Jump to content

Obama's Mexican Gunrunning Operation


Recommended Posts

NRA Provides Details on Obama's Mexican Gunrunning Operation

The Obama Regime deliberately allowed American guns to be smuggled into Mexico, knowing that they would be used to create mayhem when they inevitably bounced back across the deliberately under-defended border. The purpose: to undermine our constitutional right to bear arms by using American-bought guns in Mexican hands as a propaganda cudgel. Border Agent Brian Terry, while providing free police services to illegal aliens, was killed by one of these weapons when he was sent up against heavily armed Mexican bandits with a beanbag gun. Details from Wayne LaPierre of the NRA:

http://www.glennbeck...-news-on-radio/

 

Wayne explained, "What's going on is NRA called for full‑scale congressional investigations into this program that our government, the Obama administration was running called Fast and Furious."

 

"Apparently what was going on and this is all based on what agents, law enforcement agents, are coming forward under the Whistleblower Act and saying is that we all heard Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder and the administration saying 90% of the guns the cartels are getting are coming from the United States."

 

"Blaming the Second Amendment, lock, stock and barrel for the guns of the Mexican gun cartels."

 

"Problem was they could only prove a trickle. What it looks like, apparently, is someone in this administration, in our federal government, set out to turn that trickle into a river of guns flowing from the United States into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels over the border into their hands."

 

"It's called Fast and Furious. They did it over the objections of their field agents who said if we send guns over the border into the hands of these evil people, the Mexican drug cartels, we'll see these guns again. These people will cause harm with these guns."

 

"They wept ahead and did it. They, in effect, set up a dealership. They set up an illegal pipe line and they pumped thousands and thousands according to the agents' words, guns, from the United States over the border into the hands of the Mexican drug cartel."

 

"We're arming the military to help stop them, or are you saying there's actually an illegal gun smuggling ring that was set up by the United States government to push to actually put them in the hands of the bad guys?" Glenn asked.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's Judge Jackson or Judge Berman Jackson. It isn't Judge Berman unless you're watching reality court TV at the laundromat. Actually, I did mean only those documents. Again, the Kenyan’s EP was

Maybe he'll be nicer now that his period is over.

People who have time to read things like the relevant Inspector General's report instead of just spewing insults and talking points know that the reality is that the stupid program was shut down under

Posted Images

Nanny, thats a bit of a stretch even for you and the NRA to accuse the admin of deliberately allowing guns to cross the border for the purpose of them showing up back here to be used in crimes.

 

If you look closely, it's actually Glenn Beck that has that harebrained theory, and calls the administration the "Obama Regime". I almost stopped reading right there. :rolleyes: The NRA depiction of what went on is accurate, and contains no reference to the guns coming back here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nanny, thats a bit of a stretch even for you and the NRA to accuse the admin of deliberately allowing guns to cross the border for the purpose of them showing up back here to be used in crimes. Its a good conspiracy theory for political blogs, but its blatent supposition as to the intent.

 

However, allowing the guns to cross over knowing they were illegal with no way to keep an eye on them until they reached the bigger fish is just asininely stupid and someone needs to hang for that. And if it turns out to be Holder and/or Obama - I'll tie the knot myself.

 

Looks like Rep Issa and Sen Grassely are not happy and this letter explains the whole deal a lot better than the NRA gobbledy gook.

 

Contrast that letter with Melson's testimony last year. http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2010/03/030410-testimony-atf-dir-melson-fy11-appropriations.html

 

He is quite proud of what Gunrunner accomplished in 2009, expanded it with Stim money, and is asking for more.

Lists alot of busts and arrests too.

 

They are attacking the field agents. They must want to stop them from running stings. NRA false flag operation? Pretend to be a crusader against gun smugglers to cover up the attack on ATF's stings that hurt sales?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Contrast that letter with Melson's testimony last year. http://www.atf.gov/p...opriations.html

 

He is quite proud of what Gunrunner accomplished in 2009, expanded it with Stim money, and is asking for more.

Lists alot of busts and arrests too.

 

They are attacking the field agents. They must want to stop them from running stings. NRA false flag operation? Pretend to be a crusader against gun smugglers to cover up the attack on ATF's stings that hurt sales?

 

Bureaucrats boast in front of Congress, but that doesn't mean what they say is the whole truth.

 

Who is attacking field agents, and how, exactly? I have not seen it. I have seen this field agent attacking the program:

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...n20045609.shtml

 

And the journalists guide mentions a few aspects that somehow did not seem appropriate to bring up in front of Congress...

 

http://www.examiner....oject-gunwalker

 

Things like arming the good guys with bean bags while the bad guys use bullets. One of the guns that they let walk being used to kill one of our agents.

 

ATF testimony to Congress is not exactly the best place to become informed of an ATF scandal, if your goal is actually to inform...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nanny, thats a bit of a stretch even for you and the NRA to accuse the admin of deliberately allowing guns to cross the border for the purpose of them showing up back here to be used in crimes. Its a good conspiracy theory for political blogs, but its blatent supposition as to the intent.

 

However, allowing the guns to cross over knowing they were illegal with no way to keep an eye on them until they reached the bigger fish is just asininely stupid and someone needs to hang for that. And if it turns out to be Holder and/or Obama - I'll tie the knot myself.

 

Looks like Rep Issa and Sen Grassely are not happy and this letter explains the whole deal a lot better than the NRA gobbledy gook.

Did you read the first and second paragraphs on page 2 of your cite?

 

Deliberate or not it seems that the guns came back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"You don't let guns walk. I've never let a gun walk." -- ATF Special Agent Rene Jaquez

 

SOP for domestic stuff. Bust it and settle for the small fry in the US.

 

How do you infiltrate a foreign gun running operation without selling guns?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you infiltrate a foreign gun running operation without selling guns?

 

The Mexican government and the Obama administration (now) appear to agree that you do it without putting thousands of guns in the hands of foreign criminals whose government is unaware of the operation. But that's now. Not so sure about then.

 

Meanwhile, I'm still wondering about this:

 

 

They are attacking the field agents.

 

Is there any basis for that statement anywhere?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure the goal was infiltration anyway. The ATF is known for publicity stunts. I think the whole point of the operation was to make statements like this one politically advantageous:

 

Cutting off the flow of arms to the Cartels could get pretty gol-derned draconian for a spell. The NRA has to be on board for that to happen. Only they can give Blue Dogs and rational Republicans the political cover they would need on this.

 

That didn't work either. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe everything I have ever read that has come from the NRA. In all the time I have been a member, there has not been one single thing they have said or a position they have asked me to support that I differ with in the slightest, everything they say completely unbiased truth.

 

You are wrong to assume that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost funny, Mark, but has to be closer to truth to by funny. The truth is I have never given the compromising weasels at the NRA my money because of their numerous sellouts and buyouts. I much prefer to donate to the Second Amendment Foundation if I feel like supporting firearms rights.

 

Now, speaking of truth, was there any basis for your earlier statement?

 

They are attacking the field agents.

 

Who is? In what manner? Where is the evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost funny, Mark, but has to be closer to truth to by funny. The truth is I have never given the compromising weasels at the NRA my money because of their numerous sellouts and buyouts. I much prefer to donate to the Second Amendment Foundation if I feel like supporting firearms rights.

 

Now, speaking of truth, was there any basis for your earlier statement?

 

They are attacking the field agents.

 

Who is? In what manner? Where is the evidence?

 

By accusing them of deliberately allowing arms to go to the Cartels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now, speaking of truth, was there any basis for your earlier statement?

 

They are attacking the field agents.

 

Who is? In what manner? Where is the evidence?

 

By accusing them of deliberately allowing arms to go to the Cartels.

