Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 21, 2014, 12:11:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83739 Posts in 2261 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 32 Print
Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )  (Read 273046 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12171


« Reply #800 on: December 06, 2011, 03:59:34 PM »

"An even better synopsis.  And sorry... I am not used to not being the object of the fire!!!"

Hey, it's "Higher Consciousness through hard contact", even in the written format, right?   wink
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2167


« Reply #801 on: December 06, 2011, 04:27:04 PM »

"An even better synopsis.  And sorry... I am not used to not being the object of the fire!!!"

Hey, it's "Higher Consciousness through hard contact", even in the written format, right?   wink

Absolutely.  And I genuinely appreciate our discussions... and the bruises. 
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2792


« Reply #802 on: December 06, 2011, 08:40:46 PM »

Oh goody, Sharyl Attkisson, who has done some of the best MSM Gunwalking reporting, now sets her sights on the State Department. One can only hope this trend continues. Anyone want to make book on what percentage of the "guns not submitted for trace" were funneled to Mexico by State? Wouldn't it be great if there was a memo somewhere that stated "please don't submit guns obtained through 'direct commercial sales' lest we have to end the program"?

Legal U.S. gun sales to Mexico arming cartels
By Sharyl Attkisson

(CBS News)  Selling weapons to Mexico - where cartel violence is out of control - is controversial because so many guns fall into the wrong hands due to incompetence and corruption. The Mexican military recently reported nearly 9,000 police weapons "missing."
Yet the U.S. has approved the sale of more guns to Mexico in recent years than ever before through a program called "direct commercial sales." It's a program that some say is worse than the highly-criticized "Fast and Furious" gunrunning scandal, where U.S. agents allowed thousands of weapons to pass from the U.S. to Mexican drug cartels.

CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson discovered that the official tracking all those guns sold through "direct commercial sales" leaves something to be desired.

One weapon - an AR-15-type semi-automatic rifle - tells the story. In 2006, this same kind of rifle - tracked by serial number - is legally sold by a U.S. manufacturer to the Mexican military.

Three years later - it's found in a criminal stash in a region wracked by Mexican drug cartel violence.

That prompted a "sensitive" cable, uncovered by WikiLeaks, dated June 4, 2009, in which the U.S. State Department asked Mexico "how the AR-15" - meant only for the military or police - was "diverted" into criminal hands.

And, more importantly, where the other rifles from the same shipment went: "Please account for the current location of the 1,030 AR-15 type rifles," reads the cable.

There's no response in the record.

The problem of weapons legally sold to Mexico - then diverted to violent cartels - is becoming more urgent. That's because the U.S. has quietly authorized a massive escalation in the number of guns sold to Mexico through "direct commercial sales." It's a way foreign countries can acquire firearms faster and with less disclosure than going through the Pentagon.

Here's how it works: A foreign government fills out an application to buy weapons from private gun manufacturers in the U.S. Then the State Department decides whether to approve.

And it did approve 2,476 guns to be sold to Mexico in 2006. In 2009, that number was up nearly 10 times, to 18,709. The State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves, and wouldn't give CBS News figures for 2010 or 2011.

With Mexico in a virtual state of war with its cartels, nobody's tracking how many U.S. guns are ending up with the enemy.

"I think most Americans are aware that there's a problem in terms of the drug traffickers in Mexico, increases in violence," said Bill Hartung, an arms control advocate with the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. "I don't think they realize that we're sending so many guns there, and that some of them may be diverted to the very cartels that we're trying to get under control."

The State Department audits only a tiny sample - less than 1 percent of sales - but the results are disturbing: In 2009, more than a quarter (26 percent) of the guns sold to the region that includes Mexico were "diverted" into the wrong hands, or had other "unfavorable" results.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation's Larry Keane, who speaks for gun manufacturers, said he understands the potential for abuse.

"There have been 150,000 or more Mexican soldiers defect to go work for the cartels, and I think it's safe to assume that when they defect they take their firearms with them," Keane told CBS News.

But Keane said the sales help the U.S.

"These sales by the industry actually support U.S. national security interests," Keane told Attkisson. "If they didn't, the State Department wouldn't allow them."

"Do they need better oversight?" asked Attkisson.

"It's certainly for the State Department and the Mexican government to try to make sure that the cartels don't obtain firearms that way," he replied. "But that's really beyond the control of the industry."

Mexico is now one of the world's largest purchasers of U.S. guns through direct commercial sales, beating out countries like Iraq. The State Department office that oversees the sales wouldn't agree to an interview. But an official has told Congress their top priority is to advance national security and foreign policy.

http://liten.be//jAOkC
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12171


« Reply #803 on: December 06, 2011, 09:12:04 PM »

Oh goody, Sharyl Attkisson, who has done some of the best MSM Gunwalking reporting, now sets her sights on the State Department. One can only hope this trend continues. Anyone want to make book on what percentage of the "guns not submitted for trace" were funneled to Mexico by State? Wouldn't it be great if there was a memo somewhere that stated "please don't submit guns obtained through 'direct commercial sales' lest we have to end the program"?

I'd bet good money there is a memo like that just waiting to be discovered.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12171


« Reply #804 on: December 07, 2011, 03:51:24 PM »

Emails Show ATF Intended to Use ‘Fast and Furious’ to Promote Gun Control

Posted By Bryan Preston On December 7, 2011 @ 12:34 pm In Politics | No Comments

CBS’ Sharly Attkinson may force me to retire the CBS-Sauron photoshop I did in my Junkyardblog days. Her reporting has blazed the trail on Fast and Furious, and her latest story may seal the deal on just what that operation was really all about.

    In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.” But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called “gunwalking,” and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

    ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3?. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

    On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

    “Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

“We’re going to use our own mandate to sell long guns to argue for more control over the sale of long guns.” Basically.

    Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.

    Sometimes it was against the gun dealer’s own best judgment.

    Read the email

    In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. “We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys,” writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, “(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items.”

Read the whole thing. These emails seem to be the smoking gun (har har) proving that the intent of Fast and Furious was political — to weaken resistance to gun control, which we know that Obama told gun control advocates he was working on “under the radar.” And way outside the legislative process. The president, AG Holder and SecState Clinton were all making public statements blaming Mexico’s drug war violence on US gun laws while Fast and Furious was going on. It strains credulity to believe that there was no connection.

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is dead because of Fast and Furious. As many as 300 Mexicans may be dead because of FnF. And the Obama administration sealed the records of the investigation into Terry’s murder.

What we have here is a murder cover-up that likely reaches the president himself.

Maybe we need to re-think merely firing Eric Holder, and find a way to get him to turn state’s evidence on his crime boss.


h/t Ace

Article printed from The PJ Tatler: http://pjmedia.com/tatler

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/07/emails-show-atf-intended-to-use-fast-and-furious-to-promote-gun-control/
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2792


« Reply #805 on: December 07, 2011, 04:59:48 PM »

Original CBS cited by GM above can be found here:

http://liten.be//7AAew
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31839


« Reply #806 on: December 07, 2011, 11:18:45 PM »

From the TPI forum-- your thoughts on this BD? GM?:

Just musing here...but their is this wonderful writ called a mandamus I'd like to post about...

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m079.htm

The name of a writ, the principal word of which when the proceedings were in Latin, was mandamus, we command.It is a command issuing in the name of the sovereign authority from a superior court having jurisdiction, and is directed to some person, corporation, or, inferior court, within the jurisdiction of such superior court, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, which appertains to their office and duty, and which the superior court has previously determined, or at least supposes to be consonant to right and justice.Mandamus is not a writ of right, it is not consequently granted of course, but only at the discretion of the court to whom the application for it is made; and this discretion is not exercised in favor of the applicant, unless some just and useful purpose may be answered by the writ.This writ was introduced io prevent disorders from a failure of justice; therefore it ought to be used upon all occasions where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought to be one. Mandamus will not lie where the law has given another specific remedy.The 13th section of the act of congress of Sept. 24, 1789, gives the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States. The issuing of a mandamus to courts, is the exercise of an appellate jurisdiction, and, therefore constitutionally vested in the supreme court; but a mandamus directed to a public officer, belongs to original jurisdiction, and by the constitution, the exercise of original jurisdiction by the supreme court is restricted to certain specified cases, which do not comprehend a mandamus. The latter clause of the above section, authorizing this writ to be issued by the supreme court to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, is, therefore, not warranted by the constitution and void.The circuit courts of the United States may also issue writs of mandamus, but their power in this particular is confined exclusively to those cases in which it may be necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction.

Now...that's fallen into obscurity for the most part...

But I'm just thinking...

For shits & giggles, the NRA may want to, I duno...draft one of them and serve it on one Timothy Franz Geithner, demanding he follow up on International Emergency Economic Powers Act violations.

SecTres or his delagate would have to appear in Court and answer the Writ on the record, under oath. Or, at least, file a motion to dismiss and have that heard.

