Lynette pointed me to the pages of NEWSROOM -  an activist web publication
from NZ.
See Home Page at
http://www.newsroom.co.nz/welcome.htm


This is ONE_MONTH old material.  Read it in light of the bombings.!!  This
menu contains an unabridged interview of Scott Ritter, the US Marine who
resigned from UNSCOM a few weeks ago. You won't have seen this in the
regular media.

Cheers
MichaelP


==============

=================
INSIDE UNSCOM: The Scott RITTER Tape (1)

Staff Reporter: Alastair Thompson

Saturday, 14 November 1998, 1:55 am
THE SCOTT RITTER TAPE PART 1 of 2

***** Highly Recommended Reading. ***** This weekend UNSCOM has taken the
Middle East once again to the brink as US forces mass to enforce the
weapons inspections agency's right to access to Iraqi military sites. The
following interview tells the UNSCOM story from an insider. WARNING: The
background to the latest war in Iraq is not what you would expect....

BACKGROUND: Former UNSCOM Iraq arms inspector Scott RITTER spoke to
Wellington freelance journalist Jeremy ROSE in San Franciso at the State
of the World Forum. ROSE attended the Forum as part of a team commissioned
by Saatchi and Saatchi to provide a webcast (see
http://www.worldforum98.org/) from the conference held at the Fairmont
Hotel. The team also included NewsRoom political editor Alastair Thompson.

The interview was conducted three days before Iraq called for the sacking
of UNSCOM executive chairman Richard Butler on October 31. This was the
Iraqi move which has since led to the latest Gulf Crisis. Butler, who had
been attending the State of the World Forum, was about to receive an award
for his work on human rights from the Forum when he was recalled to New
York to deal with Iraq's call for his dismissal. In the interview RITTER
provides an insight into the operations of UNSCOM, its relationships with
the Security Council, the US military and intelligence services and, with
revealing detail describes the relationship with Israel and the Israeli
intelligence service, the Mossad. RITTER was formerly a senior inspector
working for UNSCOM inside Iraq. Something of a media star during his time
on the inside of the weapons inspection agency, his revelations, since he
resigned, on the nature of UNSCOM's operations have received extensive
coverage, particularly in the UK. On the night prior to this interview
RITTER fronted up to Butler with his criticisms of UNSCOM in a BBC debate.
The contents and implications of this interview are discussed in an
earlier NewsRoom editorial.. Empty Clash Threatens Future Of UN -
Editorial - http://www.newsroom.co.nz/stories/HL9811/S00074.htm

TRANSCRIPT BEGINS

ROSE: Could you describe your work in Iraq?

RITTER: I was brought into the Special Commission for the purpose of
creating something called the information assessment unit which is a UN
euphemism for intelligence capability. Intelligence from the perspective
of receiving information organised and then collated into rudimentary
assessment and then using that information to co-ordinate assistance for
inspectors as they go around the country.

It was a very basic job early on. Iraq was supposed to provide the
declaration, and then we were supposed to verify it. But it became obvious
early on that Iraq was providing false information and inaccurate
declarations. And so more of a burden fell on our shoulders to do more
than just verification of Iraq's declarations but to actually do
inspections of discovery to try and expose the lies, to expose the hidden
information in Iraq. And if Iraq's not providing the information we have
to get it from somewhere. So we formed this unit to receive this
information from governments.

And that was my initial task. After I helped set the unit up then I took
over the information/intelligence requirements for ballistic missile
programmes. I would receive the information, co-ordinate with governments
on ballistic missile programmes then use that information to plan
inspections in Iraq.

ROSE: Did you find ballistic missiles?

RITTER: Well what we found was evidence that Iraq was lying about what
they told us. You know it's pretty disingenuous of the Iraqis to say
UNSCOM has never found anything. I mean, I don't want to sound like Bill
Clinton, but let's discuss what the meaning of found is here. Iraq gave us
a false declaration about the number of operation launches and operation
missiles that it had left after the war. We did not find the hidden
launchers the hidden missiles. What we did was expose the Iraqi lies and
present them with a fait accompli. You have lied we know you've lied this
is the proof. And Iraq went ohh.

