Former UN weapons inspector (Scott Ritter) in Iraq is charged in Pennsylvania child-sex sting

[WriteDown]

Source: Fox News

Former chief United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter was arrested in a Pennsylvania sex sting in November on a litany of charges involving a lewd Internet conversation with a person he thought was a 15-year-old girl.

Ritter, 47, allegedly masturbated in front of a Web camera while he was engaged in conversation in an Internet chat room with an undercover cop posing as the teenage girl.

The chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991-98, Ritter is accused of contacting the "girl" while using the handle "delmarm4fun" last February.

Ritter, of Delmar, N.Y., allegedly told the girl, "Emily," that he was a 44-year-old man from Albany, N.Y., according to an affidavit of probable cause.

The undercover officer then told Ritter he was a 15-year-old girl from the Poconos region of Pennsylvania, at which point Ritter asked for a picture in addition to one "Emily" had posted on her account, according to the affidavit prepared by Barrett Township Police Det. Ryan Venneman.

Ritter then sent a link to his Web camera and began to masturbate while it was focused on his genitals, according to the affidavit. The former U.N. official then allegedly provided his cell phone number....


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583027,00.html?test=latestnews

---

Yikes, what is it with pedophiles these days. Is it more prevalent or just more are sucessfully apprehended?

[mike_c]

1. damn, this isn't Ritter's first run in, either....

He is one of the most cogent and well-informed critics of American foreign policy. It's unfortunate that his pedophilia will likely overshadow the truth of his foreign policy criticisms. Damn.

[Delphinus]

15. I know.

I checked the date because I remember when this came up before - that time it *seemed* like a smear because he was speaking against what the BFEE wanted.

[PaulaFarrell]

18. It's sick but it's not pedophilia

people throw that word around too much. pedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent girls (or boys of a similar age)

[djg21]

20. A distinction without a difference?

The term is used by medical professionals to refer to a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.

In law enforcement, however, the term "pedophile" is loosely used to describe those convicted of child sexual abuse or the sexual abuse of a minor, including both prepubescent children and pubescent or post-pubescent adolescents.

Ritter's currently alleged conduct, and his earlier conduct for which he was convicted of misdemeanor, surely qualifies him as a pedophile from a law enforcement perspective.

[naaman fletcher]

22. Right, but there is a difference, and this infuriates me..

An adult who lusts after a 16 year old girl is far, far different from one who lusts after a 5 year old girl. The first one has a problem accepting societies rules, the 2nd is a sick fuck who needs to be killed or locked up for life.

The problem with all the sex offender laws is that they don't make a big distinction, and everyone assumes that everyone the government labels as a pedophile is the kind who likes little kids, when that's not usually the case.

[Igel]

29. There is a difference.

But it only really matters when it benefits us.

The point was made during the church scandals, but oddly it was considered as an apologia of some sort for sexual predation because it made men, self-styled authority figures who were assumed to be bad, less culpable of villany.

You're right. But the 'apologists' for Catholic priests were no less right.

[jberryhill]

30. Most states do make such a distinction

Typically, the degree of the offense increases with decreasing age.

[djg21]

40. These are some pretty broad generalizations.

In fact, I'd suggest that one adult who lusts after a 16 year old girl can be far different than another adult who lusts after the same 16 year old girl, and either or both of them may be as psychologically impaired, or even more so, than the adult who lusts after a 5 year old girl. This is why prosecutors and judges are afforded some latitude and discretion. This is why civil confinement statutes require a pyschiatric assessment of offenders before they may be committed.

And, whether the offender is a "sick fuck," or merely a person who cannot stand to abide by society's rules, he/she still should be locked up. One who refuses to abide by society's rules is, after all, a criminal.

[naaman fletcher]

42. so you really think

there is no big difference big difference a guy who lusts after 16 year old (an age when for all of humanity except maybe the last 35 years it was ok to do so) and a 5 year old?

[djg21]

44. I didn't say that.

What I said is that I am not willing to presume that the adult lusting after a 15 year old (and refusing or unable to control his/her urges or compulsions) also cannot be mentally ill. Without specific facts, and without any medical expertise, I am ill-equipped to draw such a conclusion. I can assure you, however, that: (1)all adult who have sexual relations with a 5 yr old have significant mental health issues;(2) all adults who have illicit sexual relations with 15 yr olds are not mentally sound.

[naaman fletcher]

46. fair enough

All I am saying is that we ought to use a different word in describing the two different groups, as I believe the nature of what they are doing is fundamentally different.

