Scott Ritter Took Money From RT. So?

Judge Nap ran an interview with Gilbert Doctorow today. As part of that interview, starting around the 21:00 mark, Doctorow—as a long time Western resident of Russia—offered his views on Scott Ritter’s legal problems.

Dr. Gilbert Doctorow : A Small Ukrainian Victory?

I didn’t find Doctorow’s comments fully coherent—in the sense of a conceptually rigorous discussion from a legal standpoint. However, he clearly focused on the fact that Ritter has accepted financial benefits from various Russian entities, and he cited Russia Times (RT) as one of them. Go listen to what Doctorow says if you want. Here I’ll summarize the overall thrust of his remarks.

On the one hand, Doctorow stressed that Ritter had “crossed red lines” and had made himself a target for the US intel services by his very public and brazen criticisms of US policy. That imprudent behavior included, in Doctorow’s view, accepting money from Russian entities. All this, he maintained, would have drawn the attention of the security services in any country, given the state of hostility between the US and Russia. He even compared Ritter in this respect to Tokyo Rose—a very scattergun type comparison. Ritter is hardly comparable to Tokyo Rose, nor is the legal environment comparable (no declared state of war). The other side of this is that we Americans like to think we’re different than other countries and that US citizens actually have a right to travel, receive payment for their work, and criticize government policy.

On the other hand, however, Doctorow clearly implies that Ritter has in fact violated FARA—he does offer one parenthetical caveat, but it’s clear that that’s his view. His view also appears to rest on the fact that Ritter has received payment for journalistic work for RT.

For reference, I once again reproduce the relevant portions of the definitions section of FARA, edited to give you the general purport:

As used in and for the purposes of this subchapter—

(a) The term “person” includes an individual, partnership, association, corporation, organization, or any other combination of individuals;

(b) The term “foreign principal” includes—

(1) a government of a foreign country and a foreign political party;

(2) …

(3) ...

(c) Expect [1] as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the term “agent of a foreign principal” means—

(1) any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through any other person—

(i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal;

(ii) …

(iii) …

(iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States; and

(2) ...

(d) The term “agent of a foreign principal” does not include any news or press service or association organized under the laws of the United States or of any State or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, …

…

(o) The term “political activities” means any activity that the person engaging in believes will, or that the person intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of the Government of the United States or any section of the public within the United States with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign policies of the United States or with reference to the political or public interests, policies, or relations of a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party;

(p) ...

Please note that it is NOT illegal to write articles for foreign news outlets and receive payment for your work. The fact that RT paid Ritter for his articles proves nothing—except that RT thought his articles were worth the money. A US citizen has the 1A right to express his views, including in foreign news outlets, and to receive payment for his work. This only becomes an issue if the person in question acts as an “agent” of a foreign government, working under the “direction and control” of that government to influence US policy in the interest of the foreign government. It’s still NOT illegal to do that—but if you do you must register with DoJ as a foreign agent.

So, Ritter’s acceptance of payment is—or should be—from a legal standpoint of little or no relevance in and of themselves. The question is, what proof does the US government have that Ritter was acting under the “direction and control” of the Russian government? If I were a judge presiding over a trial of Ritter in this case and the only evidence offered was that Ritter had criticized US policy and been paid for his articles, I would toss the case. That is, unless the government could offer evidence that Ritter was criticizing the US government for the express purpose of furthering the interests of a foreign government, which was paying him to do so.

I hope you can see what a steep hill this should be to climb. Exactly what does it take to show that Ritter’s expressed views are actually those of his paymasters? Ritter has a very long record of criticizing the US government’s arms control and war making policies—and has been proven correct repeatedly. As Doctorow says, that makes him a target, but an impartial judge shouldn’t pay attention to such base considerations when the 1A is at stake. For my part, until proven otherwise, I believe that Ritter is sincere in the views he expresses—the views he expresses are his own, and not those of the Russian government.

Now, to play Devil’s Advocate, suppose that the government has recordings or records of Ritter going back and forth with RT editors. Perhaps the editors want to change his article. Suppose, then, that Ritter says something to the effect: ‘Change it to say anything you want and put my name on it, as long as you pay me.’ In that case he’d be in FARA trouble. And deservedly so, if for no other reason than being so foolish.

My point is that FARA cuts very close to our 1A rights and freedoms—it’s unavoidable when speech is at issue, and we should not be eager to simply plunge ahead because the figure in question is unpopular or saying things that p*ss off our rulers. The standard of proof in a criminal case—beyond a reasonable doubt—is deservedly high when the 1A is at stake.