Secrecy Versus Truth [Jack Teixeira vs. Biden Administration] | antiwar.com

Citizenfour.

And? "Snowden" was in the same position as Teixeira...didn't have access. Both leaks came from up on high. Flynn was "Snowden." Texeira just didn't have access or opportunity to obtain the information we're being told he obtained. Neither did "Snowden"...Flynn did though. Give me time and I'll figure out who gave Texeira those docs.
 
Way to move the goal posts. You had said there was "nothing in writing" stating that NATO would not expand eastwards, and yet everyone worth their salt knows that former Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would go "not one inch eastwards" and the fact that I'm quoting him means that yes, it was written down. Whether or not he had the authority to make NATO policy is not the point. The -point- is that he made a promise on NATO's behalf, others made similar promises, and then the U.S. went back on those promises without so much as a 'sorry, we changed our minds'.

Sorry we can’t go on with a discussion of the OP. It had the potential of a good one.
You openly admit there was nothing in writing

Actually, I said the opposite. I'll quote myself to prove it:

**
You had said there was "nothing in writing" stating that NATO would not expand eastwards, and yet everyone worth their salt knows that former Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would go "not one inch eastwards" and the fact that I'm quoting him means that yes, it was written down.
**
 
How was he able to reveal it then?

How about this...maybe someone gave it to him?

I think we can all agree that someone gave it to him. However, former Marine Intelligence Officer Scott Ritter believes that it was done 'by the book'. The main issue is that the book has changed. Whereas in the past someone of Teixeira's standing would have never received this information, that's no longer the case. Scott Ritter said that after this event, Teixeira's base was removed from the list of bases that had access to this information, but he also said that there are a lot of other bases with people like Teixeira who continue to receive this type of information. Basically, people like Teixeira are being used to copy and paste high level information for higher ups. Here's the video in question:

 
Last edited:
Actually, I said the opposite. I'll quote myself to prove it:

**
You had said there was "nothing in writing" stating that NATO would not expand eastwards, and yet everyone worth their salt knows that former Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would go "not one inch eastwards" and the fact that I'm quoting him means that yes, it was written down.
**
It was written that he verbalized it.

:facepalm:
 
Sorry we can’t go on with a discussion of the OP. It had the potential of a good one.
You openly admit there was nothing in writing

Actually, I said the opposite. I'll quote myself to prove it:

**
You had said there was "nothing in writing" stating that NATO would not expand eastwards, and yet everyone worth their salt knows that former Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO would go "not one inch eastwards" and the fact that I'm quoting him means that yes, it was written down.
**

It was written that he verbalized it.

That's right. My point is it was written down that former (current at the time) Secretary of State James Baker promised Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards and everyone worth their salt knows that full well. Only a weasel of a country would make some lame excuse about it not being in a treaty to try to deflect from the fact that an acting U.S. Secretary of State promised this to Gorbachev. Sad to say that when it comes to foreign policy, the U.S. has become a real weasel of a country.
 
Why would anyone listen to a convicted pedophile? Who gives this type of creep oxygen?

He was convicted of essentially being jailbaited by 2 cops. He did his time and he's apologized for essentially succumbing to the temptation of said cops pretending they're minors. I strongly suspect that Napolitano, who used to be a judge himself, knows of his convictions and decided that his willing to speak truth to power is worth his past mistakes.
 
He was convicted of essentially being jailbaited by 2 cops. He did his time and he's apologized for essentially succumbing to the temptation of said cops pretending they're minors. I strongly suspect that Napolitano, who used to be a judge himself, knows of his convictions and decided that his willing to speak truth to power is worth his past mistakes.
Police persons posing as underaged children is a very common sting. He got caught masturbating in front of what he thought was an underaged child. He was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The Judge is also a sexual predator. He was let go at Fox News for accusations of sexual harassment by several male employees.
 
Police persons posing as underaged children is a very common sting. He got caught masturbating in front of what he thought was an underaged child. He was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The Judge is also a sexual predator. He was let go at Fox News for accusations of sexual harassment by several male employees.