[boppers]

59. Good luck, Polanski.

He was jacking off in front of what he thought was a high school girl, somebody at a significant intellectual, and developmental, advantage.

You want a different name for it, fine, but it's still an older man trying to exploit people at a significant disability to him.

What if it was a 16 year old girl with the psychological development of a 6 year old?

[Alcibiades]

48. I don't know if there's a civil commitment law in your area

But under the federal statute, it's a psychological assessment, not a (specifically) psychiatric assessment.

I'm not sure that "impairment" is the right word here, either. Most of these offenders are not impaired in a legal sense: they understand the nature and wrongfulness of their acts, and are competent to assist in their own defense. They are crazy in a vernacular sense, but not a legal one.

I do think that someone like Ritter must have some sort of strong orientation toward teenage girls, because the reoffense rate for someone like him (who apparently has no hands on offenses and who is attracted to children of the opposite sex) is actually rather low. The fact he was caught by a sting again shows he's someone who is likely to escalate, reoffend, and be a danger to teenage girls.

You're right to note the prosecutorial discretion, though judges may have less discretion, depending on the sentencing guideline in their state. It's not only the age of the victim, but also the age of the offender: a 22 year old who molests a 15 year old, a 35 year old who molests a 15 year old, and a 25 year old who molests a 5 year old are likely to all receive very different treatment.

[djg21]

49. You are absolutely correct!

I was being lazy, and trying not to sound like a lawyer.

My jurisdiction -- New York -- has a civil confinement statute called the Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (“SOMA”). N.Y. Mental Hygiene Law (“MHL”), § 10.03(g). SOMA applies to detained sex offenders who suffer from a “mental abnormality," which is defined as a “congenital or acquired condition, disease, or disorder that affects the emotional, cognitive or volitional capacity in a manner that predisposes him or her to the commission of conduct constituting a sex offense and that results in that person having serious difficulty in controlling such conduct.” SOMA provides for a number of procedural safeguards, and requires assessments at various stages by clinical and other professional personnel, who may direct a "psychiatric examination" before recommending that an offender be civilly committed.

My sense is that you are right in focusing on the likelihood of reoffending, as it appears that having a "mental abnormality," at least for purposes of SOMA, boils down to being likely to reoffend.

[Alcibiades]

56. That's the way it is under Adam Walsh, too

They use a variety of actuarial assessments to to determine what offenders out to be civilly committed, a psychologist makes a recommendation to the panel based on an evaluation, and the offender is locked up forever, or until an annual review certifies them as rehabilitated and no longer sexually dangerous. Not sure how that bit will work out, as they have only just started the first annual reviews of civilly committed sex offenders and the whole thing was found unconstitutional by the fourth circuit court. We'll know more on this in June, as the Supreme Court just heard arguments on Tuesday.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126332921615526621.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

I have to disagree with the reporter in this article, though: the folks I talk to think the case was badly argued by both sides. It seems likely that the Solicitor General was hamstrung by the weak-ass argument made by the government in the lower courts that Adam Walsh is constitutional under the necessary and proper clause, which is not an argument I think will fare well with the Court as it is currently constituted. The 4th circuit decision was based mainly on Morrison and Lopez, decisions this Court might like to reaffirm, which came up hardly at all on Tuesday. Whatever they decide, it likely won't turn into an issue at the state level, as the question now hinges on the federalism issue.

[carla]

50. Pedophiles

deserve death? Now, now. Incarceration, yes. But a sexual dysfunction is hardly worthy of death. Or do you think homosexuality should also carry a death sentence? I sure hope you don't really mean what you wrote...:crazy: :crazy: :silly: :crazy: :crazy:

[Llewlladdwr]

70. You aren't trying to imply any equivilancy...

between pedophilia and homosexuality are you? Seriously?

[MidwestTransplant]

2. Odd that Faux is anxious to cover this. Not

[Roland99]

3. Dumb. Ass.

[PSPS]

4. Ritter was involved in a sex scandal nine years ago.

It came to light two years later, in 2003, but he never talked much about it beyond it being a misdemeanor and the court record being sealed. Here's a sample of several interviews he had about it at the time:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634

[On the Road]

28. Was 2003

the time Ritter was caught while attempting to meet a young girl he thought he contacted on the internet?