Win or loose, wouldn't that be kinda fun to see.

It's the kind of shitty, underhanded move I'd do if I was in the NRA's legal department just to make things uncomfortable for the Administration.

I'd do it by proxy that didn't have any link to the NRA, because all you'd need was a lawyer admitted in the DC bar, a marshal for service of process on the treasury and the filing fees...then staff to handle the response motions.

You know, another bit of distraction to keep the initiative going against them.

But.

That's me just thinking...
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #807 on: December 08, 2011, 09:44:18 AM »

"Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry is dead because of Fast and Furious. As many as 300 Mexicans may be dead because of FnF. And the Obama administration sealed the records of the investigation into Terry’s murder.

What we have here is a murder cover-up that likely reaches the president himself.

Maybe we need to re-think merely firing Eric Holder, and find a way to get him to turn state’s evidence on his crime boss."

Now I'm not excusing Fast and Furious, pretty stupid, nor am I excusing Holder, especially if he is covering up, I mean throw him to to wolves for all I care, I hate coverups, but I don't understand the vehemence and indignation on this matter.  Does anyone really believe that if we hadn't sold the Cartel's these guns (I haven't followed the details closely of FnF) they wouldn't have found other guns to kill each other and the police?  The Cartel's never seem to have a problem with guns or killing.

This forum in general strongly supports the individual's right to arm themselves.  Further, few if any gun control laws are supported. Other countries that do have restrictive gun laws are criticized.  "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" is the theme.  And basically I agree; I mean it seems all the bad guys in LA have guns, why can't I?  Most of us on this site probably own a gun and would be loath to give it up.

As I mentioned, I understand criticizing the stupidity and incompetence of Fast and Furious, and if there is a coverup that is worse, but I don't understand why "blood" is on anyone's hand except the man who pulled the trigger.  If a bad guy shoots at me, I don't blame S&W or the gun dealer who sold him the gun; I blame the guy shooting at me.  There is no "blood" on anyone's hand except the guy shooting at me and maybe me - hopefully not.  smiley

What little I know, Fast and Furious seems like a very stupid idea.  Especially in hindsight.  But I doubt if one way or another it had an impact on the number of dead in Mexico.  Or if you believe it did, aren't you indirectly saying that you support gun control?

« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 09:52:04 AM by JDN » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #808 on: December 08, 2011, 11:16:45 AM »

"But I doubt if one way or another it [a flood of cross-borders guns] had an impact on the number of dead in Mexico.  Or if you believe it did, aren't you indirectly saying that you support gun control?"

I'll leave the question posed to others, but that thinking also explains our non-response to Iran for **building** explosive devices that killed hundreds or thousands American servicemen and women.  They would have been blown up anyway.
-----------------
** update for clarity: knowingly supplying to enemies of the U.S. for the express purpose of killing hundreds or thousands of American servicemen and women.

I didn't mean to say merely the act of building devices.

« Last Edit: December 08, 2011, 12:09:39 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31839


« Reply #809 on: December 08, 2011, 11:19:44 AM »

Ouch!  evil

Still the answer to the question posed needs articulation.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #810 on: December 08, 2011, 11:41:35 AM »

Ouch?   huh

The subject is guns; a subject near and dear to many on this site.

Guns are legal here; I, including most on this site support the right to own arms. We even "suggest" that people buy guns.
Never do we blame the manufacturer or gun store/salesperson if someone dies.  We blame the shooter.

Explosive devices?  Hmmm bombs, WMD, rockets, missiles, tanks, etc. are illegal here; the analogy is irrelevant on many levels. Guns are a legal product.

If Mexico manufactured and shipped guns to LA; then thereafter, let's assume that these guns were then purchased by bad guys at gun shops.  Would we blame Mexico?  Of course not.  Austria and Germany make some good guns; they ship thousands here every year.  We don't blame them for our homicides.  Or the store owner.

FnF was a stupid idea; probably not the last time stupid ideas are tried out.  The coverup, if there is one, is inexcusable.  But the only "blood" is on the hands of the shooter.  Not the manufacturer or distributor of the gun.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #811 on: December 08, 2011, 12:02:23 PM »

Going back to the foreignpolicy.com Mexican Roulette piece where bigdog wrote: "I will not be defending this" and GM wrote: "What a steaming pile of MSM product."

I am struck by statements like this in the piece:

"Let's start with the obscenely irresponsible laws that cover gun sales in America. For instance, anyone without a criminal record can legally purchase as many rifles and other long guns as they want in the United States."

I wonder what other exercising of constitutional rights is "obscenely irresponsible".  You rarely hear that criticism against overuse of other freedoms like speech or religion.  Only abortion comes to mind where the backers a 'right' want something that already kills a million a year to remain 'safe, legal and rare'.

Using a firearm to commit a crime is highly illegal in 50 states and federal law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3559.html).  Conspiracy in that context I'm sure is similarly prohibited and punished.  The export of firearms is a strictly governed activity:  http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportsoffirearms.htm

It is not legal for me to knowingly supply a criminal operation or to knowingly export to anyone, shipped through anyone, without proper governmental authorization.  The dead Mexicans and dead border agent scandal wasn't just a stupid idea.  It is a felony, or more like an act of war, if you or I did it.

The article though, it seemed to me, was criticizing law-abiding gun ownership transfers, which are not the question here.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4213


« Reply #812 on: December 08, 2011, 12:43:39 PM »

Perhaps it isn't online maybe on Rush's website but Rush today has pointed out emails that prove he was right.  Part of Fast and Furious was exactly about liberals trying to affect gun laws in the US.  The libs thought the public outrage over people getting killed from the US guns would spark another round of public outcry for stricter gun laws.

Remember well the Prez is the guy who condescending opinion was "they cling to their guns and their religion".

The wagons are certainly circled.  The ongoing investigation is leading to a coverup that may have only one recourse - impeachment proceedings.

OK Woodward where are you now?

I am not holding my breath.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 784


« Reply #813 on: December 09, 2011, 05:03:35 AM »

Ouch?   huh

The subject is guns; a subject near and dear to many on this site.

Guns are legal here; I, including most on this site support the right to own arms. We even "suggest" that people buy guns.
Never do we blame the manufacturer or gun store/salesperson if someone dies.  We blame the shooter.

Explosive devices?  Hmmm bombs, WMD, rockets, missiles, tanks, etc. are illegal here; the analogy is irrelevant on many levels. Guns are a legal product.

If Mexico manufactured and shipped guns to LA; then thereafter, let's assume that these guns were then purchased by bad guys at gun shops.  Would we blame Mexico?  Of course not.  Austria and Germany make some good guns; they ship thousands here every year.  We don't blame them for our homicides.  Or the store owner.

FnF was a stupid idea; probably not the last time stupid ideas are tried out.  The coverup, if there is one, is inexcusable.  But the only "blood" is on the hands of the shooter.  Not the manufacturer or distributor of the gun.


Woof JDN,
 You are using a false analogy here or rather an inaccurate comparison. True, someone that lawfully transfers a gun to someone else in a business transaction, and has no knowledge of or reason to suspect that the person will use it for wrong doing, can't be held accountable or even thought of as being responsible for the illegal acts of others. This situation is nothing like that. First, any law enforcement agency conducting a sting operation must ensure that their own officers and the public aren't put at undue risk. Secondly, they cannot commit illegal acts and break international laws in the process. Yes, they can lie and deceive but they can't aid and abet the smuggling of illegal arms into another country without the full cooperation and knowledge of the other nation. On top of that there is no evidence that these weapons where being tracked after they came into the hands of the cartels and many don't seem to have been tracked even after they left the gun store. Thirdly they knew without a doubt that these weapons were going to be put into the hands of violent cartels that had been murdering people by the thousands. Then finally, where are the arrests? At what point were they going to recover the guns and get the bad guys? You know, what was the end game, what was the point of the operation in the first place? If it wasn't to make arrests and put the people who were running guns in jail, then what the F was it for?

 There is more to this than just covering up a little mistake, because none of this was a mistake. You don't accidentally put together an operation like this. They did this intentionally and it's not fully clear what their intent was or who all was involved in it's planning and execution. The American public, Mexico and the family of Brian Terry deserve to know every little detail. Our government agencies and the people put in charge of overseeing them have got to be held accountable for any wrongdoing or negligence of leadership on their watch. We entrust them with a great deal of power (our power), and it's up to us to make sure it's not used for their own corrupt purposes or mismanaged. This was not a business transaction, nor was it even a legitimate law enforcement sting operation. This was something else, and whatever it was, negligence or abuse of power, the people that put it together and their bosses are responsible for the consequences of the operation, even the unintended ones, so yes the blood is on their hands. However, as I have said before, I think there is little chance of justice actually being served because our Federal government has never been so corrupt and the powerful on both the Left and Right are going to protect eachother. They will fuss and fume and make a great noise while posturing in front of the cameras, then soon as something else grabs the publics attention they'll superficially investigate and come to prefabricated deadends, then payoff Mexico. There might be a head to roll, someone that will take the fall, but the real culprit's will skate as usual.