ROSE: Was that satellite proof or something similar?

RITTER: I probably shouldn't get into the sources or methods used because
once you've exposed that Iraq knows what capabilities there are looking at
it. We showed Iraq proof that they were lying. And they went oh we guess
we were. Here we will give you the launchers we'll give you the missiles.
But they didn't give us the missiles and the launchers. What they did was
they said well you know the reason we didn't declare it was that we've
destroyed all that stuff. We just didn't tell you about it. We've
scattered the pieces all around Iraq and we didn't keep any records of the
destruction and we really can't give you the evidence that we destroyed
it, you just have to trust us. We've destroyed everything. Well our job is
to verify so we'll start working verifying on your statements. And as we
progressed down that path. We have now moved away from being a traditional
arms control organisation receiving declarations and verifying them we
have become sort of a forensic detective agency where we have to into Iraq
and carry out after-the-fact investigations. We have to carryout forensic
investigations looking for pieces of evidence analysing this evidence and
trying to determine what it means.

ROSE: What's the truth behind the VX find?

RITTER: Well the VX is an example of this. From the very beginning we told
the Iraqis we had information that they produced VX. They no we didn't. So
to give you an example of how special commission exposed the VX story.
They had a factory called Methon State Establishment??? which was heavily
bombed during the war. The Iraqis sanitised this facility. Sanitised means
going in and cleaning up all the papers all the bits and pieces so the
commission couldn't find anything when we got there. But there was one
bunker, a very heavy concrete bunker, which ceiling had collapsed in. So
the Iraqis couldn't' get to what was underneath that. We had a very
innovative Dutch inspector called Kace Walterbeck(?) come up with the
idea. Why don't I go in there and raise the roof and excavate in there and
see what I can find. And he did that. What he found was log books. And the
log books clearly showed that Iraq produced VX. We confronted the Iraqis
with this evidence and they said "we didn't declare it to you because it
was only lab level work. We never produced that much VX. We tried but we
failed so we didn't want to complicate the issue and tell you about this.
But yes we did. So we said where are the precursors, where are basic
chemicals that you used to make VX? How do you account for these. We
destroyed them all. Where? In this field. So again Kace Watlerbeck went in
and dug up soil samples. And when he analysed the soil samples he found
that the Iraqis had lied about the lab efforts that were done. They
claimed they had made VX using one approach yet the chemical analysis
showed a different approach.

The Iraqis were stunned and they said well we did but we didn't succeed.
We never stabilised this VX. We produced it but it would degenerate
rapidly. But again the inspectors in digging around found a container
which the Iraqis had cleaned out. Scrubbed. There was nothing in it. But
at the top there was a little purge valve that would be used if you
connected a tube and were pumping liquids out. The purge valve had a tiny
little catchment, the inspectors went in there ran a swab in there and
there was liquid... pure VX. It's stabilised VX. Iraq said they didn't do
it. We now have proof they did. So what the hell's going on here now? You
lied to us yet again. Then Iraq said we only produced a limited quantity
of stabilised VX and we never weaponised it. We never put it in a weapon.

Now the commission has extremely sensitive information that says Iraq did
indeed weaponise VX. But one of the natures of our work is that given the
sensitivities we can't go to the Security Council with this data because
the Security Council unfortunately has members who are very sympathetic to
Iraq. It would give away these sources and methods that we use.

