sanctions was, but the initial charges against him came to pass at a time when Halliday and Sponeck were trying to have the sanctions ended:
The basis for the maintenance of the sanctions was always the claim that Saddam Hussein was refusing to co-operate and was trying to mislead the UN. Any weapons inspectors reinforcing the view that there were no weapons would have made the maintenance of the sanctions more difficult.

That may by now be academic- with the UN out of the way, Bush was able to invade Iraq;
as it turned out, there were no WMDs.

Maybe Scott Ritter has a webcam. Maybe he got nothing better to do but to get his rocks off in front of that camera, in full view of anyone who cares to watch a middle-aged man masturbate. The truth is- he couldn't be dumb enough.

First time he was arrested in April 2001, nothing ever came of it:
It seems the judge in question was not impressed with the evidence provided to him.
No charge.

So- a few weeks later (June 2001), he gets arrested again.
This time, the judge was not impressed enough to launch into any major action either.
But he allowed himself to being armwrestled into warning Ritter
'to avoid trouble for a while'.
Courtrecords get sealed (...and are promptly passed on to the media.)

This is what i found in respect to the sealing of court records:

<h2 class="Heading3a">Safety</h2>
1. The courts will seal court records for the safety of the individuals involved. The courts will not allow records to be made public if doing so will cause harm to anyone involved in the case. This rule is commonly used in cases where there are victims of assault or a restraining order is in force to name a few examples.<h2 class="Heading3a">Company Secrets</h2>
2. Court records are also sealed when the confidentiality of the persons involved is paramount to the case. Courts use sealed records to protect companies in litigation from divulging trade secrets to the public.<h2 class="Heading3a">Medical Records</h2>
3. Court records involving doctor/patient confidentiality are also sealed. This is to uphold the patient privacy. Any medical doctor, counselor, therapist and even social worker communications are sealed to protect patient confidentiality.<h2 class="Heading3a">Family Court Cases</h2>
4. The courts records involving minors are always sealed to protect the identity and innocence of the minor. In fact, after a minor reaches the age 18, any criminal record he may have is often sealed.<h2 class="Heading3a">Other Reasons</h2>
5. Tax information, communications between the judge and any assistants, and the records of any case in which the judge has issued a "gag" order. Any other case that will lead to the unnecessary embarrassment, other unrelated lawsuits, or costs can be sealed at the judges' discretion.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5723229_reason-s...rt-records.html

The decision by that judge can't be related to 2); the case had nothing to do with company secrets.
3) is unlikely, as is 5).
4) is not just unlikely, but impossible- given the fact that Ritter was supposedly dealing with a police-officer acting as a minor.
Therefore, there would be no need to protect a minor.

That leaves 1):
I don't know enough about it to know wether the concept of 'avoiding trouble for a while' constitutes a restraining-order; otherwise the records were sealed for Ritters own protection.
That didn't quite work, though:
Someone passed on the sealed records to the media- which would have included all the evidence the judge was not impressed with.

The charges this time are more than a bit strange.
In June 2001, he was charged with
"attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child".

The emphasis is on "attempted":
He only ever dealt with police officers- not with minors.
Or so they claimed back then...

But this time around, he appears to be charged with (among other things)
"unlawful contact with a minor..."

So, according to the police, he was evidently dealing with an underage girl.

Is there such a thing as a 15-year-old police officer...?

This post has been edited by Devilsadvocate: Jan 22 2010, 09:31 PM

[Ricochet]

The Smoking Gun police complint
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...101ritter1.html

[Devilsadvocate]

The Smoking Gun police complint
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...101ritter1.html

...Already available to the discerning public. They don't loose time, do they ?

[mrodway]

I sometimes wonder if there isn't an early retirement plan available for willing agents?

-Blow the whistle on some information that will eventually come out anyway.
-Wait until you are accepted by the public as being the good guy.
-Do something that the public find really morally objectionable, but not so bad that the authorities have to execute you for it.
-The information you released gets burnt with your reputation.
-All along you are collecting the pension and royalties from books.
-You can go anywhere and nobody wants to talk to you (Handy if you are an ex-spy)

[amazed!]

mrod

Are you familiar with the Nugan-Hand affair Down Under?

I spent a week in Sydney back in 1971.