Re: [casi] Attacking the public Maj. Ritter vs Annonymity

["Bert Gedin" <gedinbert@DELETETHIShotmail.com>]

Thanks, Tom, I would hope most of us agree with you re. anonymity. One
possible exception = for someone who would be in danger by going public. But
if the List Manager knows who the person is maybe /she/they could judge
whether, or not, to give the green light?
Greetings, Bert G. (Birmingham, U.K.).


>From: " Tom Nagy, Ph.D." <nagy@gwu.edu>
>To: CASI list <soc-casi-discuss@lists.cam.ac.uk>, nagy@gwu.edu
>Subject: [casi] Attacking the public Maj. Ritter vs Annonymity
>Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 14:20:28 -0400
>
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>  . May I urge CASI review its policy on permitting participation of
>people, including "high U.S. military officials, " who demand the right
>of  hiding  behind anonymity,  either on the CASI discussion list or  in
>placing their views on the CASI   list of documents.
>
>I believe that explicit treatment of this issue is particularly timely 
>when  folks like Maj. Ritter, who have the integrity to publicly change
>their minds based on new facts, is dismissed   as "all over the place"
>on the CASI discussion list by some CASI colleagues. 
>
> Maj. Ritter's cogent analysis combined with his former role as Chief
>Weapons Inspector of UNSCOM threatens  the "party line".  It is
>predictable  that attacking of him will increase in the mainstream media
>as he damages the cliches of the "Iraq delenda est" bunch (See below) .
>Of course Ritter's  views must be scrutinize, but I fear that more
>anonymous "high U.S. gov. officials" will try to  attack him anonymously
>on the CASI site. I think it prudent  that CASI have a policy in place
>to deal with the vexing issue of granting anonymity.
>
>     . May I urge the adoption of a single standard with no  hiding even
>for  "high U.S. military officials" who want to participate in the CASI
>discussion list and have the "rebuttals" posted on the CASI site.  If
>such folks want to make claims, let them make their names public. I am
>confident that the world's sole remaining superpower backed by the
>mighty Office of Homeland Security which will soon be upon us can
>protect these patriots from the ravages of  pacifists.
>
>         This is no small matter here in Washington where the testimony
>of thoughtful critics of going to war on speculation and tearing up not
>only International Law but also the Bill of Rights from people such as
>Halliday,  Ritter and Bennis and Rep. Kucinich are are almost totally 
>ignored by the mainstream  media  -- even the media of dissenting
>Representatives' home districts. I think such selective reporting is
>dangerous to the entire world. Yesterday,  Rep. Kucinch held his 3rd
>briefing in as many weeks  on the Hill. The disconnect which concerns me
>is the overflow audience on the one hand vs. the nearly complete news
>blackout on the other hand.  The other speakers included folks like Von
>Hipple and Rep. McDermott of Washington State. A guy with NBC news
>speculated that at most there might be a sound bite on MSNBC, but not
>even that on NBC nightly news.
>
>   The wheels are plainly flying off the war wagon as it plunges the
>world  into the next major war. I offer these thoughts in the hope that
>CASI's role in promoting reasoned discourse will accelerate in response
>to the growing danger.
>
>          Here's a non anonymous analysis of the state of discourse on
>our side of the Big Pond.
>
>       Hope these thoughts have been constructive,
>Tom
>
>=====================================================
>Toronto Star
>Sep. 12, 01:00 EDT
>
>CNN's hatchet job on Scott Ritter
>
>Media smear ex-Marine for seeking answers on Iraq
>
>Antonia Zerbisias
>
>To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
>we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
>unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
>public.
>Theodore Roosevelt
>
>OF COURSE it was just coincidental that, on Sunday, as CNN was
>discrediting former United Nations weapons' inspector Scott Ritter,
>it was running promos for the remake of Four Feathers, A.E.W. Mason's
>tale of the coward who would not go to war.
>
>Ritter, who had that day urged Iraq's National Assembly to let in
>weapons inspectors or face annihilation, is no chicken hawk. After
>his 12-year turn as a U.S. Marine intelligence officer, he faced down
>Saddam Hussein's goons as chief inspector of the United Nations
>Special Commission to disarm Iraq (UNSCOM). In 1998, he quit in
>protest over differences between what Washington wanted and what Iraq
>allowed.