It was a huge deal around here, especially since he was Will Pitt's co-author in the book on the lead-up to Iraq (which briefly made one of the NYT's bestseller lists). Will was completely blind-sided:



http://www.amazon.com/War-Iraq-What-Team-Doesnt/dp/1893956385

[Kolesar]

5. Cops create "chat rooms" to entrap men

Would there have been a "crime" had the police not set up this "chat room"?

[WriteDown]

6. If there were no 15 year girls, would there be a crime?

:eyes:

[Skelly]

10. Oh yea

Only in a different chat room.

And isn't it amazing how successful these 'entrapments' are? "Geez officer, if a 15yr old never asked me, I wouldn't have done it".

[Stuckinthebush]

16. As a man

I've never stumbled on a "chat room" of young girls and accidentally started talking to one and then, oops, my genitals became exposed. Never. Not once.

Perhaps one has to go looking for these chat rooms full of young kids. I'm thinking the excuse of entrapment is lame here.

[8 track mind]

24. you know

It's kind of like the priest that blamed the potato up his wazoo, on him falling while hanging curtains in the buff.

funny how that happens....


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/wacky/nude-priest-falls-on-potato/story-e6frev20-1111117911401

[djg21]

17. Yes there would!

If not in a chat room, he would be at Burger King soliciting your under-age daughter or sister for illicit sex. Oops, that was the last time he got caught.

This wasn't entrapment. He allegedly was actively looking to engage in prurient sexual communications, and after being explicitly told that his "partner" was only 15 years old, continued to engage in the unlawful conduct/communications. Assuming these allegations prove true, and despite the fact that he was correct with respect to WMD's, this guy is a pedophile and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[barb162]

21. If cops set up chat rooms to protect innocent kids, it's okay with me.

Let the cops nab these pedophiles.

[AlphaCentauri]

38. They don't have to create them there are many places that need supervision

[proteus_lives]

27. It's a good thing.

These "men" deserve to be caught and sent to prison.

[cartach]

57. What the f_ _ k do you think?

The crime would have occurred in another chat room ! Only difference being is that he wouldn't have been caught. The chat room the cops set up was not a one time thing, appearing out of nowhere and never likely to happen again. It happens all the time except this time the cops were there and that should happen more often.

[boppers]

60. One word: bloodninja

This issue is so endemic that the seedier side of the 'net makes sport of mocking it, and one Chris Hansen turned it into a regular TV show.

[AlphaCentauri]

7. Wonder why he always meet agents that look like teens?

probably he has been under surveillance for a long time and they have been putting some traps on him until he felt for his weakness

[WriteDown]

9. Yeah, they made him seek out that chatroom.

I heard they planted subliminal messages in his self-help tapes. :eyes:

[AlphaCentauri]

34. "subliminal messages in his self-help tapes"

a subliminal messages like -we don't have bad presidents we have good enemies-.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Your use of 'always' is spurious.

Two times in 9 years could be a statistically tiny percentage of his encounters.

[bananas]

26. Three times.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595

[AlphaCentauri]

32. we don't know how many times the undercover operation was setup for him

He could be surrounded by those agents many times before but he may not have been tempted to follow the bait

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Could be != Always

He also could have had hundreds of successful relations with actual children in that time period.

You simply cannot know.
Plus, you are assuming this was actually set up FOR him. This could be a standard trap, and it just happened to get him. When they were doing this on Dateline's 'To Catch A Predator' series, they got the same guy more than once. They didn't hunt him down and tempt him intentionally, he was just so prolific he encountered the trap more than once.



Healthy people would never fall for such bait either, no matter how many times 'tempted'.
I hope he does get help, because he appears to be sick.

[Alcibiades]

8. He's a duck

A hebephile. You would think that someone as smart as Ritter would not get caught up in a sting like this, but he apparently cannot control his proclivities. I only hope he has no hands-on victims.

[NMDemDist2]

11. Scott Ritter??

:wow:

:cry:

[denverbill]

12. He's a self-described 'conservative Republican'. What else would you expect? n/t

[Dave From Canada]

14. Yeah, just like Bernie Ward right?

[ck4829]

19. He himself says it right here

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/ritter_sep02.html

[Igel]

33. Well, said it right there.

A decade ago.

[barb162]

23. I liked Ritter, thought he always had good comments on TV

so reading this is very disturbing to me. It's like reading about the John Edwards campaign falling apart this past weekeend in the NY Magazine.