 

The NRA has made no such accusation against field agents, and in fact the topic article says this about them:

 

“Apparently what was going on and this is all based on what agents, law enforcement agents, are coming forward under the Whistleblower Act and saying is that we all heard Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder and the administration saying 90% of the guns the cartels are getting are coming from the United States.”

 

“Blaming the Second Amendment, lock, stock and barrel for the guns of the Mexican gun cartels.”

 

“Problem was they could only prove a trickle. What it looks like, apparently, is someone in this administration, in our federal government, set out to turn that trickle into a river of guns flowing from the United States into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels over the border into their hands.”

 

“It’s called Fast and Furious. They did it over the objections of their field agents who said if we send guns over the border into the hands of these evil people, the Mexican drug cartels, we’ll see these guns again. These people will cause harm with these guns.”

 

“They wept ahead and did it. They, in effect, set up a dealership. They set up an illegal pipe line and they pumped thousands and thousands according to the agents’ words, guns, from the United States over the border into the hands of the Mexican drug cartel.”

 

 

They are accusing someone, who does not seem interested in coming forward and claiming credit for this bold move, of ordering the field agents to allow the criminals to spirit guns away into Mexico. The article makes plain that it was a political level decision, not endorsed by the agents in the field at all.

 

So there is evidence that what you said about the NRA accusing field agents was false, but I am waiting for evidence that it is true. Where is that again?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now, speaking of truth, was there any basis for your earlier statement?

 

They are attacking the field agents.

 

Who is? In what manner? Where is the evidence?

 

By accusing them of deliberately allowing arms to go to the Cartels.

 

The NRA has made no such accusation against field agents, and in fact the topic article says this about them:

 

“Apparently what was going on and this is all based on what agents, law enforcement agents, are coming forward under the Whistleblower Act and saying is that we all heard Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder and the administration saying 90% of the guns the cartels are getting are coming from the United States.”

 

“Blaming the Second Amendment, lock, stock and barrel for the guns of the Mexican gun cartels.”

 

“Problem was they could only prove a trickle. What it looks like, apparently, is someone in this administration, in our federal government, set out to turn that trickle into a river of guns flowing from the United States into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels over the border into their hands.”

 

“It’s called Fast and Furious. They did it over the objections of their field agents who said if we send guns over the border into the hands of these evil people, the Mexican drug cartels, we’ll see these guns again. These people will cause harm with these guns.”

 

“They wept ahead and did it. They, in effect, set up a dealership. They set up an illegal pipe line and they pumped thousands and thousands according to the agents’ words, guns, from the United States over the border into the hands of the Mexican drug cartel.”

 

 

They are accusing someone, who does not seem interested in coming forward and claiming credit for this bold move, of ordering the field agents to allow the criminals to spirit guns away into Mexico. The article makes plain that it was a political level decision, not endorsed by the agents in the field at all.

 

So there is evidence that what you said about the NRA accusing field agents was false, but I am waiting for evidence that it is true. Where is that again?

 

I was talking about Issa's and Grassley's investigation, not Becks moronic speculations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By accusing them of deliberately allowing arms to go to the Cartels.

 

The NRA has made no such accusation against field agents, and in fact the topic article says this about them:

 

"Apparently what was going on and this is all based on what agents, law enforcement agents, are coming forward under the Whistleblower Act and saying is that we all heard Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder and the administration saying 90% of the guns the cartels are getting are coming from the United States."

 

"Blaming the Second Amendment, lock, stock and barrel for the guns of the Mexican gun cartels."

 

"Problem was they could only prove a trickle. What it looks like, apparently, is someone in this administration, in our federal government, set out to turn that trickle into a river of guns flowing from the United States into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels over the border into their hands."

 

"It's called Fast and Furious. They did it over the objections of their field agents who said if we send guns over the border into the hands of these evil people, the Mexican drug cartels, we'll see these guns again. These people will cause harm with these guns."

 

"They wept ahead and did it. They, in effect, set up a dealership. They set up an illegal pipe line and they pumped thousands and thousands according to the agents' words, guns, from the United States over the border into the hands of the Mexican drug cartel."

 

 

They are accusing someone, who does not seem interested in coming forward and claiming credit for this bold move, of ordering the field agents to allow the criminals to spirit guns away into Mexico. The article makes plain that it was a political level decision, not endorsed by the agents in the field at all.

 

So there is evidence that what you said about the NRA accusing field agents was false, but I am waiting for evidence that it is true. Where is that again?

 

I was talking about Issa's and Grassley's investigation, not Becks moronic speculations.

 

The quote mentioning the field agents' objections comes from Wayne LaPierre, not Beck, and your earlier statement seemed to be talking about the NRA, not Congress, but OK.

 

Issa and Grassley had this to say in their letter above:

 

A November 2010 DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report detailed many shortcomings within the program, especially its inability to find and arrest higher-level traffickers. With direct approval from ATF headquarters in Washington, a special ATF strike force let federally licensed gun shops sell about 1,765 firearms to straw buyers for the drug cartels over a 15 month span beginning in October 2009. Some 797 of the guns were recovered as a result of criminal activity on both sides of the border, including two at the site of the killing of Agent Terry.

 

At the same time of the release of the OIG report - and perhaps influenced by it - ATF formalized its policy of letting American guns reach the drug cartels. Field agents vociferously objected, aghast at the prospect...

 

So it seems that the NRA and Issa & Grassley are on the same page here: far from attacking the field agents, they are pointing out that the field agents who make a career out of this stuff had the common sense to know it was a bad idea.

 

What part of their investigation seems to you like they are targeting field agents?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What part of their investigation seems to you like they are targeting field agents?

 

I consider supervisors at the local level field agents. They got approval from Washington to run stings. Now Issa and Grassley want their hides on a wall.

 

Issa and Grassley want to stop those stings, and apparently so does the NRA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Office of Inspector General, apparently. Not to mention anyone who thinks losing about half the guns that they let walk into the hands of Mexico's drug cartels is irresponsible. Oh, and the Mexican government.

 

They will certainly not get them back now, the operation has been blown.

 

I'm thinking the NRA (a front for the gun manufacturers) wanted to tip their dealers that the ATF is running these stings big-time, and concocted a pile of nonsense about Obama wanting to arm drug lords in order to do that. Issa and Grassley are providing political cover for the NRA's blowing of a LE sting operation.

 

A real concern about ATF incompetence in an on-going covert operation in a foreign country has to be handled on the QT. They are instead deliberately seeking to make it as public as possible. Cui bono?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Office of Inspector General, apparently. Not to mention anyone who thinks losing about half the guns that they let walk into the hands of Mexico's drug cartels is irresponsible. Oh, and the Mexican government.

 

They will certainly not get them back now, the operation has been blown.

 

I'm thinking the NRA (a front for the gun manufacturers) wanted to tip their dealers that the ATF is running these stings big-time, and concocted a pile of nonsense about Obama wanting to arm drug lords in order to do that. Issa and Grassley are providing political cover for the NRA's blowing of a LE sting operation.

 

A real concern about ATF incompetence in an on-going covert operation in a foreign country has to be handled on the QT. They are instead deliberately seeking to make it as public as possible. Cui bono?

 

And let's not forget that the arms manufacturers were also behind the 2nd Amendment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Office of Inspector General, apparently. Not to mention anyone who thinks losing about half the guns that they let walk into the hands of Mexico's drug cartels is irresponsible. Oh, and the Mexican government.

 

They will certainly not get them back now, the operation has been blown.

 

I'm thinking the NRA (a front for the gun manufacturers) wanted to tip their dealers that the ATF is running these stings big-time, and concocted a pile of nonsense about Obama wanting to arm drug lords in order to do that. Issa and Grassley are providing political cover for the NRA's blowing of a LE sting operation.

 

A real concern about ATF incompetence in an on-going covert operation in a foreign country has to be handled on the QT. They are instead deliberately seeking to make it as public as possible. Cui bono?

 

I'm thinking the NRA is a big organization with millions of members, not just a front for gun manufacturers, and they're a pretty mainstream gun rights organization. Of course, you can't name a non-extremist group that supported the Heller or McDonald lawsuits, so I guess you would be fine with the old, discredited, "collective rights" interpretation of the second amendment.

 

The evidence is that the dealers were tipping the ATF off that the Mexicans had straw buyers buying guns, the ATF was saying to go ahead with the sales, and according to the Inspector General they were then referring small scale straw buyers for prosecution. Federal prosecutors, with better things to do, were rejecting the cases.

 

The ATF is left to proudly cite their increased surveillance of dealers and the increased resulting referrals for prosecution. Meanwhile, according to the OIG, the guns in question made it to Mexico and they lost track of them at that point, possibly due to not letting the Mexican government or even their counterparts working in that country know what they were doing. This is bound to create a problem that the ATF is going to be called upon to solve, so they're going to need even more money for even more surveillance and even more non-prosecution of straw buyers and even more guns in the hands of Mexican criminals. This is bound to create a problem that the ATF is going to be called upon to solve, so they're going to need even more money... rinse, lather up the gungrabbers, repeat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CBS News Latest Gunwalking Report

 

"Well first of all I did not authorize it. Eric Holder the Attorney General did not authorize it. He's been very clear that our policy is to catch gun runners and put 'em into jail," Mr. Obama said of the controversial ATF operation called "Fast and Furious."

 

"You were not even informed about it?" asked Univision reporter Jorge Ramos.

 

"Absolutely not," said Mr. Obama. "There may be a situation here which a serious mistake was made and if that's the case then we'll find out and well hold somebody accountable."

 

 

 

But who? In an exclusive interview with CBS News, the lead ATF official in Mexico at the time Darren Gil says somebody in the Justice Department did know about the case. Gil says his supervisor at ATF's Washington D.C. headquarters told him point-blank the operation was approved even higher than ATF Director Kenneth Melson.

 

"Is the director aware of this," Gil asked the supervisor. Gil says his supervisor answered "Yes, the director's aware of it. Not only is the director aware of it, D.O.J.'s aware of it... Department of Justice was aware of it."

 

 

 

 

...

 

 

 

 

But if Justice Department officials knew, it's even more incredible when you find out who didn't: ATF's own agents in Mexico.

 

 

 

Gil first found out something was amiss in early 2010 when serial numbers from a flood of guns used in cartel crimes were all tracing back to the same case in Phoenix: "Fast and Furious." But when Gil's analyst checked ATF's computer files to find out more, he hit a brick wall.

 

 

 

"Not only did he not have access, I as the attache, the head agent in Mexico for ATF operations, did not have access," says Gil. He was locked out.

 

That was a red flag because Gil says as the senior ATF official in Mexico, it was his job to approve any ATF operation involving Mexico; and he didn't approve this one.

 

 

 

In fact, Gil specifically emailed his staff on Jan. 25, 2010 that no firearms would be allowed to cross into Mexico for a case without his approval. The email also stated that if he ever approved such an operation, he'd make sure the weapons were "stopped on the Mexican side of the border." They'd never be allowed to "walk" or reach the streets.

 

 

 

Gil didn't know it but even as he wrote that email, ATF agents in Phoenix have told CBS News they were already letting traffickers move weapons to Mexican drug cartels without stopping them. The idea was apparently to see where the guns would end up and try to build a big case.

 

 

 

Faced with the flow of guns and the serial number evidence tracing to Phoenix, but locked out of the computer case files, Gil says he repeatedly questioned his supervisor in Washington. He says some of the conversations became screaming and shouting matches. He says he was instructed not to tell his Mexican counterparts about the case. Gil said he inquired, "when is this case gonna shut down? The Mexicans are gonna have a fit when they find out about it." Gil says he also noted "at some point, these guns are gonna end up killing either a government of Mexico official, a police officer or military folks, and then what are we gonna do?"

 

 

 

Gil is the second ATF agent to tell CBS News that he specifically warned of such an outcome. Agent John Dodson says he told his superiors in Phoenix much the same.

 

 

 

"I specifically asked one time, 'are you prepared to go to the funeral of a Border Patrol agent...are you prepared for that fact because it's only a matter of time before that happens," Dodson told CBS News.

 

 

 

That's exactly what happened. Two of the weapons, AK-47 variant assault rifles, were eventually found at the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry last December. Officials are looking into possible connections to the murder of Customs Agent Jaime Zapata in February.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Office of Inspector General, apparently. Not to mention anyone who thinks losing about half the guns that they let walk into the hands of Mexico's drug cartels is irresponsible. Oh, and the Mexican government.

 

They will certainly not get them back now, the operation has been blown.

 

I'm thinking the NRA (a front for the gun manufacturers) wanted to tip their dealers that the ATF is running these stings big-time, and concocted a pile of nonsense about Obama wanting to arm drug lords in order to do that. Issa and Grassley are providing political cover for the NRA's blowing of a LE sting operation.

 

A real concern about ATF incompetence in an on-going covert operation in a foreign country has to be handled on the QT. They are instead deliberately seeking to make it as public as possible. Cui bono?

 

Oh come on Mark. That's about as outlandish as the OP's assertion that Obama and Holder wanted to the guns to end up back here and traced to US arms sales to be able to push through new anit-un legislation. I think Tom is right on this one.... someone in DOJ fucked this royally and some heads need to roll. If that ends up being Holder, I'm ok with that. In fact the more I read, that's where this is headed - whether he really did know about it or not.

 

Someone in the DOJ or ATF - we don't know which, for now.

 

Right now we have nothing but finger pointing. But if bureaucrats are good at anything, it's leaving a paper trail. The truth will come out, one way or another. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the folks who are blabbing right now are engaging in a little preemptive disinformation in an effort to shape the story before the real truth comes out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Office of Inspector General, apparently. Not to mention anyone who thinks losing about half the guns that they let walk into the hands of Mexico's drug cartels is irresponsible. Oh, and the Mexican government.

 

They will certainly not get them back now, the operation has been blown.

 

I'm thinking the NRA (a front for the gun manufacturers) wanted to tip their dealers that the ATF is running these stings big-time, and concocted a pile of nonsense about Obama wanting to arm drug lords in order to do that. Issa and Grassley are providing political cover for the NRA's blowing of a LE sting operation.

 

A real concern about ATF incompetence in an on-going covert operation in a foreign country has to be handled on the QT. They are instead deliberately seeking to make it as public as possible. Cui bono?

 

Oh come on Mark. That's about as outlandish as the OP's assertion that Obama and Holder wanted to the guns to end up back here and traced to US arms sales to be able to push through new anit-un legislation. I think Tom is right on this one.... someone in DOJ fucked this royally and some heads need to roll. If that ends up being Holder, I'm ok with that. In fact the more I read, that's where this is headed - whether he really did know about it or not.

 

When some people break the law, it's the cops that go on trial.

 

I think the ATF were overzealous and a bit naive. Tracing the gun trail won't reveal anything the Mexicans didn't already know, so they were of course uninterested. Busting into OC in a failed state is a dirty business, and the agents that cooked this up are going to suffer.

 

The NRA is succeeded in getting max publicity for a covert operation. That is a fact. The reasons I give are indeed my own speculation. Could be they really believe their own bullshit, but I expect better from Issa and Grassley. They are a bit too eager to jump on this bus for my taste.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... if bureaucrats are good at anything, it's leaving a paper trail. The truth will come out, one way or another.