>
>Ever since, he has been very vocal about what really led to UNSCOM's
>failure to complete its mission - a failure Ritter largely blames on
>Washington - and how weapons' inspectors must be allowed back in to
>avert what will certainly be a brutal, bloody war. He insists that,
>if the Bush administration has evidence showing that Saddam is
>building nukes, then the American people have a right to see it
>before they sacrifice their lives.
>
>So, naturally, CNN talking head Miles O'Brien on Sunday questioned
>Ritter on his loyalty.
>
>"As an American citizen, I have an obligation to speak out when I
>feel my government is acting in a manner, which is inconsistent with
>the - with the principles of our founding fathers," said Ritter.
>"It's the most patriotic thing I can do."
>
>Not in this climate. Not when there's the ironically named U.S.A.
>Patriot Act which abrogates civil rights. Not when those who
>criticize the administration are considered to be "with the
>terrorists." Not when the U.S. media let President George Bush's
>advisers - who, with the exception of Secretary of State Colin
>Powell, have never served their country as Ritter has - gallop all
>over the airwaves.
>
>You couldn't flip a channel on Sunday without catching one of the
>Bush bunch, including wife Laura, Powell, vice-president Dick Cheney,
>Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security adviser
>Condoleeza Rice, promoting an attack on Iraq as if they were actors
>flogging their latest project on Leno and Letterman.
>
>Certainly, the line of questioning was no more tough. Nowhere was any
>of them asked seriously, if at all, about such trivia as the costs of
>a war, or what, if anything, is known about connections between Al
>Qaeda and Saddam, or what proof there is that Iraq has the ability to
>make and deliver nuclear weapons, or why that country as opposed to
>others, or what oil has to do with it, or how Cheney justifies his
>former business dealings with the regime he now so desperately wants
>to change ...
>
>Still the demonization of Ritter continued.
>
>First CNN had on its own news chief, Eason Jordan, who had just
>returned from Baghdad where he was bagging the rights to cover the
>war. (Imagine the ratings!) He dismissed Ritter with a "Well, Scott
>Ritter's chameleon-like behaviour has really bewildered a lot of
>people..." and a "Well, U.S. officials no longer give Scott Ritter
>much credibility..."
>
>The network followed up with more interviews vilifying Ritter,
>neither of which cut to the heart of the matter: Why declare war? On
>what grounds? At what cost? Ritter was characterized as "misguided,"
>"disloyal" and "an apologist for and a defender of Saddam Hussein."
>
>By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had
>"drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."
>
>Over on MSNBC, Curtis & Kuby co-host Curtis Sliwa compared him to "a
>sock puppet" who "oughta turn in his passport for an Iraqi one." But
>the nadir came later on CNN when makeup job Kyra Phillips
>interrogated him, implying that he was being paid by Iraq -and all
>but calling him a quisling.
>
>"Ha! Excuse me; I went to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991. I spent
>seven years of my life in this country hunting down weapons of mass
>destruction. I believe I've done a lot about Saddam Hussein," he
>replied. "You show me where Saddam Hussein can be substantiated as a
>threat against the United States and I'll go to war again. I'm not
>going to sit back idly and let anybody threaten the United States.
>But at this point in time, no one has made a case based upon facts
>that Saddam Hussein or his government is a threat to the United
>States worthy of war."
>
>Maybe today, in his speech to the United Nations, Bush will make that
>case.
>
>Maybe not.
>
>Whatever happens, the list of cowards and traitors here won't include
>Scott Ritter.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Antonia Zerbisias' column appears every Thursday. You can reach her
>at azerbis@thestar.ca
> 
> 
>
> 
> 
>
>Toronto Star
>Sep. 12, 01:00 EDT
>
>CNN's hatchet job on Scott Ritter
>
>Media smear ex-Marine for seeking answers on Iraq
>
>Antonia Zerbisias
>
>To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
>we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
>unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
>public.
>Theodore Roosevelt
>
>OF COURSE it was just coincidental that, on Sunday, as CNN was
>discrediting former United Nations weapons' inspector Scott Ritter,
>it was running promos for the remake of Four Feathers, A.E.W. Mason's
>tale of the coward who would not go to war.