                                                                           P.C.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 05:12:51 AM by prentice crawford » Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31839


« Reply #814 on: December 09, 2011, 08:48:15 AM »

Well said PC.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #815 on: December 09, 2011, 09:45:06 AM »

I agree, Prentice, you made some good points.  However, as you imply I think it was a law enforcement sting operation gone bad.  "Yes, they can lie and deceive but they can't aid and abet the smuggling of illegal arms into another country without the full cooperation and knowledge of the other nation.".  Heck, we do that all the time around the world.  Further, I'm not sure we don't have the knowledge (we don't need the full cooperation) of Mexico.  As some have improperly implied, it wasn't a felony, nor was it an act of war.  huh   It was simply a sting operation gone bad; mostly I bet because the Mexican government didn't do their follow up part.  Probably not the first time or last time.  Nor will it be the first or last time communication between law enforcement departments broke down.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/04/fast-and-furious-bush-administration_n_1076148.html

Guns are designed to kill people.  There is lots of blood in America from gun violence.  Good people and violent people here in America buy guns.  I own one and so do you.  Except for minimal checks and balances, which even those the the NRA has fought, a gun shop will sell a gun to anyone.  My point is it seems a bit hypercritical to complain about guns being sold in Mexico provided by us as a sting operation yet are sold legally across the counter here in America.  As for import/export, many guns sold here are manufactured in foreign countries.  The "blood" shed was caused by the shooter; NOT the weapon.  Or if you truly believe the weapon caused the death, then perhaps we should ban guns in America?  But I know you are not arguing that.  Rather all the "shooters" in Mexico should be arrested.

Why there was no arrests, well I guess you have to ask the Mexican government why thousands of Cartel Members are still free and running around.  As you ask, "Where are the arrests?".

Frankly, I don't know if or even why there is a cover up.  If they simply said, "Yep, we sold 2000 guns in Mexico.  It was a sting operation.  We were trying to trace the guns to the cartels.  It didn't work,
because their was a breakdown in communication (the Mexican's messed up) so we closed the sting."  I don't think anyone would care. 

There is no "crime" here; it's just a sting operation gone bad.  Incompetence maybe/probably.  But after the fact it's always easy to criticize.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  In the line of duty, Terry was killed by a bad guy; where the gun that killed him was manufactured be it America, Germany or Austria is not particularly important.  Until Mexico does something about the Cartels there will be more killing.  Terry's blood is on the hands of the guy who shot him, no one else.

But no one likes a coverup.  If there is a coverup, I'm all for going after the culprit.  But I don't think many Americans think this is a big deal. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31839


« Reply #816 on: December 09, 2011, 10:19:34 AM »

JDN:

"It was simply a sting operation gone bad; mostly I bet because the Mexican government didn't do their follow up part." 

NO, the point is PRECISELY that it was NOT a sting operation.  A sting operation would have some effort at tracking the guns.  Here there was NONE. 

In posting the HuffPo piece you have fallen for an operation of the Progressive propaganda machine to confuse the issue with what happened during the Bush era.  However a look at the facts will prove instructive:

It WAS an effort at a sting operation.  There WAS an effort to track the guns.  There WAS an effort to work with Mexican authorities and when they failed to show up to arrest the bad guys, the operation was SHUT DOWN.   In all of these things OFF was the complete opposite.

An additional point is that existing measures to minimize gun sales to bad guys were having results.  There were GUN STORE OWNERS who wer bringing this to the ATF's attention; indeed the ATF's behavior seemed so weird to them that they demanded written confirmation that the ATF wanted them to make these sales.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #817 on: December 09, 2011, 12:52:25 PM »

Crafty, I'm not defending Fast and Furious.  But it seems it was a sting operation, albeit poorly run.  Perhaps our fault, but perhaps, given their poor track record, the Mexican's fault.  As you point out, even during
the Bush area, there was an effort to work with the Mexicans, and yet they failed to arrest the bad guys.  Perhaps that is where the blame is....

"Under Fast and Furious, begun in fall 2009, the ATF allowed illegal buyers to walk away with weapons in the hope that agents in Phoenix could track the guns and arrest cartel leaders."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/08/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20111009

My point however was not to defend FnF, or criticize the Bush effort.   In retrospect FnF was poorly done, (as a side note, it's always easy to criticize and critique a law enforcement operation the day after).  My point however is to point out that the "blood" is to be blamed on the shooter; not the weapon, a gun shop, or the ATF or the Justice Dept. or anyone else other than the shooter.  "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is almost a mantra on this and many other gun forums.  And I agree.  Somehow Mexico needs to arrest the shooters - they cause the blood.  But don't blame the guns.

However, if there is now a coverup of some greater overall scheme, at this point I don't know why other than the sting wasn't successful, then we should get to the bottom of it.   
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31839


« Reply #818 on: December 09, 2011, 03:00:41 PM »

I think we all here agree that the guns themselves are not to blame, but I do directly contest your assertion, and that of the Left Angeles Times a.k.a. Pravda on the Beach that "But it seems it was a sting operation."  In this particular case I speak with more than the dominant-around-here "attitude"; I directly emailed the LA Times reporter (quite politely I might add) with info showing her how Clinton, Holder, et al were misstating the facts with their assertions about 90% of the guns coming from US sales in the border regions.  She answered me and we continued the conversation a bit with me bringing to her attention some of the material that was being developed here until it became apparent that she had an opinion that was not interested in being adjusted by the facts.

Perhaps in a Clintonian sense this is true it "seemed" it was a sting, but in point of fact IT WAS NOT and aspects of your most recent posts seem to have conflated this false meme with the point on which we do agree-- that it was not the fault of the guns.

There is one more point to make:  Though the guns do not bear the blame, do not people who deliberately set guns out on paths that apparently INTENDED to fall into the hands of the bad guys in order to further their anti-gun political purposes bear substantial legal, moral, and spiritual blame?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31839


« Reply #819 on: December 09, 2011, 03:34:48 PM »

Gunwalker Goes ‘Legal’: Obama Admin Massively Increased Gun Sales to Mexican Military

More than a quarter of these guns ended up in cartel hands in 2009, yet the admin continued the sales program.

by
Bob Owens

December 8, 2011 - 10:44 am


Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News has posted a bombshell article detailing how the Obama administration has greatly increased gun sales to the Mexican military. But further investigation into Attkisson’s discovery points toward the padding of a gun-control statistic — one frequently mentioned by the Obama administration — as the motive behind the increased sales.

Writes Attkisson:

One weapon — an AR-15-type semi-automatic rifle — tells the story. In 2006, this same kind of rifle — tracked by serial number — is legally sold by a U.S. manufacturer to the Mexican military.

Three years later — it’s found in a criminal stash in a region wracked by Mexican drug cartel violence.

That prompted a “sensitive” cable, uncovered by WikiLeaks, dated June 4, 2009, in which the U.S. State Department asked Mexico “how the AR-15″ — meant only for the military or police — was “diverted” into criminal hands.

And, more importantly, where the other rifles from the same shipment went: “Please account for the current location of the 1,030 AR-15 type rifles,” reads the cable.

There’s no response in the record.

The problem of weapons legally sold to Mexico — then diverted to violent cartels — is becoming more urgent. That’s because the U.S. has quietly authorized a massive escalation in the number of guns sold to Mexico through “direct commercial sales.” It’s a way foreign countries can acquire firearms faster and with less disclosure than going through the Pentagon.
Perhaps the most interesting disclosure: the 1,030 weapons that were sold for use by the Mexican military were not military-grade weapons. The Mexican government was acquiring the AR-15, a semi-automatic firearm designed for the civilian market. Selective-fire weapons (which have the ability to fire either in fully automatic or semi-automatic) would be preferred by virtually any modern military force.

Why was the Mexican military buying commercial, off-the-shelf AR-15 rifles from the Obama administration via the State Department in record numbers? Writes Attkisson:

[The State Department] approve[d] 2,476 guns to be sold to Mexico in 2006. In 2009, that number was up nearly 10 times, to 18,709. The State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves, and wouldn’t give CBS News figures for 2010 or 2011.

With Mexico in a virtual state of war with its cartels, nobody’s tracking how many U.S. guns are ending up with the enemy.


The State Department audits only a tiny sample — less than 1 percent of sales — but the results are disturbing: In 2009, more than a quarter (26 percent) of the guns sold to the region that includes Mexico were “diverted” into the wrong hands, or had other “unfavorable” results.
If the audited sample is representative of the total, 26 percent of 18,709 — 4,864 guns — were diverted from the Mexican military to the cartels in one year, and the Obama administration apparently chose not to stop the program.

Does a logical reason exist for the administration to continue to approve such sales?