I hope you're not trying to intentionally mislead people here. Many tend to think of children as only pre teens, when the fact of the matter is "child" can be used for anyone, as everyone is someone's child. As to the facts, I think Wikipedia does a decent job. Quoting from it:

**
Ritter was the subject of two law enforcement sting operations in 2001.[36] He was charged in June 2001 with trying to set up a meeting with an undercover police officer posing as a 16-year-old girl.[37][38] He was charged with a misdemeanor crime of "attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child". The charge was dismissed and the record was sealed after he completed six months of pre-trial probation.[38][8] After this information was made public in early 2003, Ritter said that the timing of the leak was politically motivated in order to silence his opposition to the Bush administration's push toward war with Iraq.[37][38][39]

Ritter was arrested again in November 2009[40] over communications with a police decoy he met on an Internet chat site. Police said that he exposed himself, via a web camera, after the officer repeatedly identified himself as a 15-year-old girl.[5] Ritter said in his own testimony during the trial that he believed the other party was an adult acting out her fantasy.[7] The chat room had an "age 18 and above" policy, which Ritter stated to the undercover officer.[5]

The next month, Ritter waived his right to a preliminary hearing and was released on $25,000 unsecured bail. 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".[2] Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in a courtroom in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, on April 14, 2011.[5][41]

In October 2011, he received a sentence of one and a half to five and a half years in prison.[3] He was sent to Laurel Highlands state prison in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, in March 2012 and paroled in September 2014.[4][7][8]

**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

So there you have it- he was charged because 2 cops posed as underage teens- in the first instance, his only crime was trying to meet with a fictional teen, in the second, he masturbated to a fictional teen, who he stated he believed was actually an adult, presumably via webcam. It may be that one or both essentially entrapped Ritter for political reasons and in at least one of the events, Ritter said he thought the alleged teen was in fact an adult.

The bottom line, he did his time for what amounted to victimless crimes in his case. What he's been doing now in relation to revealing a lot of truths regarding the war in Ukraine shouldn't be dismissed simply because of these past actions. But perhaps the truth is you'd rather focus on his past instead of focusing on what this thread is about, which is the government lying for political gain.
 
I hope you're not trying to intentionally mislead people here. Many tend to think of children as only pre teens, when the fact of the matter is "child" can be used for anyone, as everyone is someone's child. As to the facts, I think Wikipedia does a decent job. Quoting from it:

**
Ritter was the subject of two law enforcement sting operations in 2001.[36] He was charged in June 2001 with trying to set up a meeting with an undercover police officer posing as a 16-year-old girl.[37][38] He was charged with a misdemeanor crime of "attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child". The charge was dismissed and the record was sealed after he completed six months of pre-trial probation.[38][8] After this information was made public in early 2003, Ritter said that the timing of the leak was politically motivated in order to silence his opposition to the Bush administration's push toward war with Iraq.[37][38][39]

Ritter was arrested again in November 2009[40] over communications with a police decoy he met on an Internet chat site. Police said that he exposed himself, via a web camera, after the officer repeatedly identified himself as a 15-year-old girl.[5] Ritter said in his own testimony during the trial that he believed the other party was an adult acting out her fantasy.[7] The chat room had an "age 18 and above" policy, which Ritter stated to the undercover officer.[5]

The next month, Ritter waived his right to a preliminary hearing and was released on $25,000 unsecured bail. 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".[2] Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in a courtroom in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, on April 14, 2011.[5][41]

In October 2011, he received a sentence of one and a half to five and a half years in prison.[3] He was sent to Laurel Highlands state prison in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, in March 2012 and paroled in September 2014.[4][7][8]

**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

So there you have it- he was charged because 2 cops posed as underage teens- in the first instance, his only crime was trying to meet with a fictional teen, in the second, he masturbated to a fictional teen, who he stated he believed was actually an adult, presumably via webcam. It may be that one or both essentially entrapped Ritter for political reasons and in at least one of the events, Ritter said he thought the alleged teen was in fact an adult.

The bottom line, he did his time for what amounted to victimless crimes in his case. What he's been doing now in relation to revealing a lot of truths regarding the war in Ukraine shouldn't be dismissed simply because of these past actions. But perhaps the truth is you'd rather focus on his past instead of focusing on what this thread is about, which is the government lying for political gain.
He was charged and convicted because he is a pervert. Stings are to stop perverts like Ritter. Ritter wanted and thought he was masturbating for a child. He’s a pervert, a convicted pervert.
 