 

It might even happen soon, but I would not hold my breath. Issa and Grassley's letter of the 16th demands some answers by 5pm on the 30th, which is Wednesday. They have requested information before, and received none. Transparency sucks sometimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The NRA is succeeded in getting max publicity for a covert operation. That is a fact.

 

No, that's what the situation looks like after it has been put through the wild n crazy "NRA = WRONG" spin cycle in your head. Seriously, apart from their sellout on the DISCLOSE Act, have they ever done anything you found acceptable?

 

Was it wrong to expose Ollie North's little covert operation? Sunlight is a good disinfectant.

 

Anyway, anyone who has read the journalist's guide to project gunwalker knows that it was not the NRA, but ATF agents themselves, who first came forward and said this was nonsense and wrong. A few of the less mainstream gun bloggers picked up their story, which the NRA ignored for a couple of months before issuing their typical tepid statement. The only slower mainstream organization when it comes to noticing this scandal was the Washington Post. They're still not sure anything was wrong here. You're not a Post fan by any chance, are you? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The NRA is succeeded in getting max publicity for a covert operation. That is a fact.

 

No, that's what the situation looks like after it has been put through the wild n crazy "NRA = WRONG" spin cycle in your head. Seriously, apart from their sellout on the DISCLOSE Act, have they ever done anything you found acceptable?

 

Was it wrong to expose Ollie North's little covert operation? Sunlight is a good disinfectant.

 

Anyway, anyone who has read the journalist's guide to project gunwalker knows that it was not the NRA, but ATF agents themselves, who first came forward and said this was nonsense and wrong. A few of the less mainstream gun bloggers picked up their story, which the NRA ignored for a couple of months before issuing their typical tepid statement. The only slower mainstream organization when it comes to noticing this scandal was the Washington Post. They're still not sure anything was wrong here. You're not a Post fan by any chance, are you? ;)

 

You buy this shit?

 

# ATF management was allowing potentially hundreds of semiautomatic firearms to be walked across the Mexican border in order to pad statistics used to further budget and power objectives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first part is unquestionably true. Whether the agency was doing it to "pad statistics" is speculation, but there is no question they proudly cited the (essentially meaningless) referrals for prosecutions (many of which never happened) when asking for more money.

 

Agencies point to what they have been up to, point to further problems they could solve, and ask for more money to do it. There's really nothing wrong with that, and trying to use this operation in that way would be perfectly legitimate, if everything about the operation were perfectly legitimate.

 

The fact that Obama and Holder are denying any knowledge should tell you something about whether the operation was legit. Some "field agent" at Justice authorized this, and I suspect Holder knew.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first part is unquestionably true. Whether the agency was doing it to "pad statistics" is speculation, but there is no question they proudly cited the (essentially meaningless) referrals for prosecutions (many of which never happened) when asking for more money.

 

Agencies point to what they have been up to, point to further problems they could solve, and ask for more money to do it. There's really nothing wrong with that, and trying to use this operation in that way would be perfectly legitimate, if everything about the operation were perfectly legitimate.

 

The fact that Obama and Holder are denying any knowledge should tell you something about whether the operation was legit. Some "field agent" at Justice authorized this, and I suspect Holder knew.

 

Is that a yes or a no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

# ATF management was allowing potentially hundreds of semiautomatic firearms to be walked across the Mexican border

 

Yes.

 

in order to pad statistics

 

No, not proven, and even I am not cynical enough to suppose that was the only objective held by everyone involved.

 

used to further budget and power objectives.

 

Yes, that part happened as well, but is not wrong or out of the ordinary in and of itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

# ATF management was allowing potentially hundreds of semiautomatic firearms to be walked across the Mexican border

 

Yes.

 

in order to pad statistics

 

No, not proven, and even I am not cynical enough to suppose that was the only objective held by everyone involved.

 

used to further budget and power objectives.

 

Yes, that part happened as well, but is not wrong or out of the ordinary in and of itself.

 

Nobody is arguing that the guns were not walked across, Tom. The important part is the motive, and I still can't tell where you are on that.

 

If you do not accept the alleged motive in the sentence, then the anwer is "no".

 

If you do accept it, then it is "yes".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assigning a single motive to a bunch of different people, each of whom may have more than one motive, is too limiting. So the answer is no, I do not think "padding statistics" was the motive here.

 

It does look to me like someone wanted a big bust to make political points, and did not mind doing some pretty reckless and foolish things to make that happen. I'm glad we have agents working at ATF who refused to sit by silently and let that happen, glad we have hysterical gun bloggers who will listen to them, and even glad that the NRA and Washington Post finally (more or less) noticed the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assigning a single motive to a bunch of different people, each of whom may have more than one motive, is too limiting. So the answer is no, I do not think "padding statistics" was the motive here.

 

It does look to me like someone wanted a big bust to make political points, and did not mind doing some pretty reckless and foolish things to make that happen. I'm glad we have agents working at ATF who refused to sit by silently and let that happen, glad we have hysterical gun bloggers who will listen to them, and even glad that the NRA and Washington Post finally (more or less) noticed the situation.

 

So then, you do not buy that bullshit. You think somebody made it up. So do I.

 

Why did they decide to ruin their credibility by making unsubstantiated, wildly damning accusations? Why not stick to the facts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'm more concerned with why ATF decided to damage their credibility by denying this operation was doing what we now know it was doing.

 

But then, I'm not a big Washington Post reader. ;)

 

Covert operation, was it not? Or were they supposed to announce they were running stings on foreign drug cartels?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'm more concerned with why ATF decided to damage their credibility by denying this operation was doing what we now know it was doing.

 

But then, I'm not a big Washington Post reader. ;)

 

Covert operation, was it not? Or were they supposed to announce they were running stings on foreign drug cartels?

 

I'm talking about the denials to Congress, after the covert part was over. No one was denying the operation took place, but they sure denied that the stupid parts happened, or were authorized, once they were exposed. Specifically, no one seems to want credit for the bright idea of letting the guns loose in Mexico in the hands of criminals without any way to track them, without informing the Mexican government, and without informing their ATF counterparts in Mexico.

 

Re covert ops, you never did answer my earlier question on that subject: was it wrong to expose Ollie North's covert operation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'm more concerned with why ATF decided to damage their credibility by denying this operation was doing what we now know it was doing.

 

But then, I'm not a big Washington Post reader. ;)

 

Covert operation, was it not? Or were they supposed to announce they were running stings on foreign drug cartels?

 

I'm talking about the denials to Congress, after the covert part was over. No one was denying the operation took place, but they sure denied that the stupid parts happened, or were authorized, once they were exposed. Specifically, no one seems to want credit for the bright idea of letting the guns loose in Mexico in the hands of criminals without any way to track them, without informing the Mexican government, and without informing their ATF counterparts in Mexico.

 

Re covert ops, you never did answer my earlier question on that subject: was it wrong to expose Ollie North's covert operation?

 

Where is the ATF denying that they were trying to do gun traces?

 

Ollie North was not trying to bust OC in a wild-west failed state. Are you are of the opinion that the US government should never run covert ops of any type?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about the denials to Congress, after the covert part was over. No one was denying the operation took place, but they sure denied that the stupid parts happened, or were authorized, once they were exposed. Specifically, no one seems to want credit for the bright idea of letting the guns loose in Mexico in the hands of criminals without any way to track them, without informing the Mexican government, and without informing their ATF counterparts in Mexico.

 

Re covert ops, you never did answer my earlier question on that subject: was it wrong to expose Ollie North's covert operation?

 

Where is the ATF denying that they were trying to do gun traces?

 

Ollie North was not trying to bust OC in a wild-west failed state. Are you are of the opinion that the US government should never run covert ops of any type?