So we still couldn't confront Iraq with the evidence that they did it in
warheads. So we worked on exposing the inconsistencies in their story. We
had a wonderful inspector Nikita smenovech who earlier this year had a
seminar with the Iraqis about warhead accounting and he tied them in
knots. The problem with telling a lie is it starts to unravel and when it
starts to unravel in unravels in a big way. And Nikita was able to dig
into their story and find the frayed edges and start pulling the string
and their whole story came apart and the Iraqis were flustered. They were
forced to admit that they had additional warheads to what they had
declared. Now that you've declared the additional warheads how did you
account for them. They said well we destroyed them. We said fine Where.
They said well in these other locations that we didn't tell you about. So
Nikita sent a team there and excavated it and pulled up pieces. The Iraqis
thought that would be it. No he said we going to pull them out and look at
them. And the Iraqis were panicked because they knew damn well what we
would find if we looked at these pieces. They said you can't do that. They
actually intervened with the Secretary General and said you have to stop
Richard Butler he's trying to create a confrontation. A crisis. The
Secretary General intervened and tried to prevent us pulling these pieces
out up but we were insistent. So after a compromise which Richard Butler
agreed we would only take 30 days to analysis this material we pulled it
out took to a US army lab and found incontrovertible proof that Iraq had
filled these weapons with VX.

ROSE: But tests by other countries didn't verify that did they?

RITTER: This one came out in June. And then the Iraqis immediately
challenged that. Said well it was done by Americans therefore it can't be
good. Now we pulled these samples from a wide field. The American samples
came from a specific part of the field. The report is very detailed. I
think there were 40 something samples and we found VX degradation products
on 17 of them. that's a good quantity.

Other samples were pulled from other parts of the field and taken to a
warehouse and locked. But we didn't put cameras on them inspectors never
went back and checked-up on it Iraq was in total control of that
warehouse. Iraq then said you have to have other people besides Americans
do these tests. So they said they want French and Swiss and Americans can
come back in and pull these other samples out. But they wouldn't let the
samples leave. You see the American test was done on actual metal samples.
The first time the Americans did the test the took a swab analysed it and
they found nothing and only when the special commission pushed them to go
into the metal itself did they find the material but on the second round
of tests the Iraqis wouldn't allow the metal out. And the French, the
Swiss and the Americans had to take just swabs right there in Iraq. Now
the swabs went out and got analysed. But the metal fragments that were
being looked at there were came from a different part of the field not the
same part that the Americans originally took their sample. So it's not the
same sampling case.

ROSE: It obviously been a frustrating time. And it sounds like the
Security Council has also been frustrating to you. If you can't report
things to them for fear they will share it with Iraq that...?

RITTER: Well it's troublesome because we work for the Security Council.
And we get our authority off the Security Council resolutions. But the
unit that I was responsible for creating and I was involved in for the
last seven years the job of uncovering Iraq's weapons became extremely
difficult and required the special commission to take extraordinary
measures to try and accomplish its mission and these extraordinary
measures required us to go to governments and ask for very sensitive
support. These governments agreed on the condition that it was bilateral
between that government and the special commission. Not with anybody else
- to include the Security Council.

ROSE: Some of those nations that you are referring to have the right of
veto, why haven't they just vetoed the continuation of the sanctions [not
a possibility, I know]?

RITTER: That would be the end of the Security Council. There is no doubt
in any body's mind that Iraq is not in compliance. So for Russian, France
or China to veto something that they passed to begin with would show that
they're not serious at all about the Security Council. They're not serious
at all about their responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security
Council. They can't veto it, what they can do is work behind the scenes to
try and limit the requirement of Iraq for getting rid of these weapons.
And that's what taking place today. These countries are pushing what's
called a comprehensive review which will reduce to a very small number of
issues the outstanding requirements left for Iraq to achieve compliance.

ROSE: What would that do?