I hope you're not trying to intentionally mislead people here. Many tend to think of children as only pre teens, when the fact of the matter is "child" can be used for anyone, as everyone is someone's child. As to the facts, I think Wikipedia does a decent job. Quoting from it:

**
Ritter was the subject of two law enforcement sting operations in 2001.[36] He was charged in June 2001 with trying to set up a meeting with an undercover police officer posing as a 16-year-old girl.[37][38] He was charged with a misdemeanor crime of "attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child". The charge was dismissed and the record was sealed after he completed six months of pre-trial probation.[38][8] After this information was made public in early 2003, Ritter said that the timing of the leak was politically motivated in order to silence his opposition to the Bush administration's push toward war with Iraq.[37][38][39]

Ritter was arrested again in November 2009[40] over communications with a police decoy he met on an Internet chat site. Police said that he exposed himself, via a web camera, after the officer repeatedly identified himself as a 15-year-old girl.[5] Ritter said in his own testimony during the trial that he believed the other party was an adult acting out her fantasy.[7] The chat room had an "age 18 and above" policy, which Ritter stated to the undercover officer.[5]

The next month, Ritter waived his right to a preliminary hearing and was released on $25,000 unsecured bail. 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".[2] Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in a courtroom in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, on April 14, 2011.[5][41]

In October 2011, he received a sentence of one and a half to five and a half years in prison.[3] He was sent to Laurel Highlands state prison in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, in March 2012 and paroled in September 2014.[4][7][8]

**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

So there you have it- he was charged because 2 cops posed as underage teens- in the first instance, his only crime was trying to meet with a fictional teen, in the second, he masturbated to a fictional teen, who he stated he believed was actually an adult, presumably via webcam. It may be that one or both essentially entrapped Ritter for political reasons and in at least one of the events, Ritter said he thought the alleged teen was in fact an adult.

The bottom line, he did his time for what amounted to victimless crimes in his case. What he's been doing now in relation to revealing a lot of truths regarding the war in Ukraine shouldn't be dismissed simply because of these past actions. But perhaps the truth is you'd rather focus on his past instead of focusing on what this thread is about, which is the government lying for political gain.

He was charged and convicted because he is a pervert. Stings are to stop perverts like Ritter. Ritter wanted and thought he was masturbating for a child. He’s a pervert, a convicted pervert.

There you go again, inserting the ambiguous "child" bit again, which many might assume means a pre teen. In both instances, he was told he was chatting with a -teen-. In the second case, he claims that he thought he was actually chatting with an adult who was simply pretending to be a teen. If he was being honest, then he was right, he was.

What I find saddest of all here, though, is not that you seem to want to make 2 past actions of his look worse then they were, but that you refuse to listen to what he has to say regarding Ukraine because of them. Essentially, you're attacking the messenger instead of listening to the message itself. If Scott Ritter were here to make his own points, you'd simply be engaging in an ad hominem attack, something which I would think any decent moderator would try to avert for the sake of trying to have a productive discussion.
 
Rule violation. Post the link to source.

It was linked in the OP and you even quoted it in your response. I had no trouble linking to it. Here's the link again

https://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2023/04/20/secrecy-versus-truth/

Technically, I didn't originally post the link to the article at first. I had originally just posted the name of the article and the source, which he did quote, but I'd forgotten to link it to the original article. I corrected this once he pointed it out.
 
There you go again, inserting the ambiguous "child" bit again, which many might assume means a pre teen. In both instances, he was told he was chatting with a -teen-. In the second case, he claims that he thought he was actually chatting with an adult who was simply pretending to be a teen. If he was being honest, then he was right, he was.

What I find saddest of all here, though, is not that you seem to want to make 2 past actions of his look worse then they were, but that you refuse to listen to what he has to say regarding Ukraine because of them. Essentially, you're attacking the messenger instead of listening to the message itself. If Scott Ritter were here to make his own points, you'd simply be engaging in an ad hominem attack, something which I would think any decent moderator would try to avert for the sake of trying to have a productive discussion.
A teen is still considered a child, you are not considered an adult until you are 18.

I am attacking the messenger. He has no credibility, he’s a pervert.
 
There you go again, inserting the ambiguous "child" bit again, which many might assume means a pre teen. In both instances, he was told he was chatting with a -teen-. In the second case, he claims that he thought he was actually chatting with an adult who was simply pretending to be a teen. If he was being honest, then he was right, he was.