[Blandocyte]

25. Yikes. Can't blame that one on the dog. n/t

[Alameda]

31. Ewww...is this real? WHY on earth would he do such a thing?

He has to know he is being watched....very carefully.....is this for real? Why would anyone turn on a web camera and show their private parts....to someone they really don't even know is who they say they are?

[ShortnFiery]

35. I don't want to believe this. I hope it's in error. :( eom

[girl gone mad]

36. Not surprising.

I intentionally avoided a meeting where he was present a few years ago because of his predator reputation. I've always been young looking for my age, so I know his type very well. Trust me, if he wasn't in a chat room, he'd be out in the community trying to groom some naive underage girl into a very one-sided sexual relationship. These men get off on the manipulation as much as the sex. I'm sure he knew the risks of being in a chat room, but he was addicted to the power trip. In many countries, teenagers are much more street smart and know how to turn the tables. I'm surprised that American teenagers haven't become savvier.

Ritter's work on Iraq was commendable. I don't know that this should sully his professional reputation. It isn't as if he was a priest, cop or teacher.

[Rozlee]

37. It doesn't nullify his message about the illegitimacy of the Iraq War, but

he's still really committed an act that I, as a mother, don't approve of. Still, as I wrote in a comment section in another liberal site, I had a great grandmother and her sister that married at age 12. And back in those days, that was considered normal. Young girls were often married to older men to take care of their large broods from a previous wife that had died in childbirth. Turn of the 19th century stuff before penicillin that saved the life of women from dying of post puerile infection. Throughout history, most cultures married women off at menarche. Here in Texas, it was in the 40's or 50's that 10 years of age was written out of our Constitution as the official age of consent. (Well, this is, after all, Texas). But, that age wasn't unheard of in pioneer days among the poor classes in the U.S. I can't even conceive of it. Turning over my baby to be married at 26 had me in a panic. Turns out I didn't have anything to worry about. She's got him totally whipped. But, I still think Ritter did something unexcusable. His message about WMD may be still legit. His extracurricular behavior isn't.

[h9socialist]

39. I see the cite is FOX NOISE . . .

. . . those idiots are probably all playing with themselves in ecstacy over this one.

[RamboLiberal]

43. Perverted Dumbass - here's the Police Affadavit

http://www.poconorecord.com/assets/pdf/PR1152113.PDF

[Peace Patriot]

45. "Yikes, what is it with pedophiles these days." ??? You're presuming he's guilty?

Ritter was one of the most vocal and visible critics of a war in which ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND INNOCENT PEOPLE were blown to smithereens in the first weeks of bombing alone. He is a "clear and present danger" to war profiteers, to the "military-industrial complex" and to the Forever War.

And you are just presuming that these unproven charges against him are true? You are not even hesitating over it?

Please be aware that much of the damage to Ritter--if he is innocent--has already occurred, and much of the benefit to those whom he has opposed, those who dragged us into mass slaughter and unjust war--has already been accomplished. Guilty or innocent, his name is now mud.

And you have just helped Fox News to accomplish this purpose--by presuming that Ritter is guilty.

This is aside from any questions of the justice of the "sting" in which he ALLEGEDLY masturbated to the photo of a NON-EXISTENT 15 year old girl. I myself oppose laws against what someone THINKS. These are very dicey laws, in my view, and easy fodder for abusive police tactics. I also think it's dicey to categorize a 15 year old as a "child" especially for the purpose of prosecuting on a THOUGHT crime, and especially since the 15 year old DID NOT EXIST.

But aside from all of these troubling legal questions, that go to our First Amendment rights, we really must understand that there are sophisticated methods of falsifying evidence and setting people up, and plenty of people who have motives to do so, especially against a well-known anti-war critic. And the LEAST WE SHOULD DO is remain skeptical until and unless Scot Ritter confesses or is convicted, and EVEN THEN, remain skeptical and vigilant, regarding any such events.

With Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and the horrendous U.S. torture of prisoners around the world, with U.S. assassination squads at work in the world, and our fetid prison system here at home--with the brutal tactics against peaceful protestors, and the corrupt, murderous, failed "war on drugs," here and elsewhere, the scandals of domestic spying, the Patriot Act, the TRILLIONS of dollars spent on war, law enforcement and imprisonment, and the fascist sub-cultures that this has created--we are very nearly living in a police state. We cannot presume that the actions of law enforcement are truthful or just. We have too much evidence to the contrary.

So, please, I urge you: Do not presume guilt in ANY circumstance of police allegations. Do not heap abuse on the accused, and especially on anyone who is a good candidate for false accusations. And remain skeptical of all law enforcement and justice system actions.