 

"Tracing" guns would involve keeping track of them, something that did not happen. Read Issa and Grassley's letter again.

 

At the same time of the release of the OIG report - and perhaps influenced by it - ATF formalized its policy of letting American guns reach the drug cartels. Field agents vociferously objected, aghast at the prospect of high-caliber weapons being allowed to enter Mexico. Senior Agent John Dodson was one of those agents who came forward to complain that the ATF had allowed guns to be "walked" into Mexico. ATF even videotaped suspected drug cartel suppliers as they loaded AK-47 type assault rifles into their cars and permitted them to transport those firearms across the border. ATF officials failed to report this to Mexican authorities and eventually lost track of hundreds of these guns. Unsurprisingly, these weapons began showing up at crime scenes both in Mexico and the U.S. Notably on December 14, 2010, two "walked" rifles turned up at Agent Terry's murder site.

 

Senator Grassley requested specific documents about this policy but, thus far, has received nothing from ATF or DOJ. In fact, Special Agent In Charge (SAC) William D. Newell has steadfastly denied that this policy even exists, as has DOJ. When confronted by documentary evidence from Senator Grassley's office, however, Attorney General Holder asked the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General to conduct a review.

 

 

He goes on to ask for a bunch of specific communications and documents, to be delivered by about an hour ago. I have not checked to see if they arrived yet, but am not holding my breath. I would not be surprised if the stonewalling continues and we move on to the subpoena phase.

 

Covert operations are not always wrong, nor is revealing them. Outta control stupid ones need revealing so they will be stopped before doing more harm. That was the case here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about the denials to Congress, after the covert part was over. No one was denying the operation took place, but they sure denied that the stupid parts happened, or were authorized, once they were exposed. Specifically, no one seems to want credit for the bright idea of letting the guns loose in Mexico in the hands of criminals without any way to track them, without informing the Mexican government, and without informing their ATF counterparts in Mexico.

 

Re covert ops, you never did answer my earlier question on that subject: was it wrong to expose Ollie North's covert operation?

 

Where is the ATF denying that they were trying to do gun traces?

 

Ollie North was not trying to bust OC in a wild-west failed state. Are you are of the opinion that the US government should never run covert ops of any type?

 

"Tracing" guns would involve keeping track of them, something that did not happen. Read Issa and Grassley's letter again.

 

At the same time of the release of the OIG report - and perhaps influenced by it - ATF formalized its policy of letting American guns reach the drug cartels. Field agents vociferously objected, aghast at the prospect of high-caliber weapons being allowed to enter Mexico. Senior Agent John Dodson was one of those agents who came forward to complain that the ATF had allowed guns to be "walked" into Mexico. ATF even videotaped suspected drug cartel suppliers as they loaded AK-47 type assault rifles into their cars and permitted them to transport those firearms across the border. ATF officials failed to report this to Mexican authorities and eventually lost track of hundreds of these guns. Unsurprisingly, these weapons began showing up at crime scenes both in Mexico and the U.S. Notably on December 14, 2010, two "walked" rifles turned up at Agent Terry's murder site.

 

Senator Grassley requested specific documents about this policy but, thus far, has received nothing from ATF or DOJ. In fact, Special Agent In Charge (SAC) William D. Newell has steadfastly denied that this policy even exists, as has DOJ. When confronted by documentary evidence from Senator Grassley's office, however, Attorney General Holder asked the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General to conduct a review.

 

 

He goes on to ask for a bunch of specific communications and documents, to be delivered by about an hour ago. I have not checked to see if they arrived yet, but am not holding my breath. I would not be surprised if the stonewalling continues and we move on to the subpoena phase.

 

Covert operations are not always wrong, nor is revealing them. Outta control stupid ones need revealing so they will be stopped before doing more harm. That was the case here.

 

The effort to make it as public as possible, and the crafting of bullshit motives against the ATF indicates something. We will have to draw our own conclusions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The motives for letting guns loose in Mexico in criminal hands, with no apparent way to track them, are uncertain and unproven. I suspect idiocy as the main motive.

 

Assigning motives is wrong, and I'm sure you agree it's wrong even when the New York Times does it. ;)

 

Meanwhile, it looks like the information Congress has requested on this operation did not arrive yesterday, and the acting ATF director has cancelled his planned testimony to Congress today.

 

 

The Mexicans are pissed and questions remain, as does the stonewall.

 

Among the outstanding questions: who knew of and approved the Fast and Furious operation, and when? Was a gunwalking strategy deployed in other cases? What was the evidence that caused officials to release two illegal immigrants arrested at the gunning down of Agent Terry? Why has a third been held, but not charged in the murder? If none of the men arrested the night of Agent Terry's murder were responsible, are there any leads as to whoever was? What weapon was used to kill Agent Terry? Where are all the weapons that ATF allegedly let walk into Mexico, but have not been recovered? Of the weapons that have been recovered, in what crimes were they used?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nanny, thats a bit of a stretch even for you and the NRA to accuse the admin of deliberately allowing guns to cross the border for the purpose of them showing up back here to be used in crimes. Its a good conspiracy theory for political blogs, but its blatent supposition as to the intent.

 

However, allowing the guns to cross over knowing they were illegal with no way to keep an eye on them until they reached the bigger fish is just asininely stupid and someone needs to hang for that. And if it turns out to be Holder and/or Obama - I'll tie the knot myself.

 

Looks like Rep Issa and Sen Grassely are not happy and this letter explains the whole deal a lot better than the NRA gobbledy gook.

 

Contrast that letter with Melson's testimony last year. http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2010/03/030410-testimony-atf-dir-melson-fy11-appropriations.html

Well, according to this

Four hundred and ninty-seven cases have charged violations related to the trafficking of an estimated 14,923 firearms. One hundred and fifty-nine of these cases involved gang- related trafficking of over 3,665 firearms. In all investigations, over 6,688 firearms have been seized and are no longer available to violent criminals and gang members.

There are still 10,000 firearms still in circulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'm more concerned with why ATF decided to damage their credibility by denying this operation was doing what we now know it was doing.

 

But then, I'm not a big Washington Post reader. ;)

 

Covert operation, was it not? Or were they supposed to announce they were running stings on foreign drug cartels?

It doesn't take much for a 'sting' to turn into entrapment. As to padding statistics. I'm sure there are those at higher levels in ATF that only see operations through statistical glasses.

 

For an operation like this to be viable, there should be some way to retrieve the guns once the trap is sprung. It would be like putting up the money for a ransom and then not being able to retrieve it after the sting has gone down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I'm more concerned with why ATF decided to damage their credibility by denying this operation was doing what we now know it was doing.

 

But then, I'm not a big Washington Post reader. ;)

 

Covert operation, was it not? Or were they supposed to announce they were running stings on foreign drug cartels?

It doesn't take much for a 'sting' to turn into entrapment. As to padding statistics. I'm sure there are those at higher levels in ATF that only see operations through statistical glasses.

 

For an operation like this to be viable, there should be some way to retrieve the guns once the trap is sprung. It would be like putting up the money for a ransom and then not being able to retrieve it after the sting has gone down.

 

 

Interesting explanation of the Gunwalker Scandal and ATF sting operations.

 

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/03/robert-farago/atf-creates-black-market-for-stolen-guns-and-then-arrests-a-bunch-of-thieves/

 

 

Also from Malkin, how Obama stimulus money funded the operation:

 

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/03/30/project-gunrunner-obamas-stimulus-funded-border-nightmare/

Link to post
Share on other sites

The motives for letting guns loose in Mexico in criminal hands, with no apparent way to track them, are uncertain and unproven. I suspect idiocy as the main motive.