If the goal of Operation Fast and Furious was — as ATF agents have alleged under oath — to arm violent Mexican drug cartels, and the purpose of arming cartels was so guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico would be traced back to American sources, then the Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) route was an avenue to greatly increase the flow of traceable weapons into the hand of the cartels.

The DCS program is run from the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. It regulates and licenses private U.S. companies’ overseas sales of weapons and other defense materials, defense services, and military training.

This is different than the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, the Defense Department program mentioned by Attkisson in her article. The main distinctions between the two programs: FMS is government-to-government, while DCS is private-to-government and has fewer controls.

The DCS program appears to have been a much more effective way of arming the cartels than Operation Fast and Furious. DCS is legal.

When these DCS-obtained firearms are recovered at crime scenes, they are identified by Mexican authorities as being American by any number of distinguishing marks, though primarily by the manufacturer’s name etched in the lower receiver.

A weapon, once identified as being American in origin, has its serial number submitted to the ATF for tracing. The ATF runs the serial number, likely coming up with a “hit” confirming that the weapon in question was indeed of U.S. origin.

The weapon can then be used to pad the statistics of the 90-percent lie that President Obama, Attorney General Holder, and Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano have used to call for more gun control in the United States.

Operation Fast and Furious, perhaps the most incompetent and deadly law enforcement operation in U.S. history, occurred at the same time as the emerging “moneywalker” scandal, perhaps the most incompetent DEA drug money-laundering scheme in U.S. history, and at the same time as the Mexico DCS program, perhaps the most incompetently audited and controlled weapons purchase program in U.S. history.

Taken together, these concurrent pro-cartel developments do not look like coincidence. They look like policy.

Those controlling that policy from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have a lot of accounting to do for the death and destruction they have caused and may still be contributing to in Mexico and along our southwest border.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #820 on: December 09, 2011, 03:55:44 PM »

I'm glad we agree, it's not the fault of the guns.  So we should agree then that if we sell guns legally and above board to and at the request of the Mexican Government; we have no culpability?

If in FACT FnF's only intention was to "further their anti-gun political purposes" then I agree, that is wrong.  However, to my knowledge, absolutely no proof has been offered that to be the case. No offense, but that does seem like a rather bizarre, illogical and unsubstantiated accusation. I don't even get the connection. 

You quoted, ""But it seems it was a sting operation." "Seems" is rather nebulous I admit - where is this word in the article?  In the article I posted, written by Richard Serrano and contributed to by Tracy Wilkinson it stated, "Under Fast and Furious, begun in fall 2009, the ATF allowed illegal buyers to walk away with weapons in the hope that agents in Phoenix could track the guns and arrest cartel leaders."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/08/nation/la-na-atf-guns-20111009

A rather firm statement that the intent was to "track the guns and arrest cartel leaders".  Nothing wrong with that.  Sounds like a sting operation, albeit a rather poor and unsuccessful one.  Especially if you have to depend upon the Mexican government to do the arresting.  On that point, if Mexico is asking for more guns, we help them out and sell them more guns.  They lose the guns.   shocked  Incompetence on the part of Mexico, yes, but hardly an anti-gun conspiracy here in America. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31839


« Reply #821 on: December 09, 2011, 04:01:47 PM »

Holder Testimony: Issa Attacks, Dems Push Gun-Control
Please do not let this post take your eye of the ball regarding the substance of my previous post!!!
==========================


Rep. Darrell Issa demanded truth, while Attorney General Eric Holder parsed the definition of "lying."

by
Patrick Richardson

December 9, 2011 - 5:50 am


Accusations and counter-accusations flew at Thursday’s hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, as GOP lawmakers threatened Attorney General Eric Holder with everything from impeachment to contempt of Congress during testimony over Operation Fast and Furious. The operation allowed thousands of weapons to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, resulting in the deaths of hundreds including U.S. federal agent Brian Terry.

Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa asked early in the hearing for Holder to testify under oath, and was told by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith he refused. He said Holder received a letter reminding him of his responsibility to be truthful and was therefore “deemed” to be under oath.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) took Holder to task over the lack of disclosure by the Justice Department and over what Oversight and Issa would later term “systematic lying” by DOJ officials:

Do you think the buck stops with you?


Lying to Congress is a federal felony. I don’t want to say you lied but what are you going to do to clean up the mess?


There is really no responsibility within the Justice Department. The thing is, if we don’t get to the bottom of this — and that requires your assistance on that — there is only one alternative that Congress has and it is called impeachment.
Holder used Clintonesque sentence parsing: he said the legal difference between lying and misleading was state of mind, and here there was no intent to lie. This comes on the heels of the DOJ’s unusual move just a few days ago of withdrawing a letter the DOJ earlier sent to Congress, claiming it was “misleading.” Weeks ago, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Special Agent William Newell also admitted his testimony on Operation Fast and Furious “lacked completeness.”

Democrats, and indeed Holder, spent most of the hearing calling for more gun control. There was advocation for a regulation blocked by Republicans which would have required multiple purchases of long-guns to be reported to ATF in the four southwest border states. Said Howard Berman (D-CA):

[I have] heard a lot today, some of it quite unbelievably overblown. … Every day thousands of guns are smuggled across the border.
Maxine Waters (D-CA) — in what appeared to this writer to be a rehearsed moment — looked surprised when Holder told her there was no requirement for a federal firearms dealer to report the sale of 100 AK-47s. However, Holder admitted the example was “dramatic.”

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) asked Holder:

How many firearms are sold to al-Qaeda terrorists, to other convicted felons, to domestic violence perpetrators … to white supremacists” at “unregulated” gun shows?
Holder said he didn’t have those numbers but would “get them … after the hearing.”

Perhaps the greatest sparks of the day came when Issa questioned Holder. Issa took issue with what he considered a lack of candor and cooperation from Holder and DOJ, saying in his opening statement:

The president says he has full confidence in this attorney general. I have no confidence in a president who has confidence in this attorney general. … Mr. Attorney General, the blame must go to your desk.
Issa added that he did not believe DOJ was actually interested in finding out who murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, whose murder was one of the precipitating factors in the current scandal:

They are not looking for who killed Brian Terry, but are more interested in maintaining plausible deniability.
Holder later claimed that there has been an indictment in the Terry murder case but said he could not comment further as the case was under court-ordered seal.

Issa expressed frustration at the difficulties inherent in getting Holder and his deputies to agree to testify before his committee.

Do I need to serve a subpoena on yourself, Lanny Breuer, and the other people under direct investigation by my committee? Or will you agree to come voluntarily in the January time frame before the committee?
Issa threatened Holder with contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over any documents generated after February of 2010. Issa asked Holder if he was aware he was potentially standing in contempt of Congress for refusing to release documents requested by the committee without giving a constitutional reason to have done so. Holder responded:

We will respond as other attorney’s general and other Justice departments have done.
Issa retorted:

John Mitchell responded that way too.
Mitchell was Richard Nixon’s AG during Watergate. Holder fired back by referring to the Joe McCarthy hearings:

As they said in the McCarthy hearings, have you no shame?
It was clear that Democrats and Holder were in damage control mode, trying to both salvage Holder and to use the operation to call for more gun control while blaming Republicans. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA), attacked this strategy:

You screwed up, you admit you screwed up, but don’t use your screw up as an attempt to extend your authority.

Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 784


« Reply #822 on: December 09, 2011, 04:25:33 PM »

Woof,
 And they huff and they puff. tongue Oh and did you miss the first installment of Mexico's payoff? All those new guns they are getting. evil
                        P.C.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 04:34:39 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 784


« Reply #823 on: December 09, 2011, 07:24:13 PM »

Woof,
 Upon futher reflection on the hearings I think there needs to be a new law. Since it is a felony to lie to Congress, shouldn't it be a felony for a setting member of Congress to lie to the American public? When someone tells a big fat lie such as referring to 'unregulated' gunshows during one of these hearings, shouldn't they go to jail? Gun shows are subject to and are regulated by all U.S. gun laws. If you are a gun dealer at your store or a gun show, you are required to have a Federal Firearms license and you must run a background check on any buyer through the F.B.I. system. If you are an individual making a private sale to another individual all Federal gun laws apply to that sale, regardless of whether you are in your livingroom at home or at a gun show. If you sell a firearm to someone you know is a felon, then you have broken the law. If a felon buys a firearm from an individual but lies and tells them that they can legally own a gun, then the felon is breaking the law. It's up to law enforcement to investigate and prosecute these crimes, no matter where they take place.These anti gun Congress members are deceiving the public on two counts. One is that gun shows are unregulated and the other is hiding their true agenda which is to make it illegal for a private citizen to sell a gun to another private citizen or hand down a weapon from one family member to the next generation.
 Actually there is a third reason they brought this up during the hearing, they don't want to address the real issue of a dead Border Patrol Agent murdered by a gun not sold at a gun show, but instead by one that was allowed to 'walk'. They don't want to talk about that at all.
                                                    P.C.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 08:14:27 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 784


« Reply #824 on: December 09, 2011, 10:17:48 PM »

Woof,

October 14, 2011 8:19 AM PrintText "Grenade-walking" part of "Gunwalker" scandal

(CBS News)  There's a new twist in the government's "gunwalking" scandal involving an even more dangerous weapon: grenades.


