There can be no freedom without free speech
The Department of Justice has launched a broad investigation which implicates the First Amendment free speech rights of not only those Americans, such as me, caught up in this web, but all Americans, because if the government succeeds in silencing free speech through its unlawful application of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, it won’t stop until it silences all dissenting voices in America.
I have written about the FBI’s August 7 raid on my home.
I have written about the collateral consequences of this raid.
I have written about my relationship with RT that appears to be at the center of the concerns expressed by the FBI agents carrying out the raid.
At the time, I noted that the FBI was unable or unwilling to articulate specific allegations linked to their statements that the search was related to concerns regarding my activities as they relate to the Foreign Agent Registration Act, or FARA.
I wrote a letter to the Chief of the Department of Justice’s FARA Enforcement Unit requesting that they provide me with the evidence that underpinned their concerns so that I might be able to evaluate them and respond.
To date I have heard nothing in return.
We now have an update, so to speak.
The New York Times has published an article jointly authored by Steven Lee Meyers and Julian Barnes titled “US Investigating Americans who worked with Russian State Television.” I am named, along with Dimitri Simes, as the initial target of this investigation, which is described by the Times as “a broad criminal investigation” intended “to combat the Kremlin’s influence operations leading up to the presidential election in November.” According to the Times, “more searches are expected soon.”
The predicate for this investigation appears to be a July 29 “Election Security Update” published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) which warns of actions undertaken by “foreign actors” to conduct “influence operations targeting US elections this November.” ODNI accuses Russia of “leveraging Russia-based influence for hire firms” to “create influence platforms” which “directly and discreetly” engage Americans “to tailor content for US audiences while hiding Russia’s hand.”
Russia, along with China and Iran, is accused of relying upon “witting and unwitting Americans to seed, promote, and add credibility to narratives” that serve Russian interests. Russia is specifically accused of using “networks of US and other Western personalities to create and disseminate Russian-friendly narratives. These personalities post content on social media, write for various websites with overt and covert ties to the Russian Government, and conduct other media efforts.”
“Russia,” the ODNI report states, “remains the predominant threat to US elections. Moscow continues to use a broad stable of influence actors and tactics and is working to better hide its hand, enhance its reach, and create content that resonates more with US audiences. These actors are seeking to back a presidential candidate in addition to influencing congressional electoral outcomes, undermine public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbate sociopolitical divisions.”
I was interviewed by Mr. Meyers for this article, and the article accurately reflects my statements and position regarding this investigation, which I called “a frontal assault on the Constitution of the United States.”
The Times article’s authors note that the investigation “could also bump up against the First Amendment’s protection of rights to free speech.”
I disagree.
This investigation tramples over the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
The protections in the Bill of Rights, such as forbidding Congress from abridging free speech, did not become part of the legal and social conscious of America until the 20th century, when the Supreme Court began vigorously to use the Bill of Rights as the defining document of what constitutes liberty and equality in America.
Regarding free speech, the Supreme Court has stated that, “as a general matter, the First Amendment means the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”
Like any constitutional right, there is no absolute protection of free speech. However, the Supreme Court has tailored a narrowly defined exception of free speech, known as the Giboney exception (after a 1949 case, Giboney v Empire Storage & Ice Co.) which holds that First Amendment immunity does not extend to speech “used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute.”
The “Giboney exception,” however, cannot “justify treating speech as ‘integral to illegal conduct’ simply because the speech is illegal under the law that is being challenged.”
I have not been formally charged with a crime. The FBI, however, when conducting the search of my home, indicated that the legal justification behind the search was concerns about my speech as it applied to FARA.
This is a literal case of the Department of Justice using a law (FARA) to criminalize free speech by making free speech illegal under the law.
The ODNI threat assessment appears to be concerned about what can only be described as political speech.
This is problematic in the extreme.
There is no doubt that I am highly critical of the policies of the United States in instances where they clash with my strongly-held positions on war and peace, arms control and disarmament, and the role of the United States in world affairs. Ever since the US government fabricated a case for war to justify the March 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, I have spoken out publicly in opposition to policies which I believe promote unnecessary conflict and are disruptive to the cause of peace.
In one example of this, I was invited by the Abu Dhabi-based Zayid Center for Coordination and Follow-Up, an Arab League think tank funded by UAE Deputy Prime Minister Shaykh Sultan Bin Zayid Al-Nahyan, to give an address about the US push for war with Iraq. Deputy Prime Minister Sultan attended the lecture in person, “in a rare public appearance,” a US Embassy cable commenting on my presentation noted.