 

Assigning motives is wrong, and I'm sure you agree it's wrong even when the New York Times does it. ;)

 

Meanwhile, it looks like the information Congress has requested on this operation did not arrive yesterday, and the acting ATF director has cancelled his planned testimony to Congress today.

 

 

The Mexicans are pissed and questions remain, as does the stonewall.

 

Among the outstanding questions: who knew of and approved the Fast and Furious operation, and when? Was a gunwalking strategy deployed in other cases? What was the evidence that caused officials to release two illegal immigrants arrested at the gunning down of Agent Terry? Why has a third been held, but not charged in the murder? If none of the men arrested the night of Agent Terry's murder were responsible, are there any leads as to whoever was? What weapon was used to kill Agent Terry? Where are all the weapons that ATF allegedly let walk into Mexico, but have not been recovered? Of the weapons that have been recovered, in what crimes were they used?

 

"The ATF is bad. They must be eliminated, or at least, rendered harmless....."

 

Cui bono?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The motives for letting guns loose in Mexico in criminal hands, with no apparent way to track them, are uncertain and unproven. I suspect idiocy as the main motive.

 

Assigning motives is wrong, and I'm sure you agree it's wrong even when the New York Times does it. ;)

 

Meanwhile, it looks like the information Congress has requested on this operation did not arrive yesterday, and the acting ATF director has cancelled his planned testimony to Congress today.

 

 

The Mexicans are pissed and questions remain, as does the stonewall.

 

Among the outstanding questions: who knew of and approved the Fast and Furious operation, and when? Was a gunwalking strategy deployed in other cases? What was the evidence that caused officials to release two illegal immigrants arrested at the gunning down of Agent Terry? Why has a third been held, but not charged in the murder? If none of the men arrested the night of Agent Terry's murder were responsible, are there any leads as to whoever was? What weapon was used to kill Agent Terry? Where are all the weapons that ATF allegedly let walk into Mexico, but have not been recovered? Of the weapons that have been recovered, in what crimes were they used?

 

"The ATF is bad. They must be eliminated, or at least, rendered harmless....."

 

Cui bono?

Cui Bono? All of us.

 

The BATF was a created to track and tax production of Alcohol (so taxes can be collected), Tobacco (so taxes can be collected) and firearms (for god knows what reason, I suspect to monitor adherence to license regulations for gun dealers).

 

They had no brief to run around starting raids to search private property. We already had federal agencies with that responsibility who could very well do the Law Enforcement vs. monitoring and reporting function which is their real brief.)

 

You may google 'prohibition' and discover that the FBI actually prosecuted the illegal producers and smugglers of alcohol, not the BATF. Incidentally, this is how the DEA should work as well.

 

The BATF pretty much fucks up everything it undertakes on it's own. Waco is a good example.

 

Google 'BATF success', it's amusing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The motives for letting guns loose in Mexico in criminal hands, with no apparent way to track them, are uncertain and unproven. I suspect idiocy as the main motive.

 

Assigning motives is wrong, and I'm sure you agree it's wrong even when the New York Times does it. ;)

 

Meanwhile, it looks like the information Congress has requested on this operation did not arrive yesterday, and the acting ATF director has cancelled his planned testimony to Congress today.

 

 

The Mexicans are pissed and questions remain, as does the stonewall.

 

Among the outstanding questions: who knew of and approved the Fast and Furious operation, and when? Was a gunwalking strategy deployed in other cases? What was the evidence that caused officials to release two illegal immigrants arrested at the gunning down of Agent Terry? Why has a third been held, but not charged in the murder? If none of the men arrested the night of Agent Terry's murder were responsible, are there any leads as to whoever was? What weapon was used to kill Agent Terry? Where are all the weapons that ATF allegedly let walk into Mexico, but have not been recovered? Of the weapons that have been recovered, in what crimes were they used?

 

"The ATF is bad. They must be eliminated, or at least, rendered harmless....."

 

Cui bono?

Cui Bono? All of us.

 

The BATF was a created to track and tax production of Alcohol (so taxes can be collected), Tobacco (so taxes can be collected) and firearms (for god knows what reason, I suspect to monitor adherence to license regulations for gun dealers).

 

 

Also taxes, under the National Firearms Act, predecessor to the 1968 Gun Control Act.

 

I'm not sure how exposing ATF's stupid program will result in eliminating them or rendering them harmless. Seems an odd goal for the ATF agents who reported that this illegal operation was going on, doesn't it?

 

That might explain the quotation marks but no actual source in Mark's post. He made up another motive, which he seemed to think was bad a while ago. I guess it's only bad sometimes.

 

Were the ATF field agents who thought it stupid to send a bunch of straw purchase busts to annoyed prosecutors who just dropped the cases, all while watching thousands of guns moved to the Mexican cartels, really trying to destroy the ATF when they blew the whistle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The motives for letting guns loose in Mexico in criminal hands, with no apparent way to track them, are uncertain and unproven. I suspect idiocy as the main motive.

 

Assigning motives is wrong, and I'm sure you agree it's wrong even when the New York Times does it. ;)

 

Meanwhile, it looks like the information Congress has requested on this operation did not arrive yesterday, and the acting ATF director has cancelled his planned testimony to Congress today.

 

 

The Mexicans are pissed and questions remain, as does the stonewall.

 

Among the outstanding questions: who knew of and approved the Fast and Furious operation, and when? Was a gunwalking strategy deployed in other cases? What was the evidence that caused officials to release two illegal immigrants arrested at the gunning down of Agent Terry? Why has a third been held, but not charged in the murder? If none of the men arrested the night of Agent Terry's murder were responsible, are there any leads as to whoever was? What weapon was used to kill Agent Terry? Where are all the weapons that ATF allegedly let walk into Mexico, but have not been recovered? Of the weapons that have been recovered, in what crimes were they used?

 

"The ATF is bad. They must be eliminated, or at least, rendered harmless....."

 

Cui bono?

Cui Bono? All of us.

 

The BATF was a created to track and tax production of Alcohol (so taxes can be collected), Tobacco (so taxes can be collected) and firearms (for god knows what reason, I suspect to monitor adherence to license regulations for gun dealers).

 

 

Also taxes, under the National Firearms Act, predecessor to the 1968 Gun Control Act.

 

I'm not sure how exposing ATF's stupid program will result in eliminating them or rendering them harmless. Seems an odd goal for the ATF agents who reported that this illegal operation was going on, doesn't it?

 

That might explain the quotation marks but no actual source in Mark's post. He made up another motive, which he seemed to think was bad a while ago. I guess it's only bad sometimes.

 

Were the ATF field agents who thought it stupid to send a bunch of straw purchase busts to annoyed prosecutors who just dropped the cases, all while watching thousands of guns moved to the Mexican cartels, really trying to destroy the ATF when they blew the whistle?

 

I thought we agreed that the ones given for the ATF's decision to embark on a risky operation were bullshit.

 

What motivated them to craft that?

 

Who benefits from the gun trade to Mexico? The manufacturers and the Cartels. That's about it. They would like the ATF as risk adverse as possible. Dragging them in front of Congress will go a long ways towards that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who benefits from the gun trade to Mexico? The manufacturers and the Cartels. That's about it. They would like the ATF as risk adverse as possible. Dragging them in front of Congress will go a long ways towards that.

 

The ATF would seem to be among the beneficiaries. At budget time they were touting the straw buyer busts (that went nowhere) and asking for more money.

 

Why do you suppose the agents who originally broke this story came forward? I think it's because they saw a pointless and risky operation, not to mention an illegal one, going on, and decided to protect the integrity of their agency by blowing the whistle. You like to guess motives. How about theirs?

 

Since then, all that has happened is that people have repeated what they said and asked questions about it. The story spread from gun blogs to more mainstream news sources, and eventually even to the NRA and Congress, finally making it to the Washington Post after a while.