RITTER: To give you an example. VX. These tests came back and proved that
the American lab results were correct. They can't be challenged.
Furthermore they showed that Iraq tried to decontaminate those pieces that
were tested the second time around. They used a special decontamination
device to hide the evidence. Why is Iraq doing this. What's happening now
at the Security Council and at the Secretary general's office is they're
saying this is a technical issue between the special commission and Iraq,
but we're trying to resolve the situation on a political level. Well that
means that know one cares about the technical level anymore. This new
comprehensive review will state that instead of saying Iraq produced VX
and Iraq must admit it and declare it, it will state that there are some
difficulties. There are some technical issues that need to be resolved and
they can be resolved through long term monitoring. So they will close the
file and Iraq will never be forced to explain its VX. And what's
troublesome about that is that there is serious evidence that Iraq retains
VX salt which is a compound that can be stored forever. And which can be
rapidly turned into a weapon. I thought we were supposed to be getting rid
of this stuff in Iraq, I thought Iraq wasn't allowed to have this
capability and therefore the special commission needs to account for all
of this and ensure Iraq has none of this left.

We are now sitting on evidence that proves Iraq has lied about its VX
story. That it did stabilise VX and that it has not accounted for hundreds
of tonnes of precursors. Something is wrong here. The Security Council is
behaving in a manner which obviates this evidence and is allowing Iraq to
create a situation together with the Secretary General where Iraq won't be
held acco untable for this. Iraq will somehow be allowed to push this off
to long-term monitoring and that will be long term monitoring on terms
dictated by Iraq which means we can't have inspection teams doing no
notice inspections to try and find this material.

=====
INSIDE UNSCOM: The Scott RITTER Tape (2)
Saturday, 14 November 1998, 1:59 am
Staff Reporter: Alastair Thompson

THE SCOTT RITTER TAPE PART 2 of 2

***** Highly Recommended Reading. *****

This weekend UNSCOM has taken the Middle East once again to the brink as
US forces mass to enforce the weapons inspections agency's right to access
to Iraqi military sites. The following interview tells the UNSCOM story
from an insider. WARNING: The background to the latest war in Iraq is not
what you would expect.... BACKGROUND: Former UNSCOM Iraq arms inspector
Scott RITTER spoke to Wellington freelance journalist Jeremy ROSE in San
Franciso at the State of the World Forum. ROSE attended the Forum as part
of a team commissioned by Saatchi and Saatchi to provide a webcast (see
http://www.worldforum98.org/) from the conference held at the Fairmont
Hotel. The team also included NewsRoom political editor Alastair Thompson.

The interview was conducted three days before Iraq called for the sacking
of UNSCOM executive chairman Richard Butler on October 31. This was the
Iraqi move which led to the latest Gulf Crisis. Butler, who had been
attending the State of the World Forum, was about to receive an award for
his work on human rights from the Forum when he was recalled to New York
to deal with Iraq's call for his dismissal.

In the interview RITTER provides an insight into the operations of UNSCOM,
its relationships with the Security Council, the US military and
intelligence services and, with revealing detail describes the
relationship with Israel and the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad.

RITTER was formerly a senior inspector working for UNSCOM inside Iraq.
Something of a media star during his time on the inside of the weapons
inspection agency, his revelations, since he resigned, on the nature of
UNSCOM's operations have received extensive coverage, particularly in the
UK. On the night prior to this interview RITTER fronted up to Butler with
his criticisms of UNSCOM in a BBC debate. The contents and implications of
this interview are discussed in an earlier NewsRoom editorial.. Empty
Clash Threatens Future Of UN - Editorial -
http://www.newsroom.co.nz/stories/HL9811/S00074.htm
===============================
PART 2 of 2


ROSE: How do you feel about people like Denis Halliday who resigned at a
similar time to you in protest at the sanctions?

RITTER: I have nothing but the highest respect for Denis Halliday. And it
would surprise a lot of people to find out that I totally agree with Denis
Halliday. Sanctions are horrible. The sanctions regime being imposed on
Iraq is a huge injustice. Being perpetrated by the United Nations at the
behest of the United States.