“Addressing the diplomatic and press corps,” the diplomatic cable noted, “Ritter predictably derided [Secretary of State Colin Powell’s] ‘smoke and mirrors’ presentation [before the UN Security Council], noting that the US., bent on regime change, is determined to undermine the inspections' process. Ritter,” the cable continued, “posited that as long as the US focus is on regime change, the international community must remain suspicious of US policy and all Americans assigned to inspection teams in Iraq should be considered intelligence agents. He described US Iraq policy as being part of a grander design aimed at regional transformation and took issue with what he characterized as our unilateralist approach. Ritter predicted a popular Iraqi uprising against a U.S. occupation of Iraq, coupled with broader instability in the region which could result in the downfall of some Arab governments.”
If there ever was a poster child for the value of free speech by Americans in opposing US foreign policy, my presentation in Abu Dhabi is it. In opposing US policy, and the deceptions it was based upon, I correctly defined the heart of the failed policy (regime change versus disarmament), as well as the consequences of implementing it (a popular uprising against the US occupiers, and the 2010 Arab Spring.)
I had been invited to Abu Dhabi by an institute funded and directed by a foreign government.
I was paid an honorarium for my appearance.
According to the Department of Justice’s current legal theory, I could have been prosecuted under FARA for engaging in political speech at the direction of a foreign government.
But my only “crime” would have been speaking truth to power which, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared, is no crime at all.
It is an American right.
An American obligation.
Protected by the First Amendment.
Today I continue to speak out against bad US foreign policy.
The opinions I express are mine and mine alone, derived from a lifetime of experience and study, bolstered by conversations and observations made during my interactions with Russians, both civilian and government alike.
And, according to the New York Times, the Department of Justice is apparently seeking to criminalize my ability to freely express these opinions.
The ODNI threat assessment is particularly worrisome, in so far as it not only targets “personalities” such as myself, but also the platforms I use to publish the content I produce, whether it be in the form of articles, videos, or live-stream discussions. The threat, as articulated by ODNI, comes in the form of the Russian government’s alleged infiltration of these platforms to promote a pro-Russian narrative.
During their questioning of my wife on August 7, the FBI pointedly asked about my podcast, Ask the Inspector, and how my co-host and partner, Jeff Norman, paid me.
I was asked similar questions.
The clear implication in asking these questions is that the Department of Justice is concerned that the platforms I use to publish me material—my Substack, my podcasts, my X and Telegram accounts—are part and parcel of a Kremlin disinformation campaign designed to interfere in the 2024 US elections.
This argument is facially ludicrous. The Ask the Inspector podcast was the byproduct of a brainstorming session between Jeff Norman and myself, on how we could capitalize on the popularity my appearances on other podcasts had generated. The feeling was that we could collaborate to produce quality content that might be able to generate some income. The Russian government had nothing whatsoever to do with our decision to create Ask the Inspector, or to create a Substack where I would publish content we could then discuss on our podcast.
There is no doubt that the topic and concept of Russia served as the heart of the podcast early on—the title, Ask the Inspector, was a play on my experience as a weapons inspector in both Iraq and the former Soviet Union. Indeed, promoting my book, Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika: Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union, was one of the initial priorities of the podcast.
But the heart and soul of Ask the Inspector is the interaction I (the “Inspector”) have with the audience, who submit questions ahead of time in writing, leave a voice message, call in live, or leave a live text in the podcast’s chat. This interaction is unique among podcasts of this nature and gives the show a unique “feel” that has become its signature characteristic.
On occasion Jeff and I (ably assisted by our producers, Jelena and Ryan) conduct interviews with knowledgeable guests before turning the show back over to the audience for their questions. In the past, these interviews include persons like former Congressman (and current Congressional candidate) Dennis Kucinich (yes, we talked politics), and Russian war correspondent Marat Khairullin (yes, we talked about the Russian-Ukraine conflict). I’d like to believe that, between the quality of the guests, the attention to detail that goes into the questioning, and the quality of the answers, any Ask the Inspector that includes such interviews is a standalone piece of journalism.
I expand on the work I’ve done on Ask the Inspector through my collaboration with Solovyov Live, a Russian media platform owned and operated by Vladimir Solovyov, a well-known Russian media personality. Through my collaboration with Peter Ermolin, a producer with Solovyov Live, I have interviewed dozens of significant Russian experts, academics, politicians, journalists and military specialists to better understand the Russian perspective on issues of importance.
My collaboration is 100% pro bono—I receive no money or other material incentive for doing this work. My goal is simply to empower my audience with knowledge and information they are not able to access elsewhere in the West, where Russian voices are actively suppressed. While Peter and I collaborate on guest selection, the questions asked and interview priorities are solely my responsibility. The resulting product, produced by Solovyov Live, is broadcast under the title Scott Ritter Show in Russia to a Russian audience, and on my website and social media channels to a Western, English-speaking audience.