[WriteDown]

47. This is his 2nd or 3rd instance....

Time for assumption is starting to pass.

[Peace Patriot]

51. "2nd or 3rd instance"? Then why hasn't Ritter ever been in jail?

You once again are judging him guilty, this time on allegations that were DROPPED. He was not convicted; he was not punished. He is PRESUMED INNOCENT. And he is venomously hated by the war profiteers--which is even more reason to be skeptical of charges against him.

Your presumption of his guilt is unfair and wrong. You haven't taken it back. And now you're adding RUMORS to your little witch trial.

"Time for assumption is starting to pass." Says who? Maybe you think he should be tried under the Patriot Act, and just throw habeas corpus out of the window along with all that other "quaint" stuff in the Constitution. Hm?

And it's not "assumption." It's "presumption." The PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. Especially with yahoos like you shouting "Burn the Witch!"

[DemoTex]

52. I stand with Peace Patriot's critical thinking here .. 100%

Ritter pissed off the BFEE, big-time. The charges might be specious .. who knows? I'm giving Ritter the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

[WriteDown]

54. He's already had the benefit of the doubt once....

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634

and

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595

[ronnie624]

63. The info to which you linked, does not mention Scott Ritter being found guilty in a court of law.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial>

[Pavulon]

66. Neither was OJ after he hacked up 2 people. a wiki link to "common sense"

may be in order. Maybe this guy can spend his time looking for the real fapper.

[ronnie624]

67. "Common sense" tells you Scott Rotter is guilty,

even when you have seen no evidence? Would you care to elaborate?

I myself presume nothing, except that the constitution guarantees a right to a formal examination of evidence in court.

[Pavulon]

69. 3rd time may be the charm.

i assume there is video of him fapping in front of what is supposed to be a high school girl. game ova'.

[WriteDown]

53. You can read for yourself...

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30634

and

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30595

[TorchTheWitch]

55. see post #43

Read the Affidavit. There's no "allegedly" here.

[ronnie624]

62. An affidavit is not a court of law.

A jury will have to pronounce him guilty.

[cartach]

61. I reserve the right

to presume anything I damn well please be it guilt or anything else. I'm satisfied that I have sufficient information to come to the conclusion I have,that there's a hell of a good chance that the man is guilty. Given that,I'll await further developments until I'm fully convinced one way or the other. As far as "heaping abuse on the accused, and anyone who is a good candidate for false accusations" I'll go so far as to say that if he did it he should be considered a predator and locked up. I could add a few more comments and add to the abuse without any hesitation. Finally I doubt the man is a good candidate for false accusations,he got caught with his pants down right on camera. So don't give me your BS about law enforcement blah,blah,blah, just stick your head back up your butt then you'll be safe unless of course one of the bad guys does harm to you or yours and then you'll want all the help you can get.

[some guy]

68. + 1

[cali]

75. oh for pity's sake. this is the third time.

you're ability to dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your world view is disturbing.

[Egnever]

58. Well thats not good.

Seeing as how he has had run ins with this type of stuff in the past, it seems he may have a problem.

[jasi2006]

64. Sick an stupid. I hate that he had to be this way. The GOP has

been after him for a long time. I bet they couldn't gloat any more than they are. What is up with these perverts? A stiff "d--k" has no conscience.

[mdmc]

65. As an old Scott Ritter apologist, all I can say is

beat.

I can't believe he didn't learn his lesson..

[hlthe2b]

71. ditto...

Dismayed beyond words...

[zorgin]

73. food for thought..

i've worked in the IT field for quite some time now.
i've researched quite a bit about various government organizations and the legality of their tactics.
at this point i can honestly say that it doesn't at all seem out of the realm of possibility that Scott Ritter is being set up.

no where have i seen him admit to anything.
he got his 2001 case dismissed.

meanwhile, identity theft is a huge issue these days, let alone the power a computer specialist has when backed with funds from powerful organizations, such as the ones he took on in his anti-war fight.

why everyone is so quick to assume he's guilty is beyond me. if he comes out and says he is, that will be a different story. until then, i'm remaining neutral on the issue and hope that people think about the facts more.


:nuke:

[NashVegas]

72. Add Me

I'd still listen to what he has to say about weapons, but his stupidity regarding this is beyond excusing as a one-off deal.

[lunatica]

74. He's a total disappointment

I thought the last time was a hatchet job. Now I know better.