Sanctions were imposed on Iraq to punish Iraq for invading Kuwait. The
decision to keep these sanctions were made after the end of the Gulf War
when a precondition for conflict termination was imposed saying Iraq must
get rid of these weapons of mass destruction. Until they do so sanctions
will be left on. But the purpose of sanctions is to create harm in Iraq.
To create pain. So that Iraq is compelled to obey the law. Iraq is a
brutal dictatorship the pain is being felt by 22 million innocent Iraqi
people, not by the leadership, not by Saddam Hussein, not by his cronies.
So therefore sanctions are going after the wrong people. The people of
Iraq are not the decision makers. Saddam Hussein is more than willing to
use them as a pawn to keep himself in power and to further his own
personal interests. Now we have a situation where the UN imposes sanctions
at yet the same time another part of the UN comes in and says this is a
humanitarian disaster, which it is, and we have to alleviate the pain and
suffering of the Iraqi people. Which is good, except sanctions were
imposed to create pain and suffering so that the Iraqi people would
pressure the regime. Now you have Denis Halliday in there doing an
extremely frustrating task trying to bring in food and medicine. To the
women, the children and the elderly who are suffering. And he's bringing
that in to alleviate suffering caused by the United Nations. The UN is at
war with itself in Iraq.

ROSE: So what's the answer?

RITTER: The answer is you cannot punish Iraq solely on a sanctions based
policy. Sanctions don't work. The Iraqi regime is thriving. They've
learned to violate sanctions left and right. Sanctions are unenforceable.
The continuation of sanctions only weakens the efforts of countries like
the United States to put pressure on Iraq. Because what's happened is Iraq
is turning sanctions around and undermining the basis of support that the
United States has for its policy. Hardly any country around Iraq right now
supports the continuation of sanctions.

ROSE: How would you put pressure on Iraq without sanctions?

RITTER: To me it is just glaringly obvious. What I will say is this. It's
not my job to dictate national policy to any country. But I can be
diagnostic. What we have in Iraq is a situation that sanctions aren't
working, Iraq is getting away literally with murder, they're going to keep
these weapons and they're going to get sanctions lifted eventually. Sooner
than anybody believes. The Security Council is fractured and there is no
unanimity for decisive action against Iraq. The resolution was created
under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This means that Iraq has foregone
aspects of its sovereignty, Iraq presents a clear and present danger to
international peace and security. Iraq must disarm in order to stop
presenting this capability and if they don't disarm they can be compelled.
This means the Security Council has the authorisation to either act as a
council and do military action or have a member nation on its own
undertake military action. The United States is the country behind all of
this. We built the coalition that went to war to liberate Kuwait, we
pushed for the creation for this resolution at the end of the war to
disarm Iraq and the United States pushed the special commission to
carryout these very difficult inspections which resulted in guns being
pointed at the heads of inspectors.

The US pushed it. We're in this position because the US wanted Iraq
disarmed. Iraq is not being disarmed right now. It's up to the United
States to compel Iraq. Sanctions aren't working. They're not going to
work. There's only one person to blame for all of this and it's Saddam
Hussein. He has to be held accountable. I think the answer is quite
obvious what has to happen. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
it out. I don't have to say it.

ROSE: I think you've said that UNSCOM gave film to Israel...?

RITTER: We didn't give anything to Israel. Israel is a member of the
United Nations. In April of 1991 the Special Commission sent out letters
to around 185 nations asking for help. Thirty five responded. One of those
nations was Israel. They provided information.

ROSE: So it's been a one way exchange of information?