"Gunwalking" subpoena for AG Holder imminent

CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, who has reported on this story from the beginning, said on "The Early Show" that the investigation into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)'s so-called "Fast and Furious" operation branches out to a case involving grenades. Sources tell her a suspect was left to traffic and manufacture them for Mexican drug cartels.

Police say Jean Baptiste Kingery, a U.S. citizen, was a veritable grenade machine. He's accused of smuggling parts for as many as 2,000 grenades into Mexico for killer drug cartels -- sometimes under the direct watch of U.S. law enforcement.


For more on this investigation, visit CBS Investigates.

Law enforcement sources say Kingery could have been prosecuted in the U.S. twice for violating export control laws, but that, each time, prosecutors in Arizona refused to make a case.

Grenades are weapons-of-choice for the cartels. An attack on Aug. 25 in a Monterrey, Mexico casino killed 53 people.

Sources tell CBS News that, in January 2010, ATF had Kingery under surveillance after he bought about 50 grenade bodies and headed to Mexico. But they say prosecutors wouldn't agree to make a case. So, as ATF agents looked on, Kingery and the grenade parts crossed the border -- and simply disappeared.

Six months later, Kingery allegedly got caught leaving the U.S. for Mexico with 114 disassembled grenades in a tire. One ATF agent told investigators he literally begged prosecutors to keep Kingery in custody this time, fearing he was supplying narco-terrorists, but was again ordered to let Kingery go.

The prosecutors -- already the target of controversy for overseeing "Fast and Furious," wouldn't comment on the grenades case. U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke recently resigned and his assistant, Emory Hurley, has been transferred. Sources say Hurley is the one who let Kingery go, saying grenade parts are "novelty items" and the case "lacked jury appeal."

Attkisson added on "The Early Show" that, in August, Mexican authorities raided Kingery's stash house and factory, finding materials for 1,000 grenades. He was charged with trafficking and allegedly admitted not only to making grenades, but also to teaching cartels how to make them, as well as helping cartel members convert semi-automatic rifles to fully-automatic. As one source put it: There's no telling how much damage Kingery did in the year-and-a-half since he was first let go. The Justice Department inspector general is now investigating this, along with "Fast and Furious."

                                                  P.C.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2011, 10:25:50 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31839


« Reply #825 on: December 14, 2011, 09:06:11 AM »

‘Fast and Furious’ Gets New Scrutiny
Issa to Interview Gun Sting Principal Again

By Jonathan Strong


Congressional investigators will get another crack at one of the Justice Department principals for Operation Fast and Furious, a weapons sting that has set up an oversight battle between Republicans and the Obama administration.

Dennis Burke, the former U.S. attorney for Arizona, will be interviewed by the office of Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) for the first time since an interview over the summer was cut short.

When Senate Judiciary ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) first asked the Justice Department about allegations that a gun-smuggling investigation on the Southwestern border allowed hundreds of assault weapons to escape into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, Burke denounced Grassley for even asking the question.

“What is so offensive about this whole project is that Grassley’s staff, acting as willing stooges for the gun lobby, have attempted to distract from the incredible success in dismantling [Southwest border] gun trafficking operations,” Burke told Justice Department lawyers who were preparing a response.

Pushing lawyers to “categorical[ly]” deny the allegations, Burke bristled when other officials raised the “risks” of an aggressive denial. “What risk?” Burke wrote to colleagues.

Grassley had questioned whether two AK-47s that had been found at the site of U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry’s murder had been tracked by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ investigation.

In fact, they had been. But Burke, in a Feb. 4 email, blasted Grassley’s office for “lobbing this reckless despicable accusation that ATF is complicit in the murder of a fellow federal law enforcement officer.”

The same day the email was sent, the Justice Department would send a letter to Grassley broadly denying that ATF investigations had allowed guns to “walk,” which means ending surveillance on guns suspected to be in transit to criminal networks.

Attorney General Eric Holder has since conceded the letter contained false information, and the letter was formally withdrawn by the Justice Department on Dec. 2.

“Any instance of so-called gunwalking was unacceptable. This tactic was unfortunately used as part of Fast and Furious,” Holder told Senators at a Nov. 8 Judiciary Committee hearing. “This should never have happened.”

Burke received frequent oral and written briefings from the operation’s lead prosecutor and from ATF officials heading it. Congressional investigators have asked whether Burke knew gunwalking tactics were being used at the time he told Justice Department lawyers to deny to Congress they were, and if not, how he could have been ignorant about them.

In an Aug. 18 transcribed interview, Burke opened by saying he was taking responsibility for Fast and Furious. “I’m not going to say mistakes were made. I’m going to say we made mistakes,” Burke said, according to a source close to the investigation.

He hinted at his role urging Justice Department lawyers to deny Fast and Furious allowed guns to walk, saying, “I regret that I was strident” when Grassley first contacted the Justice Department.

Burke said he didn’t have “full knowledge” of the investigation at the time the letter was sent and talked about how his “attitude” about the case had “evolved.”

Pressed repeatedly about what exactly he had learned since he urged the Justice Department to broadly deny guns were walked, Burke cited matters such as how long the case took and that there should have been more questions about “anecdote” from Fast and Furious that “occurred in Mexico.”

Unlike other officials, such as Kenneth Melson, the former head of ATF, Burke did not describe a process of learning that the investigation was allowing hundreds of assault weapons to escape to Mexican drug cartels.

Burke eventually asked to “come back to you on that” so he could “give it more thought.”

Today’s interview represents the continuation.

“These aren’t the answers you would anticipate from someone who was in the dark and had only recently come to learn about the outrages in Fast and Furious,” the source close to the investigation said.

A Dec. 7 “frequently asked questions” memo from Democrats on the House Oversight panel sent to Democratic staff and obtained by Roll Call asks whether Burke “approve[d]” of gunwalking in Fast and Furious.

“No, according to then-U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke,” the memo said, citing other portions of Burke’s Aug. 18 interview in which he denied approving the tactic’s use and said he did not “recall” knowledge of its use.

“Did you ever discuss with [ATF Special Agent-in-Charge William Newell] a deliberate tactic of non-interdiction to see where the weapons ended up? To see if they ended up with the [cartel] in Mexico?” Congressional investigators asked Burke.

“I do not recall that at all,” Burke said.

However, in January 2010, Burke was prompted by lawyers in his office to decide on two tactical approaches in Fast and Furious, according to documents released by the Justice Department on Oct. 31.

Emory Hurley, the lead prosecutor on Fast and Furious, discussed the approaches in a Jan. 5, 2010, memo about the main target of the case, Manuel Celis Acosta, who was suspected of trafficking more than 600 firearms to Mexico.

“In the past, ATF agents have investigated cases similar to this by confronting the straw purchasers and hoping for an admission that might lead to charges,” Hurley wrote. “Straw purchasers” are individuals who buy guns on behalf of gun traffickers.

Rather than use that approach, “Local ATF favors pursuing a wire[tap] and surveillance to build a case against the leader of the organization,” Hurley wrote.

Mike Morrisey, also from the Arizona U.S. attorney’s office, forwarded the memo to Burke via email and said, “local ATF is on board with our strategy but ATF headquarters may want to do a smaller straw purchaser case.”

Burke replied, “Hold out for bigger. Let me know whenever and w/ whomever I need to weigh-in.”

In an Oct. 21 memo prior to that correspondence, Hurley had written that “[a]gents have not purposefully let guns ‘walk.’”

Issa’s office has not yet interviewed Hurley. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12171


« Reply #826 on: December 14, 2011, 10:01:09 AM »

Deep kimchee.

It's a felony to lie to congress.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2792


« Reply #827 on: December 14, 2011, 11:51:12 AM »

In response to JDN above, where he asks if people should be held responsible for gun sales, my thought would be that, if it's in furtherance of criminal enterprise, of course they should. Straw purchases by private citizens are a serious matter: folks who make such purchases should be prosecuted. Curiously, those sorts of prosecutions are declining under the current administration.

Should a government provide guns in furtherance of criminal enterprise, it should be held accountable. A piece I posted earlier note that there are specific laws forbidding the State Department from making weapons sales that further drug cartel interests. If F&F turns out to have been designed to provide guns to nasty people who would then rack up a murder count traceable back to gun store-sold firearms it strikes me that there are several prosecutable offenses contained in that set of circumstances.

As that may be, the Feds have played pattycake with cartels more than once. You'd think they'd learn:


Feds Palling Around With Mexican Cartels

Posted by Juan Carlos Hidalgo

Two years ago the Washington Post reported that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency brought dangerous Mexican drug traffickers to the U.S. who, while continuing their criminal activities in Mexico and the U.S., also served as informants to the federal authorities in their war on drugs.