>
>Ritter, who had that day urged Iraq's National Assembly to let in
>weapons inspectors or face annihilation, is no chicken hawk. After
>his 12-year turn as a U.S. Marine intelligence officer, he faced down
>Saddam Hussein's goons as chief inspector of the United Nations
>Special Commission to disarm Iraq (UNSCOM). In 1998, he quit in
>protest over differences between what Washington wanted and what Iraq
>allowed.
>
>Ever since, he has been very vocal about what really led to UNSCOM's
>failure to complete its mission - a failure Ritter largely blames on
>Washington - and how weapons' inspectors must be allowed back in to
>avert what will certainly be a brutal, bloody war. He insists that,
>if the Bush administration has evidence showing that Saddam is
>building nukes, then the American people have a right to see it
>before they sacrifice their lives.
>
>So, naturally, CNN talking head Miles O'Brien on Sunday questioned
>Ritter on his loyalty.
>
>"As an American citizen, I have an obligation to speak out when I
>feel my government is acting in a manner, which is inconsistent with
>the - with the principles of our founding fathers," said Ritter.
>"It's the most patriotic thing I can do."
>
>Not in this climate. Not when there's the ironically named U.S.A.
>Patriot Act which abrogates civil rights. Not when those who
>criticize the administration are considered to be "with the
>terrorists." Not when the U.S. media let President George Bush's
>advisers - who, with the exception of Secretary of State Colin
>Powell, have never served their country as Ritter has - gallop all
>over the airwaves.
>
>You couldn't flip a channel on Sunday without catching one of the
>Bush bunch, including wife Laura, Powell, vice-president Dick Cheney,
>Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security adviser
>Condoleeza Rice, promoting an attack on Iraq as if they were actors
>flogging their latest project on Leno and Letterman.
>
>Certainly, the line of questioning was no more tough. Nowhere was any
>of them asked seriously, if at all, about such trivia as the costs of
>a war, or what, if anything, is known about connections between Al
>Qaeda and Saddam, or what proof there is that Iraq has the ability to
>make and deliver nuclear weapons, or why that country as opposed to
>others, or what oil has to do with it, or how Cheney justifies his
>former business dealings with the regime he now so desperately wants
>to change ...
>
>Still the demonization of Ritter continued.
>
>First CNN had on its own news chief, Eason Jordan, who had just
>returned from Baghdad where he was bagging the rights to cover the
>war. (Imagine the ratings!) He dismissed Ritter with a "Well, Scott
>Ritter's chameleon-like behaviour has really bewildered a lot of
>people..." and a "Well, U.S. officials no longer give Scott Ritter
>much credibility..."
>
>The network followed up with more interviews vilifying Ritter,
>neither of which cut to the heart of the matter: Why declare war? On
>what grounds? At what cost? Ritter was characterized as "misguided,"
>"disloyal" and "an apologist for and a defender of Saddam Hussein."
>
>By Monday, professional hairdo Paula Zahn told viewers Ritter had
>"drunk Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid."
>
>Over on MSNBC, Curtis & Kuby co-host Curtis Sliwa compared him to "a
>sock puppet" who "oughta turn in his passport for an Iraqi one." But
>the nadir came later on CNN when makeup job Kyra Phillips
>interrogated him, implying that he was being paid by Iraq -and all
>but calling him a quisling.
>
>"Ha! Excuse me; I went to war against Saddam Hussein in 1991. I spent
>seven years of my life in this country hunting down weapons of mass
>destruction. I believe I've done a lot about Saddam Hussein," he
>replied. "You show me where Saddam Hussein can be substantiated as a
>threat against the United States and I'll go to war again. I'm not
>going to sit back idly and let anybody threaten the United States.
>But at this point in time, no one has made a case based upon facts
>that Saddam Hussein or his government is a threat to the United
>States worthy of war."
>
>Maybe today, in his speech to the United Nations, Bush will make that
>case.
>
>Maybe not.
>
>Whatever happens, the list of cowards and traitors here won't include
>Scott Ritter.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Antonia Zerbisias' column appears every Thursday. You can reach her
>at azerbis@thestar.ca
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
>To unsubscribe, visit
>http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
>To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
>All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx


_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk