Scott Ritter was set to travel to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, a major event, and make a presentation there. I am not clear on the details, but he also mentioned regularly on his various interviews that he was planning to visit many Russian cities and meet with Russians to promote better understanding between Russia and the US, depicting himself as trying to build bridges. He would often make jibes at the failure of the State Department to operate this way.
We will hear more details from Ritter soon, but he was removed from the plane taking him on the first leg of his flight to St. Petersburg (a high-handed, embarrassment-maximizing move; he could just have easily been stopped at the boarding gate) and had his passport seized. The only explanation he got from the Customs and Border Police officials was that the move was on the orders of the Department of State.
There is a lot of speculation on Twitter, and by over-eager readers, that Judge Napolitano had his trip to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum also cancelled by US officials, and in a more extreme version of the tale, was traveling with Ritter and removed from the plane with him. Napolitano has twice denied it on his first programs on Monday. From the top of his interview with Alastair Crooke:
My trip was cancelled due to events in Russia that are not national or major diplomatic events but events that involve this trip
And from the atart of his talk with Larry Johnson, who he was set to see for dinner in St. Petersburg:
….the cancellation was beyond my control and had nothing to do with me personally.
From Napolitano’s Twitter account:
STATEMENT FROM JUDGE ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO:
“I was neither on the plane nor at the airport when this incident occurred. Scott’s free speech and travel rights were profoundly violated. From a constitutional perspective, I condemn the actions of the State Department.”
— Judge Napolitano (@Judgenap) June 3, 2024
Napolitano also stated he found out about the change in his drill before he left for the airport and was glad for that. He sounded quite chipper in his talk with Johnson.
So if there was any official action against Napolitano to prevent his travel, he vitiated any opportunity to lodge a protest by twice depicting the impediment as having nothing to do with him personally. I have to think Napolitano is too canny to have undercut any due process rights, if he wanted to avail himself of them, before speaking to counsel.
So back to Ritter. Ritter is a controversial figure who likes to paint in bright colors and has been pilloried for some bad calls on the conflict in Ukraine, notably predicting an early Russian victory (as in fairness did some Western officials too). Nevertheless, I have found much of his commentary to be valuable, particularly details of his past experiences, UN and NATO niceties, and military operations.
It is hard to fathom any legal justification for this move, not that the Biden Administration is big on such niceties. It is remarkably hard to find, on a quick search, the statutory grounds for passport revocation or seizure; the actual texts are recursive and the references to them oracular.1
Larry Johnson quickly went to bat for Ritter, presenting what he says are the three grounds for passport revocation: being involved in criminal activity, unpaid taxes, or based on a request from law enforcement.
As we show in the footnote below, the party having his passport revoked is supposed to receive a written notice, which did not happen with Ritter.
The only way State might pretty this up is tax thuggery, as in having the IRS produce a notice of tax delinquency that Ritter did not receive. Note that the IRS took the mission to harass Matt Taibbi:
The IRS is targeting Matt Taibbi. Democrats always use the IRS to target people they feel threatened by. pic.twitter.com/iKA85Jh1Mp
— ULTRATHEY (@ultrathey) March 28, 2023
For those of you not familiar with IRS practice, the agency does not turn up at taxpayer homes. Normally when they want an in-person meeting, they schedule it and offer the taxpayer the option of meeting at the IRS office or at home. And that is usually in connection with an audit or complex/protracted dispute. Tax experts universally recommend not letting the IRS into the house. The Wall Street Journal editorial confirmed that, as well as describing the agency’s odd behavior with Taibbi’s returns:
Now Mr. [Matt] Taibbi has told Mr. [Jim] Jordan’s committee that an IRS agent showed up at his personal residence in New Jersey on March 9. That happens to be the same day Mr. Taibbi testified before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government about what he learned about Twitter. The taxman left a note instructing Mr. Taibbi to call the IRS four days later. Mr. Taibbi was told in a call with the agent that both his 2018 and 2021 tax returns had been rejected owing to concerns over identity theft.
Mr. Taibbi has provided the committee with documentation showing his 2018 return had been electronically accepted, and he says the IRS never notified him or his accountants of a problem after he filed that 2018 return more than four-and-a-half years ago.
He says the IRS initially rejected his 2021 return, which he later refiled, and it was rejected again—even though Mr. Taibbi says his accountants refiled it with an IRS-provided pin number. Mr. Taibbi notes that in neither case was the issue “monetary,” and that the IRS owes him a “considerable” sum.
The bigger question is when did the IRS start to dispatch agents for surprise house calls? Typically when the IRS challenges some part of a tax return, it sends a dunning letter. Or it might seek more information from the taxpayer or tax preparer. If the IRS wants to audit a return, it schedules a meeting at the agent’s office. It doesn’t drop by unannounced.
Ritter had just declared war on the Clooney Foundation to Silence Russia-Friendly Reporting. From a write-up on Sputnik on the passport seizure:
The most recent post on Ritter’s Telegram channel put the Clooney Foundation for Justice on notice for its alleged crusade against “Russian propagandists.”
“Here I am. In your face. If telling the truth about Russia makes me a propagandist in your book, then I accept the title,” he wrote. “Bring it on. I’ll school you on the First Amendment.”
“You have zero concept of what free speech is. Try and arrest me and you’ll find out. In spades. It’s war,” he added.
This could just be a coincidence of timing….or did Ritter get a private threat?
So it isn’t hard to see this as a heavy-handed censorship move. I hope free speech advocates rally to publicize this abuse of power.
_______
1 Admittedly that may be a function of the state of search, but have a look yourself at this document: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/51.60. Despite being headed “Denial and restriction of passports” it is about denial of the issuance of a passport, and not seizure or cancellation of a valid passport.
This document, Passport Information for Law Enforcement, tells law enforcement officials how to petition State to have a passport restricted or revoked and includes:
Law enforcement agencies may ask us to deny a passport under 22 CFR 51.60. Some reasons to deny a passport include:
• A valid, unsealed federal warrant of arrest
• A federal or state criminal court order
• A condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court)
• A request for extradition
But this does not tell us anything about what grounds State might gin up.
This document at govinfo, which includes an image of text of a section of statute, “Revocation or limitation of passports,” which is extremely uncommunicative. A later section describes restricting travel to countries with which the US is at war, armed hostilities are in progress, or there is risk to US travelers. None of those would warrant action against Ritter alone. The only part that is clear is:
§ 51.65 Notification of denial or revocation of passport.
(a) The Department will notify in writing any person whose application for issuance of a passport has been denied, or whose passport has been revoked. The notification will set forth the specific reasons for the denial or revocation, and, if applicable, the pro cedures for review available under 22 CFR 51.70 through 51.74
Ritter was not given the mandated written notice even by the goons who removed him from the plane.