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: Maurice Winn who wrote (136184)	6/10/2004 4:51:23 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

In the USA, and, I expect, in New Zealand, courts don't prosecute criminals, they merely judge them. They're neutral. If the prosecutor and the defendant agree that the file should be sealed, the judge will no doubt agree, because both sides have already agreed. The sealed case in question was sealed after Ritter was arrested, but the police had a file on him that was not sealed. Someone at the police department leaked the facts, and it wasn't a CIA sting. It was sealed as a courtesy to Ritter, a favor given to him by the prosecutor. The police department did not like this, thus, the leak. The prosecutor was female, and thus perhaps more tenderhearted than a male prosecutor. If there had been a real child involved, she would have been less tenderhearted than a male, is the way it seems to work.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (136184)	6/11/2004 12:34:51 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| 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. Had it been a CIA sting (which is REALLY stretching all credulity), those records would certainly not have been sealed. Ritter would have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law and no CIA connection could ever have been proven, or admissible in a court of law. But like his sexual proclivities, that's irrelevant to whether he is right about the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's position. But it sure damages his credibility, as does the $400,000 pay-off from an Iraqi investor who received oil allocations from Saddam's regime. The bottom line is that IT'S IRRELEVANT whether Ritter was right or wrong. He was just another "stopped clock" that's right twice a day. He could not produce any convincing evidence that would compete with the evidence of Saddam's non-compliance that had been amassed by years of "inspections"... Hawk