 

Those guys did not tell their story hoping that no one would repeat it. They had to be hoping something like this would happen. Why would they do that? Were they trying to benefit the manufacturers or the cartels?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who benefits from the gun trade to Mexico? The manufacturers and the Cartels. That's about it. They would like the ATF as risk adverse as possible. Dragging them in front of Congress will go a long ways towards that.

 

The ATF would seem to be among the beneficiaries. At budget time they were touting the straw buyer busts (that went nowhere) and asking for more money.

 

Why do you suppose the agents who originally broke this story came forward? I think it's because they saw a pointless and risky operation, not to mention an illegal one, going on, and decided to protect the integrity of their agency by blowing the whistle. You like to guess motives. How about theirs?

 

Since then, all that has happened is that people have repeated what they said and asked questions about it. The story spread from gun blogs to more mainstream news sources, and eventually even to the NRA and Congress, finally making it to the Washington Post after a while.

 

Those guys did not tell their story hoping that no one would repeat it. They had to be hoping something like this would happen. Why would they do that? Were they trying to benefit the manufacturers or the cartels?

 

They saw it as stupid. I think it likely proves-out to the the verdict on it too.

 

There are always going to be ill-conceived attempts to take down criminals in terrible conditions to do so. Why do some people feel the need to attribute terrible goals and nefarious plots to the ATF? They want them to go away, and for them it is best this must not be handled through channels but as publicly as possible. Congressional investigations, no less, for a failed covert attempt at tracking down some bad guys in Mexico. Should have been handled on the QT. There may be informants in there who are put in danger. Happens all the time with responsible congressman.

 

They got approval from DOJ, so if it was illegal, then that is but your opinion. It get's pretty hard to sort out when we deal with crime in a foreign country, as they were tasked to do.

 

I think this will all succeed in producing the most risk-adverse culture in the ATF as can be made to exist. Who benefits from that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who benefits from the gun trade to Mexico? The manufacturers and the Cartels. That's about it. They would like the ATF as risk adverse as possible. Dragging them in front of Congress will go a long ways towards that.

 

The ATF would seem to be among the beneficiaries. At budget time they were touting the straw buyer busts (that went nowhere) and asking for more money.

 

Why do you suppose the agents who originally broke this story came forward? I think it's because they saw a pointless and risky operation, not to mention an illegal one, going on, and decided to protect the integrity of their agency by blowing the whistle. You like to guess motives. How about theirs?

 

Since then, all that has happened is that people have repeated what they said and asked questions about it. The story spread from gun blogs to more mainstream news sources, and eventually even to the NRA and Congress, finally making it to the Washington Post after a while.

 

Those guys did not tell their story hoping that no one would repeat it. They had to be hoping something like this would happen. Why would they do that? Were they trying to benefit the manufacturers or the cartels?

 

They saw it as stupid. I think it likely proves-out to the the verdict on it too.

 

There are always going to be ill-conceived attempts to take down criminals in terrible conditions to do so. Why do some people feel the need to attribute terrible goals and nefarious plots to the ATF? They want them to go away, and for them it is best this must not be handled through channels but as publicly as possible. Congressional investigations, no less, for a failed covert attempt at tracking down some bad guys in Mexico. Should have been handled on the QT. There may be informants in there who are put in danger. Happens all the time with responsible congressman.

 

They got approval from DOJ, so if it was illegal, then that is but your opinion. It get's pretty hard to sort out when we deal with crime in a foreign country, as they were tasked to do.

 

I think this will all succeed in producing the most risk-adverse culture in the ATF as can be made to exist. Who benefits from that?

We do. The BATF should lose the power of arrest and go back to being bean counters and tax collectors. It is just one of the many overlapping LE bureacracies. I went to our local air show last week. There, zipping around on Segways with training wheels were

 

The Charlotte County Sheriffs Dept

The Florida State Police

USAF Air Police

Transportation Safety Agency

Homeland Security

 

Most of them rolling or walking around in their nifty SWAT tactical gear. All this for a little airshow that pulls about 65000 people on a really good day. They didn't even have one of the service jet precision flight teams. Just a private bunch with Czech L39 trainers.

 

The Army, Air National Guard and Civil Air Patrol were there as part of their recruiting and just manning booths.

 

Meanwhile, security at the entrance gate (in a concealed carry state) consisted of airshow volunteers who only looked in big bags. I lifted my camera out of an 8x12x4 inch gadget bag and got waved through.

 

dsc_5052ac107r107.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The motives for letting guns loose in Mexico in criminal hands, with no apparent way to track them, are uncertain and unproven. I suspect idiocy as the main motive.

 

Assigning motives is wrong, and I'm sure you agree it's wrong even when the New York Times does it. ;)

 

Meanwhile, it looks like the information Congress has requested on this operation did not arrive yesterday, and the acting ATF director has cancelled his planned testimony to Congress today.

 

 

The Mexicans are pissed and questions remain, as does the stonewall.

 

Among the outstanding questions: who knew of and approved the Fast and Furious operation, and when? Was a gunwalking strategy deployed in other cases? What was the evidence that caused officials to release two illegal immigrants arrested at the gunning down of Agent Terry? Why has a third been held, but not charged in the murder? If none of the men arrested the night of Agent Terry's murder were responsible, are there any leads as to whoever was? What weapon was used to kill Agent Terry? Where are all the weapons that ATF allegedly let walk into Mexico, but have not been recovered? Of the weapons that have been recovered, in what crimes were they used?

 

"The ATF is bad. They must be eliminated, or at least, rendered harmless....."

 

Cui bono?

Cui Bono? All of us.

 

The BATF was a created to track and tax production of Alcohol (so taxes can be collected), Tobacco (so taxes can be collected) and firearms (for god knows what reason, I suspect to monitor adherence to license regulations for gun dealers).

 

They had no brief to run around starting raids to search private property. We already had federal agencies with that responsibility who could very well do the Law Enforcement vs. monitoring and reporting function which is their real brief.)

 

You may google 'prohibition' and discover that the FBI actually prosecuted the illegal producers and smugglers of alcohol, not the BATF. Incidentally, this is how the DEA should work as well.

 

The BATF pretty much fucks up everything it undertakes on it's own. Waco is a good example.

 

Google 'BATF success', it's amusing.

 

Kind of goes along with the cite I gave earlier. In part,

 

.......Unlike other law enforcement agencies who react to crime and investigate, the ATF goes out and creates crime and then arrests a bunch of people. No really. Since its elevation to federal agency status (a HUGE mistake), the ATF has had more stings than a naked apiculturist. ....

 

The nub of the matter is easy enough to grasp: the ATF will do anything to catch criminals. Including create them. It's a profoundly unconstitutional SOP by an Agency that's happy to ensnare otherwise legal American gun owners in a paperwork trap, BTW. But let's stick with today's nearasdammit perfect example of the ATF run amok.

 

Undercover storefront sting nets over 100 the Department of Justice's press releaseproclaims.

 

A multi-agency law enforcement task force led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Phoenix Police Department, with assistance from the U.S. Marshall's Service, began arresting suspects in the case early last week. Over its duration, the Operation resulted in the seizure of 223 weapons – including handguns, assault rifles, rifles and sawed-off shotguns, many of them stolen.

 

Agents and officers also seized narcotics, including methamphetamine, "crack" and powder cocaine, prescription medications, marijuana and heroin. ATF agents and a detective from Phoenix PD culminated the nine-month investigation in January.

 

The agents operated a secondhand merchandise store dealing in military supplies and used electronics, where they purchased guns and narcotics from individuals who came into the store. As with previous successful ATF investigations in other states, the store was equipped with electronic surveillance equipment to capture all of the transactions.