RITTER: What happens. I've talked about extraordinary situations. The
special commission cannot collect information on its own. We have a U2
Aircraft which flies at our request. But the United States flies that
aircraft. It takes film. We don't have 15 - 20 photo interpreters who can
effectively analyses that film. The US does. So the US will assess this
imagery and will feed the results to the special commission. Are we
sharing information with the United States. In effect we are, because
we've authorised them to take photographs, look at the photographs and
give data to us. But that data is also going to the United States. Is that
sharing no, that's a special co-operation so that the special commission
can the information it needs to carry out inspections. For a number of
reasons in 1994 the executive chairman Rolf Aekeus authorised me to go to
Israel and undertake a special relationship with the Israelis in which we
would get information from the Israeli which would enable us to do our job
in Iraq. As I said the Iraqis created a nearly impossible situation for us
to work. They head these weapons. Then they built an elaborate mechanism
to conceal these weapons. We had to defeat this concealment mechanism and
we needed new techniques, new methodologies, new ways of thinking. The
Israelis brought that to the table, so we undertook a special relationship
with Israel to try and defeat this Iraqi mechanism. It's not sharing. I'm
not going to Israel at the behest of the Israeli intelligence service and
given them information to serve the interests of Israel.

ROSE: You're using them as contractors?

RITTER: They have their own information. Israel can't operate inside Iraq.
Israel can't send teams into Iraq to verify these buildings. UNSCOM can.
So Israel would give us information, we would assess and ensure that
everything they gave us was in total conformity with our mandate under
Security Council resolution. That it dealt with disarmament issues as
covered by the Security Council. Then we would take action and do
inspection. At the end of the inspection we would gather results and we
would take these results to Israeli analysts who would assess it together
with us. So that we would have a better picture. That was the arrangement
approved by the executive chairman.

The concept of me spying on behalf of Israel is a total lie. It is an
Iraqi attempt to divert attention from the fact that the reason we had to
go to Israel and go to other countries is that they've lied about their
weapons, they're holding on to their weapons, they're concealing their
weapons. The Special Commission had to take, was forced to take
extraordinary measures to respond to that Iraqi action. It's disingenuous
for Iraq, the Security Council and the world to somehow point the finger
at me and the special commission and say we've behaved improperly. We have
not. We've behaved with honour. With due respect for the United Nations
Charter and for the Security Council resolutions and the mandate they gave
us. It's Iraq that's behaved dishonourably. They're the ones that have to
be held accountable. The special commission has only been trying to do a
very difficult job that was given to us.

ROSE: Would you support the lifting of sanctions?

RITTER: Iraq is getting itself 5.2 billion worth of oil. It's joke. That's
more oil than they've sold at any time before 1990. They can't even pump
that much oil out of the ground. What's happening is a charade. It's a
joke. The Iraqi people are suffering and Iraq and Saddam Hussein is
building international support because of sanctions. In theory the
immediate lifting of sanctions would be warranted. One it would rob Saddam
Hussein of this political tool he has been wielding very effectively. The
problem with lifting sanctions is that we can't. Because we have a law. We
have international law that's been imposed and Iraq's been told that in
order to change this law. In order to reverse what's been implemented it
has to comply. So if we unilaterally lift sanctions we have in effect set
a precedent for not holding Iraq accountable. We've boxed ourself into a
corner we can't lift sanctions. But we can't allow sanctions to go on. We
have to resolve this situation and resolve it now.

If that means the United States has to hike up its pants, roll up its
sleeves and get in there and start swinging P then by God get it done.
Because if you don't do it now you are going to have to do it later and
the price you pay now is going to pale in comparison with the price you
have to pay down the road.

ROSE: The price to the US or the region?

RITTER: American lives, Iraqi lives, disruption of the economy of the
entire region. Pain and suffering for millions of people. You can't allow
this situation to continue. If the UN wants to have a meaningful role in
international peace and security in the future it has to stick to what it
started. It started something that was honourable back in 1991. To get rid
of these weapons of mass destruction. A lot of countries agreed with it.
You have to see that through because if you don't you're sending a signal
to the rest of the world that we can just wait the UN out. The UN is not
serious about doing this.

ROSE: How do you feel about criticism from Arab states that Israel has
nuclear weapons and yet no pressure is going on them?