The Scott Ritter Show is what, in my opinion, journalism should be all about: seeking out the fact-based truth and providing broader, sometimes alternative perspectives to the complex problems that the world faces today.
I post other video content on my Substack. What used to be called the “Two Minute Topics” are the byproduct of a collaboration with RT where I provide a video clip of me speaking into a camera, and RT providing graphic enhancements. I alone decide the content of these videos, which tend to focus on world events. I am compensated for this work by RT.
Sputnik turns videos I do into finished products as well, which they then publish on social media. I repost these videos to increase their viewership. Not because I’m paid (I’m not), but because I support the message being transmitted—because I am the source of that message.
I also produce original video content designed to reach both American and Russian audiences. In these, I am the one who conceives the content, authors the script, and provides the desired images to be used to make the video. I also am the one who compensates those video editors who assist in the production of the video.
I have also collaborated with a private video production team to produce a two-part documentary, Agent Zelensky, where I helped write the script and served as the on-air presenter for the film. I was likewise compensated for my work on this project. Hundreds of thousands of people viewed this documentary before YouTube deplatformed it.
I’ve produced controversial documentary content before—my film, In Shifting Sands, was lambasted as Iraqi propaganda when it first came out in 2001. It has more than withstood the test of time in terms of the accuracy and integrity of its message.
I am confident Agent Zelensky will, as well.
But my greatest impact, I believe, comes from my writing.
My Substack publishes original content that I alone am responsible for in terms of its content. I often touch upon issues pertaining to Russia, and which are critical of US policy positions. Because Russia is likewise critical of US policy positions, there is often significant agreement between the positions that I independently take, and the positions taken by the Russian government. This alignment of ideas does not constitute either direction or control, but rather a shared point of view independently arrived at.
The same can be said of articles I publish in Consortium News, or articles I previously published in TruthDig, The American Conservative, and The Washington Spectator before I was deplatformed for writing for RT. I also publish extensively in Energy Intelligence, where the topics covered often deal with Russia.
Because of my extensive interactions with Russians, including Russian state-controlled media, the content that I produce and publish, which draws upon this connectivity, possesses a strong Russian character. This, of course, is my intent, since one of my goals and objectives in doing what I do is to further better understanding between the Russian and American people by overcoming systemic Russophobia in the United States through exposure to what I call the “Russian reality.”
One way I seek to define the “Russian reality” is to bring Russian voices to the attention of an American audience for the purpose of providing a Russian perspective on issues that pertain to Russia. “Knowledge is Power” is one of my principal themes, and exposing people to the Russian perspective so that they might be more able to discern for themselves how they feel about a given issue, and what actions they may wish to undertake as a result, is the very definition of empowerment.
The Department of Justice believes that my writing is done at the behest of the Russian government. This is ludicrous in the extreme—the positions I have taken in opposition to US government policy regarding Russia significantly pre-date my interaction with Russia and Russians.
I have authored eleven books since my first effort, Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem, Once and For All, was published in 1999 by Simon and Schuster. My book about America’s addiction to nuclear weapons, Scorpion King, was published by Clarity Press in June of 2020 ( it was an updated and expanded version of the 2010 Edition, published by Nation Books under the title Dangerous Ground.) My point in highlighting these volumes is simply to point out that I have been speaking out and writing about the dangers of nuclear weapons and American nuclear policy for some time—a full decade before I entered any relationship with RT.
I have been writing about arms control for decades as well, including the aforementioned Endgame, as well as a memoir of my time as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Iraq Confidential, and two volumes about the Iranian nuclear program—Target Iran, published by Nation Books in 2006, and Dealbreaker, published by Clarity Press in 2018. Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika was published in 2022.
I’ve been doing arms control and disarmament for a long time as well.
I’ve published two volumes on the concept of holding elected officials accountable for what they do in our name—Frontier Justice, published in 2003 by Context Books, and Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Anti-War Movement, published by Nation Books in 2007.
Being politically engaged as a citizen activist has been part of my DNA for decades.
Writing about failed military adventures has likewise been part of my literary repertoire. In 2002, I co-authored a book, War on Iraq, with William Rivers Pitt, which was published by Context Books and spoke to the dangers of going to war with Iraq based upon a lie. And just this year, Clarity Press published a book I co-authored with Ania K, a Polish podcaster, called Covering Ukraine: The Scott Ritter Interviews through the Eyes of Ania K.
