Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (136159)	6/10/2004 4:38:33 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Sealed perhaps because it was in fact a CIA operation and not a police sting. Concealment of somebody other than Scott Ritter was required. <Surely the police involved knew this was his second offense, but that fact was never revealed during his hearing, which was sealed. And I don't see why it was sealed since there was no actual minor involved, merely detectives posing as such.> Hawk, in countries like New Zealand and the USA, the courts are not toadies to the police or spy agencies. Individuals who run foul of those who are temporarily in authority, who might well have malevolent, dishonest intentions, are judged by the courts, not the police. They might even let people off who seem as guilty as sin. Such as O J Simpson, whose children are now old enough that they must be wondering who the real killer of their mother was and if it wasn't him, how come the second jury decided he was culpable and could be sued for her death. But for my money, I'll go with what the courts decide under due process, rather than what the police or secretive government agencies put together by way of accusation or smear, all too often by illegal means and for nefarious purpose. Which isn't to say courts always get things right, but it gives protection for individuals against wanton accusation. Scott Ritter might also have been involved in murder for all I know, and given his background, I wouldn't be surprised at all if some state-ordered, covert, illegal operations along murderous lines isn't on his resume. But like his sexual proclivities, that's irrelevant to whether he is right about the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's position. Mqurice