RITTER: It's a valid point. But you have to look at it in the context of
why Israel has nuclear weapons. There's not a single Arab country that had
a coalition assembled against it for the purpose of eradicating that
nation and its population from the face of the earth. In 1948 Israel was
surrounded by a coalition of Arab states whose sole purpose was to drive
in and kill every Jew in Israel. To eliminate to eradicate this cancer
that had been created by the United Nations. That hasn't changed. Israel
has developed an extremely strong sensitivity to its national security. I
think they felt because they're so small. And because they don't have the
luxury of trading space for time, they don't have a large population, and
after the holocaust, the have a tremendous respect for human life, they
don't want to trade life for time. They believe that the ultimate way of
ensuring their continued existence was to create weapons that would deter
Arab states from trying to eradicate Israel. I understand why they created
them but its always short-sighted. I think Richard Butler said very
effectively, last night, if you have them others will want them, and if
you have them some day you may have to use them. And if you use them the
result is never going to be what you intended it to be. It will be
catastrophically bad for all parties involved. Israel has to get rid of
these weapons, there's no doubt about it. But that is not a license for
Arab states to behave irresponsibly. I think something has to be done
about the Israeli weapons. Hopefully the future will alllow some sort of
negotiated resolution to that issue.

ROSE: You don't think there should have been some sort of linkage?

RITTER: No, absolutely not. Iraq deserves no linkage. Iraq is a criminal
state. Iraq has broken international law. Israel is not a criminal state.
Israel is a democracy. That's one thing people have to understand. It's a
thriving democracy. Iraq is a dictatorship a brutal dictatorship. There's
no way I would ever support elevating Iraq's concerns to the same level
with Israel. Israel is in a league of its own. It is a functioning
democracy. It has a true desire for peace and security in the Middle East.
It's made mistakes. It's made grievous mistakes. It needs to be held
accountable for those errors. It has weapons that it needs to get rid of.
There's no doubt about that. It's not a perfect entity. But Iraq in no way
compares to Israel. Iraq is a nation that has used chemical weapons
against its neighbours, used them against its own population. Invaded for
the purpose of absorbing, Israel never wanted to absorb Lebanon into
Israel. Iraq invaded Kuwait with the sole purpose of absorbing it. Doing
away with Kuiwait. There's no way you can compare Iraq with Israel and
link Iraq's concerns with those of Israel. It would be a disservice to
everybody.

ROSE: Yesterday must have been the first time you've seen Richard Butler
for awhile?

RITTER: It's the first time I've met with Richard Butler since I resigned.

ROSE: How was that. I understand there were some legal problems?

RITTER: There was never any legal problems, people have to understand that
I'm an American and I have first amendment rights and I report to a higher
authority than the United Nations. Some people might not agree with that.
I felt there was a grievous wrong being done, and there still is a
grievous wrong being done by my government. By this administration. But
the Government has several parts to it, and one of those parts is
congress, and I have an obligation to report to congress about what I view
to be a threat to the international security interests of the United
States. So I report to Congress.

ROSE: So when you say you're responsible to a higher authority you mean...

RITTER: The United States. Look the United Nations is a wonderful
organisation and I am glad I had an opportunity to work with them and I
would hope in the future I could work with them again. There is no world
government. The United Nations is not going to dictate how I live as an
American in the United States. I signed a special service agreement with
the UN saying would not discuss this information. It's a serious
undertaking. But I think a contract is a two way street. In signing this
agreement with the UN the UN was also signing an agreement with me that
they would behave in a responsible manner. That they would carry out the
task that they started. They haven't done that. Therefore I'm not going to
be part of a cover-up. The United Nations I feel is in breach of contract.
Therefore my contractual obligations to the United Nations are out the
window. I have a higher obligation the United States of America to protect
US national interest so I reported to Congress. But I've done so in a
responsible fashion. I told you today I'm not going to talk about sources
and methods of information. I'm only going to talk about policy issues and
failures of policy.

TRANSCRIPT ENDS

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. **