The Department of Justice would have you believe that Covering Ukraine, which takes a critical look at the Ukraine conflict in a way that is more sympathetic to the Russian narrative than that being promulgated in the US, is part and parcel of a Russian disinformation campaign that uses me and my work, “wittingly or unwittingly,” to sow disinformation designed to move the needle of the American body politic in the 2024 election.
They are half-right—I am trying to move the needle of the American body politic this election season, away from the failed and failing policies of the Biden administration and toward a policy direction that avoids conflict while promoting peace.
But I don’t do this as an agent, witting or unwitting, of the Russian government.
I do this as a loyal American patriot who has been engaged in the business of informing and educating an American audience for decades, always with the goal of guiding my fellow citizens away from bad policy and toward better policy.
There is no greater patriotic calling.
The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that “Our First Amendment decisions have created a rough hierarchy in the constitutional protection of speech. Core political speech occupies the highest, most protected position,” adding that “Expressions on public issues has always rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.”
Likewise, the Supreme Court has held that for the Department of Justice to prosecute speech it deems offensive would directly contradict the First Amendment’s core ability to prevent the government from suppressing “unpopular ideas or information.”
Expressing dissatisfaction with the policies of the United States is, according to the Supreme Court, “expression situated at the core of our First Amendment values.”
The Supreme Court has further elaborated on this point, declaring that “there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.”
One of my greatest concerns is that the American people remain indifferent to the attack on their basic freedoms and liberties that the Department of Justice raids on myself and Dimitri Simes represent.
Carved into a wall as the final words one confronts as they leave the United States Holocaust Museum is the post-war confessional poem written by the German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller. These words are meant to serve as an indictment of the passivity and indifference shown by Niemöller and his fellow German as the Holocaust raged all around them.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
First they came for Julian Assange, and I did not speak out—
Because he was not an American.
Then they came for RT and Sputnik, and I did not speak out—
Because they were Russian.
Then they came for Scott Ritter, and I did not speak out—
Because I disagreed with his point of view.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
We can also speak of the ongoing prosecution of the Uhuru 3, members of an American pan-Africanist movement charged with acting as agents of the Russian government, in this regard.
No one will be left to speak up in our collective defense of free speech because free speech and a free press were allowed to be killed by a politicized Department of Justice working at the behest of a US government which retained its hold on power by suppressing all opposition in the name of defending democracy from misinformation and disinformation.
Despite the reality that the US government and its minions in the mainstream media collude daily to control the narrative of all issues which give rise to public concern and criticism.
Here’s the unvarnished truth—if you allow yourself to sit back passively while the US government attacks free speech and a free press in the name of countering Russian disinformation, you are remaining passive in the death of America and all it stands for.
Because once the US government silences the “pro-Russian” crowd, they will turn their sights on the next practitioner of inconvenient speech.
If you are a pro-gun advocate, you’re next.
And no one will be there to defend you.
If you are pro-life, you’re next.
And no one will be there to defend you.
If you are anti-vaccination, you’re next.
And no one will be there to defend you.
There is a saying, Once a Marine, always a Marine.
Marines are defined and motivated by those who have gone before them.
One of the Marines that I have used as my historical mentor is Captain Bill Barber.
From November 28 to December 2, 1950, Captain Barber and the Marines of Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines defended a three-mile stretch of hills known as the Toktong Pass. For five days and six nights, Barber and the Marines of Fox Company, some 220 strong, held off an attacking force of over 1,800 Chinese. At the end of the battle, more than 1,000 Chinese lay dead on the hilly ground around Toktong Pass. Only 82 of Barber’s Marines were able to walk off the hills. Barber was ordered to withdraw after the first night because his commanders believed his company could not hold out. Had he obeyed that order, 8,000 Marines would have been trapped in the mountains of North Korea, cut off from their escape route. Because Barber refused to retreat, these 8,000 Marines were able to be evacuated.
Free speech is my Toktong Pass.
If you want to support my work, go to ScottRitter.com, where you can subscribe to my Substack, buy autographed copies of my books, and purchase merchandise related to my work.
The Department of Justice’s investigations will likely lead to a costly defense of my free speech rights. We are in the process of establishing a fund for such legal expenses.
Thank you so much for your courage and important work. We are all in your debt, Scott.
As I understand it, when the befuddled FBI "can't-shoot-straight" gang arrived at Scott's house they thought the address was for AIPAC headquarters, which is full of unregistered foreign agents sabotaging the nation.
Poor boys in blue feel pretty embarrassed, especially when asked if they were familiar with the Bill of Rights.
"Bill, who?" they asked.
And they were the top-tier squad. They have no shame. No honor. No morality.