What I find saddest of all here, though, is not that you seem to want to make 2 past actions of his look worse then they were, but that you refuse to listen to what he has to say regarding Ukraine because of them. Essentially, you're attacking the messenger instead of listening to the message itself. If Scott Ritter were here to make his own points, you'd simply be engaging in an ad hominem attack, something which I would think any decent moderator would try to avert for the sake of trying to have a productive discussion.

A teen is still considered a child, you are not considered an adult until you are 18.

-Everyone- is a child of their parents, regardless of age. The term is incredibly ambiguous. But there's another issue here as well, which is the fact that with all animals other than human, they are considered adults once they can reproduce. Only humans categorize what would generally be considered as young adults with other species as "teens", and even go so far as to lump this category in with humans who are clearly too young to reproduce, such as when they use the incredibly ambiguous term "child".

The age of consent in the U.S. varies in the U.S. from 16 to 18, and we're not even getting into the close in age exemptions. This should tell you something on the fact that minors who are 16 and 17 are in a rather gray zone when it comes to being able to legally consent to sexual interactions with adults in the U.S. In essence, it all depends on what state you're in. So it would appear that the only reason that Scott Ritter got in trouble with his attempt to meet an alleged 16 year old was because of the state he lived in. And I've already mentioned the fact that he claims that he thought the second fictional teen was in fact an adult, which was true.

I am attacking the messenger.

I'm glad we can agree on that.

He has no credibility, he’s a pervert.

I find it sad that you would judge a man solely on 2 short incidents that happened years ago and dismiss anything else he has done because of it. Even Wikipedia makes it clear that he's done a lot more with his life both before and since those incidents. Have you ever considered that he was targetted by those cops -because- of the other things that he's done in his life? At the very least, the timing concerning the leaking of the first charge seems suspicious, considering the fact that he had been working on a peace initiative to avoid the U.S. going to war with Iraq back in 2003. Fox News published an article on this:

**
ALBANY, N.Y. – Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, a harsh critic of the Bush administration's push toward war with Iraq, suggested that recent news reports of his arrest in an Internet sex sting in 2001 were part of an attempt to silence him.

He said the publicity forced him to cancel a trip to Baghdad, where he said he would have offered an alternative to military action.

"The timing does stink. I was supposed to be on an airplane yesterday to Baghdad," he said. "Let's not forget, we're on the verge of a major conflict in which thousands of American lives may be lost, and I was a leading voice of opposition to this."

"It's a shame that somebody would bring up this old matter, this dismissed matter, and seek to silence me at this time," he said.

**

Source:
Former U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter: Timing of Arrest Reports Suspicious | foxnews.com


The thing is, Scott Ritter isn't the only former Weapons Inspector who was exposed for his sexual quirks, as an article from antiwar.com points out:

**
In the post-9/11 era of the "Patriot" Act and the Office of Total Information Awareness, what is happening to Ritter is meant as a warning to anyone who dares oppose this government. Former UN inspectors, it seems, are a special target. Remember that other inspector, Jack McGeorge, also an American, who was "outed" as being a member of a sado-masochistic "advocacy" organization? Just as our war birds were wailing in bitter disappointment that the inspections process would delay or maybe even derail the much anticipated bloodbath, suddenly one of the inspectors is "exposed" as a sadomasochist. The point was not to somehow prove that this made him unfit for the job, but simply to degrade him, to make the experience so painful that he would immediately withdraw – which is precisely what happened.
**

Source:
TARGET: SCOTT RITTER The War Party gets ugly | antiwar.com
 
Last edited:
It was linked in the OP and you even quoted it in your response. I had no trouble linking to it. Here's the link again

https://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2023/04/20/secrecy-versus-truth/

fuck off troll

I responded to TAG right after they posted, explaining that I had in fact forgotten to add a link, though I had included both the name of the article and the site it was published on. I don't see how your ad hominem attack on TAG was helpful in any way.
 
I responded to TAG right after they posted, explaining that I had in fact forgotten to add a link, though I had included both the name of the article and the site it was published on. I don't see how your ad hominem attack on TAG was helpful in any way.

shut up troll
 
Back
Top