In June, Operation Fast and Furious came to light where the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed suspicious straw-purchasers of firearms to buy weapons in the U.S. and smuggle them into Mexico. The purpose was to track the guns all the way to the ultimate buyer—a Mexican drug trafficking organization. Overall, the ATF facilitated the purchase of hundreds of guns by Mexican cartels. Many were later found in crime scenes in Mexico, including one where a U.S. Border Patrol agent was assassinated.

On Sunday, the New York Times reported that the Drug Enforcement Agency has been laundering millions of dollars for Mexican cartels. The goal of the undercover mission is to follow the money all the way up to the top ranks of the criminal organizations. However, as the NYT notes, “So far there are few signs that following the money has disrupted the cartels’ operations and little evidence that Mexican drug traffickers are feeling any serious financial pain.”

So there we have it: in the name of the war on drugs, the federal government has provided safe havens to Mexican drug traffickers, facilitated their purchase of powerful firearms, and has even laundered millions of dollars for the cartels.

After spending millions of dollars toward fighting the drug war in Mexico, the United States has little to show for its efforts. It seems Washington is becoming more desperate each year to produce new leads and results. These three incidents display a stunning lack of foresight and borders on the federal government aiding the Mexican drug cartels, with little to show in return. The unintended consequences of these programs aimed at dismantling the cartels would be laughable were it not for the thousands that have died in Mexico’s drug related violence.

It is time for the United States to rethink the war on drugs and consider policies that will successfully undermine the Mexican drug cartels.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/feds-palling-around-with-mexican-cartels/
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2792


« Reply #828 on: December 14, 2011, 01:06:02 PM »

Second post. The Washington Post's role in this passion play, as noted below, is particularly chilling.

One Year Ago, Holder's Operation Fast and Furious Came Undone

Terry's death stopped the star-crossed gun walking program.by Neil W. McCabe12/13/2011

Comments
 

Brian A. Terry

One year ago today, The Washington Post published its “Hidden Life of Guns” article exposing how under-regulated gun sales along the Mexican border were sending firearms into that country feeding its crime and instability.

The paper’s four-reporter team operated as full-partners of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives PR department receiving internal statistics, documents and even an interrogation video.

One of the two gun stores were correctly singled out by the Post: Lone Wolf in Arizona and Carter Country in Texas. But, one year later, we know it was for the wrong reasons.

It was on a Dec. 13 Houston's KRIV-TV news broadcast that the lawyer for Carter Country, responding to that morning's report in the Post, made the outrageous charge that agents from the BATFE actively encouraged reluctant Carter Country employees to sell weapons to suspected “straw purchasers.”

The charges were ignored by The Washington Post and everyone else, and would have stayed ignored, if not for the events of the following night.

During the overnight of December 14 into 15, an AK-47 sold to a straw purchaser with the blessing of the ATF at the Lone Wolf gun store was used in the firefight that cut down Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry.

Within a few hours, four men who fired upon Terry were wrapped up, while a fifth was tracked down the next day in a manhunt that included federal agents on horseback and in helicopters.

Within 24 hours of Terry’s death, federal officials had traced the AK-47 to Fast and Furious.

Behind the scenes, ATF and other federal agents aware of the gun walking program called Operation Fast and Furious, staged a mutiny and the operation was shut down.

In the next week, two cabinet officers visited Arizona, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., for the funeral and Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano, to meet with members of Terry’s special tactics unit, known as BorTac. Holder’s Justice Department oversees the BATFE and Napolitano’s department includes the Border Patrol.

By Napolitano’s December 18 visit, both she and Holder, who both were aware of Fast and Furious, knew that Terry was killed with a Fast and Furious AK-47. They were both fully briefed on Fast and Furious, and though the operation was still a secret, they had both touted in public speeches the overall program it was a part of called Operation Gun Runner.

Conceivably, Napolitano was even better informed than Holder because her former gubernatorial chief of staff Dennis K. Burke was the U.S. Attorney for the Arizona Department. It is fair to guess, that Burke briefed his former boss, who sponsored his appointment.

Burke was a useful part of the Fast and Furious cover-up and damage control. After waiting more than two weeks to charge the men who killed Terry, he charged them with unrelated gun violations. This move allowed him to deny Terry’s parents' request for victims-of-crime rights. Under federal law, victims of crimes are afforded special briefings about the progress of investigations and prosecutions.

Burke also saw to it that the Terry case was sealed and all press relations were handled through the local FBI office that he controlled rather than through Border Patrol public information officers.

One year later, the Post has published the obligatory articles about Fast and Furious, and the various hearings and shuffling of personnel. But, it may not get the Pulitzer it was gunning for when it launched its blowout expose on the wrong side of the story.

The poor Carter County clerk, whose indictment for facilitating illegal guns sales the paper celebrated as validation of its crusade, had all charges dismissed—lest he explain in court what really happened.

Holder and Napolitano have weathered the storm and still enjoy the confidence and support of the President. But, Burke has resigned and awaits what other shoes may drop.

One year ago today, we had no idea that the Obama administration was funneling guns to Mexico at the same time it blamed under-regulated gun sales for destabilizing our neighbor to the south. We have learned many of the details in the last year, but there is still so much that does not make sense or add up.

Most troubling of all, if Terry knew the full extent of what his government was doing, the 6-foot, 4-inch former Marine and Iraq veteran might have had a better chance.




Neil W. McCabe is the editor of Guns & Patriots. McCabe, was a reporter and photographer at The Pilot, Boston's Catholic newspaper for several years. An Army reservist, he served 14 months in Iraq as a combat historian. Follow him on Twitter

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48088
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #829 on: December 14, 2011, 01:22:38 PM »

BBG, A little further up the thread I wrote: "It is not legal for me to knowingly supply a criminal operation...a felony...if you or I did it."

Only to have 'someone' twist it beyond recognition: "As some have improperly implied, it wasn't a felony..." for the government to run a sting operation".  Clearly nothing to do with what I wrote.  Then to compare ** selling legally with no knowledge of supplying a criminal operation, with knowingly supplying a criminal operation and a foreign civil war that we all should know will go wrong...    Suffice it to say, invest your time in straw, circular and backwards arguments at your own risk.  For me, it spoils the fun.


** "My point is it seems a bit hypercritical to complain about guns being sold in Mexico provided by us as a sting operation yet are sold legally across the counter here in America."  

It is not legal for citizens or gun dealers to knowingly seek out and supply a criminal operation across the counter here in America, as the government apparently did in this operation.  What a bunch of excrement.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #830 on: December 14, 2011, 01:44:47 PM »

It's not "excrement", its fact; the government can and did do a sting operation that went bad.  Perfectly "legal".  No one of intelligence has questioned that.   shocked  To compare private citizens to government sting operations is "excrement".  Stings happen all the time.  The ATF wanted to track the guns.  The DEA is trying to track the dollars.  A police officer will offer to sell narcotics to catch a criminal for example.  Obviously, private citizens can't do that either.

As BbyG has pointed out,

"In June, Operation Fast and Furious came to light where the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed suspicious straw-purchasers of firearms to buy weapons in the U.S. and smuggle them into Mexico. The purpose was to track the guns all the way to the ultimate buyer—a Mexican drug trafficking organization. Overall, the ATF facilitated the purchase of hundreds of guns by Mexican cartels. Many were later found in crime scenes in Mexico, including one where a U.S. Border Patrol agent was assassinated.

On Sunday, the New York Times reported that the Drug Enforcement Agency has been laundering millions of dollars for Mexican cartels. The goal of the undercover mission is to follow the money all the way up to the top ranks of the criminal organizations. However, as the NYT notes, “So far there are few signs that following the money has disrupted the cartels’ operations and little evidence that Mexican drug traffickers are feeling any serious financial pain.”

After spending millions of dollars toward fighting the drug war in Mexico, the United States has little to show for its efforts. It seems Washington is becoming more desperate each year to produce new leads and results. These three incidents display a stunning lack of foresight and borders on the federal government aiding the Mexican drug cartels, with little to show in return. The unintended consequences of these programs aimed at dismantling the cartels would be laughable were it not for the thousands that have died in Mexico’s drug related violence.

It is time for the United States to rethink the war on drugs and consider policies that will successfully undermine the Mexican drug cartels."

Frankly, I have no idea how to solve the "war on drugs".  It's not easy.  Nor does our government, be it republicans or democrats, know how to "solve" the problem.  Then again, I don't know how to solve the
war on crime here in America.  It is very easy for a criminal to purchase weapons, yet all attempts to tighten and restrict sales are met with opposition by the gun lobby.  Again, I don't know the answer. And as
long as the bad guys can easily get guns, I'm going to have one too.

However, in contrast to this perfectly legal sting operation, IF there is a coverup, and/or the operation was done for political reasons, rather than law enforcement reasons, then it should be investigated and if true, the perpetrators should be brought to justice.


Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12171


« Reply #831 on: December 14, 2011, 02:53:02 PM »


It's not "excrement", its fact; the government can and did do a sting operation that went bad.  Perfectly "legal".  No one of intelligence has questioned that.     To compare private citizens to government sting operations is "excrement".  Stings happen all the time.  The ATF wanted to track the guns.  The DEA is trying to track the dollars.  A police officer will offer to sell narcotics to catch a criminal for example.  Obviously, private citizens can't do that either.

Please explain how this "sting" was supposed to have worked.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #832 on: December 14, 2011, 03:27:57 PM »

Beats me how this sting was suppose to have worked; ask the ATF who ran the sting; they are the experts.  But then I bet a lot of stings don't work out as planned.  Even routine narcotic stings.

"In June, Operation Fast and Furious came to light where the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed suspicious straw-purchasers of firearms to buy weapons in the U.S. and smuggle them into Mexico. The purpose was to track the guns all the way to the ultimate buyer—a Mexican drug trafficking organization. Overall, the ATF facilitated the purchase of hundreds of guns by Mexican cartels."

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12171


« Reply #833 on: December 14, 2011, 03:30:55 PM »

"Beats me how this sting was suppose to have worked"

Exactly.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2792


« Reply #834 on: December 14, 2011, 05:32:44 PM »

Jeepers, maybe everyone who favors limiting second amendment protections by any means at hand calls this false flag operation a "sting" because they don't want the general public to know it's really a false flag operation. Too bad they were so ham fisted about it.

Be that as it may, giving criminals money with which to buy guns to give to other, violent, criminals so that they use those guns in numerous crimes including 300 murders that can then be blamed on American gun stores as an opening gambit to subvert the second amendment is not only many kinds of criminal act, but can be construed as an act of war. Any other conclusion is equivocation of the rankest sort.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31839


« Reply #835 on: December 14, 2011, 09:11:40 PM »

Tis a truly scary thought, but BINGO.  IMHO BBG has spoken the Truth.
Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #836 on: December 14, 2011, 11:07:02 PM »

Tis a truly scary thought, but BINGO.  IMHO BBG has spoken the Truth.

Yes, it truly is a scary thought, but BINGO?  huh

To my knowledge, no FACTS have come out to prove this is a "false flag operation".  Conjecture, hyperbole and wishful thinking is one thing.  But facts....  Any facts anyone?

That said, frankly I don't understand why it would even affect gun control in America.  I mean 10's of thousands of Mexicans have already been gunned down
by the Cartels.  What's a few hundred more guns that frankly/obviously given the death count, could have been bought elsewhere?  Surely if it was a "false
flag operation" to promote gun control in America they could have done better.  Frankly, and sadly, no one cares in America about the huge death toll in Mexico.  I truly doubt
if it would even affect gun control in America one way or another.

But facts.  Everyone agrees the ATF "sting" went bad.  But I bet a lot of stings go bad.  I think even GM would agree, it's easy to criticize law enforcement after the the fact.  Although
I agree with his point, it wasn't the best plan I've ever heard.   smiley

Criminal act?  I suppose selling drugs is a "criminal act" but somehow the DEA does it undercover.  As BbyG's article pointed out, the DEA launder's money, but that is illegal too. Still,
I doubt if they will be arrested.  Somehow it's "legal".  An "act of war"?  Gee, I don't hear Mexico declaring an "act of war".  That's pretty silly.   In contrast, Mexico is considering doing the same to track weapons. 
Radical steps need to be taken to stop the Cartels; but all ideas don't work.  No one seems to have the solution.

Odd, given I'm the "liberal" that I'm the one defending the ATF.  But as been pointed out elsewhere, unless the facts to the contrary come out, the "conclusion" is that
it was a sting gone bad - even BbyG's post said the same.  Shit happens.  I'ld like to think all law enforcement actions work out perfectly, but that's not reality.

That said, IF there is a coverup, or if there was a political, i.e. gun control motivation, and there is PROOF, then let the chips fall.  But please, don't call this a "limiting second amendment"
issue without any proof.  It is a "scary THOUGHT", but to date, it is only a "thought" but that "conclusion" does it even resemble the proven TRUTH...

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #837 on: December 15, 2011, 12:11:05 AM »

Please post all the facts for us to review.  In the meantime, if you don't enjoy participating in the conjecture while we wait for the facts, have you considered staying off the thread?

This is the rambling of a guy who had a putdown today for other people's intelligence:

Yes, it truly is a scary thought, but BINGO?  huh

To my knowledge, no FACTS have come out to prove this is a "false flag operation".  Conjecture, hyperbole and wishful thinking is one thing.  But facts....  Any facts anyone?

That said, frankly I don't understand why it would even affect gun control in America.  I mean 10's of thousands of Mexicans have already been gunned down
by the Cartels.  What's a few hundred more guns that frankly/obviously given the death count, could have been bought elsewhere?  Surely if it was a "false
flag operation" to promote gun control in America they could have done better.  Frankly, and sadly, no one cares in America about the huge death toll in Mexico.  I truly doubt
if it would even affect gun control in America one way or another.

But facts.  Everyone agrees the ATF "sting" went bad.  But I bet a lot of stings go bad.  I think even GM would agree, it's easy to criticize law enforcement after the the fact.  Although
I agree with his point, it wasn't the best plan I've ever heard.   smiley

Criminal act?  I suppose selling drugs is a "criminal act" but somehow the DEA does it undercover.  As BbyG's article pointed out, the DEA launder's money, but that is illegal too. Still,
I doubt if they will be arrested.  Somehow it's "legal".  An "act of war"?  Gee, I don't hear Mexico declaring an "act of war".  That's pretty silly.   In contrast, Mexico is considering doing the same to track weapons. 
Radical steps need to be taken to stop the Cartels; but all ideas don't work.  No one seems to have the solution.

Odd, given I'm the "liberal" that I'm the one defending the ATF.  But as been pointed out elsewhere, unless the facts to the contrary come out, the "conclusion" is that
it was a sting gone bad - even BbyG's post said the same.  Shit happens.  I'ld like to think all law enforcement actions work out perfectly, but that's not reality.

That said, IF there is a coverup, or if there was a political, i.e. gun control motivation, and there is PROOF, then let the chips fall.  But please, don't call this a "limiting second amendment"
issue without any proof.  It is a "scary THOUGHT", but to date, it is only a "thought" but that "conclusion" does it even resemble the proven TRUTH...
[/quote]
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12171


« Reply #838 on: December 15, 2011, 12:45:47 AM »

Everyone agrees the ATF "sting" went bad.  But I bet a lot of stings go bad.  I think even GM would agree, it's easy to criticize law enforcement after the the fact.  Although
I agree with his point, it wasn't the best plan I've ever heard.

There is a difference between informed and uninformed criticism of law enforcement. I object to the uninformed kind. When I first saw articles on "Gunwalker" I was expecting that it was a typical uninformed attack on law enforcement. The more information that came to light, including an extensive paper trail and ATF whistleblowers, the clearer it became this was no "sting gone wrong".
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 784


« Reply #839 on: December 15, 2011, 06:26:40 AM »


That said, frankly I don't understand why it would even affect gun control in America.  I mean 10's of thousands of Mexicans have already been gunned down
by the Cartels.  What's a few hundred more guns that frankly/obviously given the death count, could have been bought elsewhere?  Surely if it was a "false
flag operation" to promote gun control in America they could have done better.  Frankly, and sadly, no one cares in America about the huge death toll in Mexico. I truly doubt
if it would even affect gun control in America one way or another.


Woof JDN,
 Really??? Come off it man.
                  P.C.
Logged

JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #840 on: December 15, 2011, 08:47:34 AM »

Please post all the facts for us to review.  In the meantime, if you don't enjoy participating in the conjecture while we wait for the facts, have you considered staying off the thread?


Actually, I'm the one waiting for facts, ANY facts to support this hilarious 2nd Amendment conspiracy conjecture.   In contrast, to date, the only fact is that it's a sting gone bad, albeit poorly planned and poorly executed.  And, since people died, there does seem to be a coverup - not good.  Then again, if the DEA did a narcotic sting and it went bad and people died, there might be an attempt to cover it it up too.  People like to cover up their mistakes, but that often comes back to bite them.  But I doubt if there is some greater underlying conspiracy here. 

But I agree, nothing wrong with "participating in conjecture while you wait for the facts".  Actually, I've done that a few times; participated in conjecture and then the facts proving my point did come out.  Remember Doug?   grin 

I'm STILL waiting for any opposing FACTS on this matter.  Call the operation(s) really stupid, tragic, but please don't call the ATF's actions or the DEA's actions "illegal" or that it was an "act of war".

The "facts" to date are....



In June, Operation Fast and Furious came to light where the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed suspicious straw-purchasers of firearms to buy weapons in the U.S. and smuggle them into Mexico. The purpose was to track the guns all the way to the ultimate buyer—a Mexican drug trafficking organization. Overall, the ATF facilitated the purchase of hundreds of guns by Mexican cartels. Many were later found in crime scenes in Mexico, including one where a U.S. Border Patrol agent was assassinated.

On Sunday, the New York Times reported that the Drug Enforcement Agency has been laundering millions of dollars for Mexican cartels. The goal of the undercover mission is to follow the money all the way up to the top ranks of the criminal organizations. However, as the NYT notes, “So far there are few signs that following the money has disrupted the cartels’ operations and little evidence that Mexican drug traffickers are feeling any serious financial pain.”

So there we have it: in the name of the war on drugs, the federal government has provided safe havens to Mexican drug traffickers, facilitated their purchase of powerful firearms, and has even laundered millions of dollars for the cartels.



Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6171


« Reply #841 on: December 15, 2011, 10:41:51 AM »

You quote my question and then don't answer it.  I can only go backwards and circular to answer yours - again.  I assume that is your intent.  

As far as the times we engaged and you were proven right, scratching my small brain, nothing comes to mind.  I suppose you are remembering your claim of no damage to the French supermarket ransacked by 'free speech', Israel's non-existent right to exist, Huntsman's two terms, NOAA is a third grade blogger, or that mid-level ATF administrators can declare war in Mexico without congressional approval.  Now this:

"no one cares in America about the huge death toll in Mexico."

Excrement that never ends (hint to moderator).  JDN, speak for your f'g self.

You prefer the term liberal to internet troll but you have neither proven that you are the former nor proven you are not the latter.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 10:44:35 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31839


« Reply #842 on: December 15, 2011, 12:20:25 PM »

JDN:

As best as I can tell, we have done a rather strong job of collecting evidence that the government sent guns
(somehow the original number of 2,000-2,500 keeps getting massaged downward, now into "hundreds") out the door unsupervised.  Therefore it was NOT a sting.  Turning weapons loose with the hope and purpose that they wind up in bad guys hands doing bad things is NOT a sting.  It is a vile and morally deranged act.

Your continued pretense otherwise is a key ingredient to the frustrations with you being expressed here.

Logged
JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #843 on: December 15, 2011, 02:22:24 PM »

Hmmm I'm not confused; rather I quoted a piece that BbyG posted saying that it was a "Sting".  It's not my words.  The same article said the DEA was laundering money for the Cartels; that too is also perhaps wrong, but the theory is that the means justifies the end.  IMHO the war on drugs is a losing war.

Further, while you and others have been "collecting evidence", no "evidence" to date indicates anything illegal was done nor did anyone, much
less the ATF "declare war in Mexico".  Even the Mexican government hasn't said that.  Conjecture and innuendo is not "evidence".  Even if there
was/is a coverup, it's only evidence of a coverup, that's wrong of course, but it's not evidence of previous wrongful or illegal action by the ATF.

As for Doug, "scratching (his) small brain" I am happy to point out, again, the errors of his past logic, but he doesn't seem to want to listen.

I too agree FnF was "a vile and morally deranged act".  It never should have been done.  But then I question many "sting" operations.

That said, regarding FnF, let's see if any facts or "evidence" comes out, or if criticism of illegal wrongdoings remains only "conjecture" and political
posturing. 

As for me, I'm happy to move on; the subject really isn't that important to me.  Nor to most Americans.

Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 784


« Reply #844 on: December 15, 2011, 08:24:56 PM »

Woof JDN,
 First you claim that Americans aren't concerned about the thousands of murders taking place in Mexico and now you want Americans to ignore one of our government agency's that has help facilitate some of those deaths as well as the death of one of our Border Patrol agents. If it was a mistake, do you want it to happen again? If people do ignore it, that will almost guarantee it will happen again. If it was a legit sting that was botched by some kind of half ass political play and interference from the Administration, don't you think something like that should be ferreted out? Do you think people inside this Administration and the government are going to do that without any pressure from We the People? Of course not. You're an intelligent guy but some of your post's aren't congruent enough for anyone to nail down what your viewpoint is and they leave some of us feeling somewhat schizophrenic in trying to figure out how or even what to respond to. I think you are conflicted on various points of the issue and need to work those out for yourself. I'm not attacking you or telling you what to think but I believe you have some important points to make and once you reslove and more precisely define how you feel about them I think you'll find that you are not as embattled here by the other poster's as it seems right now. I think part of what you are saying is that you don't want this to turn into a political witchhunt if in fact it was just an operation they lost control of, and you also seem to be saying even if there was some failings by higher ups no one really has the moral high ground to beat them over the head with it because stuff like this happens all the time regardless of who's in office and there is little if any evidence of intentional wrong doing so far. On the other hand you accuse and lament that American's don't care about what happens in Mexico but at the same time they should ignore this story and not be concerned about the reasoning or motovations that went into this operation that violated Mexico's sovereignty and adds to the violence of the cartels against eachother and innocent citizens, then you say it's awful and terrible that this happened. So right now what I'm getting from all this is that: It's bad that this happened, American's are heartless, there's no evidence it was politically motivated even though it involved illegal guns being moved across the border, which is a political hot topic of this Administration and an issue they have been using as a reason for more gun control but none of that should be looked at, and no one should be held accountable if it was a mistake and American's shouldn't care if it was a mistake or not. rolleyes
                                        P.C.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2011, 10:06:17 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

JDN
Power User
***
Posts: 2004


« Reply #845 on: December 16, 2011, 09:06:07 AM »

Prentice, you post was a little circuitous, but you made some good points.

First, I would like to say I do support the 2nd Amendment.  And frankly, I've learned a lot about guns from your posts and links.  So I'll try to answer.

In response to your comment, I do not believe America is heartless; frankly, I think our heart if anything is too big.  But thousands of people are dying in Mexico due to a drug war we indirectly support (we are the number 1 customer).  I'm not sure what to do, nor does even Mexico know what to do.  But it's a drug war, therefore I don't think most American's are deeply concerned versus if it was an earthquake or natural
disaster that killed the same number of people.  Frankly, if you look at the news here in America, deaths in Mexico is a non item.   News gravitates towards interest, ergo....


"I think part of what you are saying is that you don't want this to turn into a political witchhunt if in fact it was just an operation they lost control of, and you also seem to be saying even if there was some failings by higher ups no one really has the moral high ground to beat them over the head with it because stuff like this happens all the time regardless of who's in office and there is little if any evidence of intentional wrong doing so far."

I couldn't have said it better myself.   smiley  although I might add that discipline should be considered for those who conceived this crazy idea.  Maybe put them on paid administrative leave.  That seems to be the typical punishment for judgment errors.

As for gun control, maybe I don't understand the direct connection, but I don't think most Americans do either.  Are you saying that if the ATF illegally shipped hundreds maybe a couple of thousand guns across the border, and they are used by the Cartels to kill people, mind you, the same Cartels have already killed 10's of thousands of people before we ever did this "sting", that America will be more prone to favor gun control here in America?  I don't get the connection. This seems like the most convoluted way to sway support for gun control legislation that I have ever heard of.  It doesn't make sense.  But enlighten me.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 784


« Reply #846 on: December 16, 2011, 10:20:45 AM »

Woof,
 The short answer is because those guns were counted as illegal guns that were traced back to America and those numbers were used to call for more gun control laws and restrictions in the U.S.
                                     P.C.
Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31839


« Reply #847 on: December 16, 2011, 10:26:04 AM »

and the data was presented in such a dishonest way that when confronted about it, the officials in question had to back off, even as they sedulously worked to spread the false meme throughout the Pravdas.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31839


« Reply #848 on: December 19, 2011, 07:25:51 PM »

Oy fg vey  rolleyes

Attorney General Eric Holder accused his growing chorus of critics of racist motivations in a Sunday interview published in the New York Times. When reached by The Daily Caller Monday morning, the Department of Justice provided no evidence to support the attorney general’s claims.

Holder said some unspecified faction — what he refers to as the “more extreme segment” — is driven to criticize both him and President Barack Obama due to the color of their skin. Holder did not appear to elaborate on who he considered to make up the “more extreme segment.”

“This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” Holder said, according to the Times. “Both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.” 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/19/ju...#ixzz1h0b3COgg
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12171


« Reply #849 on: December 19, 2011, 07:48:38 PM »

Oy fg vey  rolleyes

Attorney General Eric Holder accused his growing chorus of critics of racist motivations in a Sunday interview published in the New York Times. When reached by The Daily Caller Monday morning, the Department of Justice provided no evidence to support the attorney general’s claims.

Holder said some unspecified faction — what he refers to as the “more extreme segment” — is driven to criticize both him and President Barack Obama due to the color of their skin. Holder did not appear to elaborate on who he considered to make up the “more extreme segment.”

“This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” Holder said, according to the Times. “Both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.” 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/19/ju...#ixzz1h0b3COgg


S'ok, ever time they play that card, it means less and less.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 32 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!