 

Think about this. A store opens up in a bad part of Phoenix for the express purpose of purchasing stolen weapons (for the ATF) and drugs (for the other agencies). The store lets it be known that they're open for [criminal] business and spreads a ton of cash around. No one gets arrested. And so their "success" snowballs over nine months. The bad guys know there's a thriving market for stolen guns. So what do they do? Steal guns.

 

Now look at this from an Arizona gun owner's point of view. You're sitting in your house with a nice collection of guns. Suddenly, bad shit goes down. A group of very bad people (with a nice new income stream to keep them ungainfully employed) have decided that they want your guns. And by God they're going to take them. Why? So they can sell them to the federal government.

 

News flash: sting operations don't stop crime. The foster it. Although not enough judges are willing to lay down the law in cases where obvious bad guys appear before them thanks to "here run this down the street for me right quick" law enforcement, sting operations are illegal. They lure people into committing crimes.

 

 

http://thetruthabout...nch-of-thieves/

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go Tom, like Nanny proved, the Gun Lobby is out to smear the ATF. Not that they like the Cartels or the slaughter going on in Mexico, it's just that there are some things that are worse....

 

 

 

When some people break the law, it's the cops that go on trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go Tom, like Nanny proved, the Gun Lobby is out to smear the ATF. Not that they like the Cartels or the slaughter going on in Mexico, it's just that there are some things that are worse....

 

 

 

When some people break the law, it's the cops that go on trial.

But, in this case, your 'some people' are the cops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who benefits from the gun trade to Mexico? The manufacturers and the Cartels. That's about it. They would like the ATF as risk adverse as possible. Dragging them in front of Congress will go a long ways towards that.

 

The ATF would seem to be among the beneficiaries. At budget time they were touting the straw buyer busts (that went nowhere) and asking for more money.

 

Why do you suppose the agents who originally broke this story came forward? I think it's because they saw a pointless and risky operation, not to mention an illegal one, going on, and decided to protect the integrity of their agency by blowing the whistle. You like to guess motives. How about theirs?

 

Since then, all that has happened is that people have repeated what they said and asked questions about it. The story spread from gun blogs to more mainstream news sources, and eventually even to the NRA and Congress, finally making it to the Washington Post after a while.

 

Those guys did not tell their story hoping that no one would repeat it. They had to be hoping something like this would happen. Why would they do that? Were they trying to benefit the manufacturers or the cartels?

 

They saw it as stupid. I think it likely proves-out to the the verdict on it too.

 

There are always going to be ill-conceived attempts to take down criminals in terrible conditions to do so. Why do some people feel the need to attribute terrible goals and nefarious plots to the ATF? They want them to go away, and for them it is best this must not be handled through channels but as publicly as possible. Congressional investigations, no less, for a failed covert attempt at tracking down some bad guys in Mexico. Should have been handled on the QT. There may be informants in there who are put in danger. Happens all the time with responsible congressman.

 

They got approval from DOJ, so if it was illegal, then that is but your opinion. It get's pretty hard to sort out when we deal with crime in a foreign country, as they were tasked to do.

 

I think this will all succeed in producing the most risk-adverse culture in the ATF as can be made to exist. Who benefits from that?

 

Why do some people feel the need to attribute terrible goals and nefarious plots to the NRA? They want them to go away.

 

What "channels" were going to take this on before someone made some noise about it? The agents were supposed to go to who, exactly, with this story?

 

They got approval from the DOJ, and if it was legal, we would know from whom, exactly, and Obama and Holder would be standing behind that person. We don't know the person, and they are not.

 

Handling this properly in a foreign country would have involved at the least informing ATF counterparts in that country, if not the government of that country. Neither of those things were done, and the seem to have lost track of most of the guns that went down there, according to the IG report. It's not that tricky.

 

We all benefit if our agencies have an aversion to taking stupid, illegal risks. The prospect of a more cautious ATF does not bother me a bit. The prospect of "handling" this through "channels" who presumably would never tell mere citizens like me what our government was doing wrong does bother me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

They got approval from the DOJ, and if it was legal, we would know from whom, exactly, and Obama and Holder would be standing behind that person. We don't know the person, and they are not.

Maybe not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go Tom, like Nanny proved, the Gun Lobby is out to smear the ATF. Not that they like the Cartels or the slaughter going on in Mexico, it's just that there are some things that are worse....

 

 

 

When some people break the law, it's the cops that go on trial.

But, in this case, your 'some people' are the cops.

 

Assuming, of course, they even get one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go Tom, like Nanny proved, the Gun Lobby is out to smear the ATF. Not that they like the Cartels or the slaughter going on in Mexico, it's just that there are some things that are worse....

 

 

 

When some people break the law, it's the cops that go on trial.

But, in this case, your 'some people' are the cops.

 

Assuming, of course, they even get one...

The border guard didn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go Tom, like Nanny proved, the Gun Lobby is out to smear the ATF. Not that they like the Cartels or the slaughter going on in Mexico, it's just that there are some things that are worse....

 

 

 

When some people break the law, it's the cops that go on trial.

But, in this case, your 'some people' are the cops.

 

Assuming, of course, they even get one...

The border guard didn't.

 

Are you suggesting that guns kill people?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, in this case, your 'some people' are the cops.

 

Assuming, of course, they even get one...

The border guard didn't.

 

Are you suggesting that guns kill people?

No, incompetent bureacracies kill people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, I'm a bit surprised at your angle here. You usually are bIt more level-headed when it comes to this stuff. I personally think your theory that the NRA is attempting to smear the BATF to support the gun makers as well as make the ATF "go away" is about as foolish as the original assertion that Obama and holder deliberately sent those guns across the border so a BP agent would get shot with a US traced gun so they could have ammunition (pun intended) to take away ALL guns.

 

I think it was a monumental cockup and the lower level ATF agents blew the whistle when it was obvious we were going to lose control of these weapons. I think the NRA has a legitimate beef to bang the drum on here because regardless if Obama and holder conspired to have the guns show up back here or not - it ws obvious that was going to happen and had happened, so therefore it was in the interest of protecting citizens gun rights to expose this cock up for what it was..... Lest the usual MSM suspects latch onto a story about how many US guns are being used by Mexican cartels because of our lax gun laws. Again regardless of whether it was obama that walked the guns across or just monumental stupidity - the end result would have been that people would be clamoring to "shut down the (non-existant) flow of weapons to Mexico". I think that's a legit case for the NRA to trumpet rather than the theory that they are only doing it to protect the manufacturers and bring down the ATF.

 

 

I don't think the NRA rightfully has a dog in this fight myself. This is between the ATF and the Mexican cartels. One has to believe the crazy theory that it was being done deliberately to get tighter gun laws. They don't have anything to do with the drug war in Mexico. Not even Tom is buying that one.

 

I think there are very legitimate reasons to wonder about what they are trying to do by sticking their noses into this, a gun sting in Mexico, and making it as public as possible. Even getting congressional investigations going on it. They have some interest here, and maybe they are stupid enough to believe their own bullshit, but I doubt it. They do very definitely have a financial interest though. The manufacturers are making big money selling guns to that war.

 

Look, the manufacturers are in the business of selling guns, and the ATF is their natural enemy. It's not silly to think they would take advantage of this opportunity, and it's pretty obvious that they can only do that if they pretend that this sting was designed to take-r-guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the NRA rightfully has a dog in this fight myself.

 

A year ago you did:

 

Cutting off the flow of arms to the Cartels could get pretty gol-derned draconian for a spell. The NRA has to be on board for that to happen. Only they can give Blue Dogs and rational Republicans the political cover they would need on this.

 

You never did say what kinds of draconian things the NRA should agree to on behalf of gun owners, but somehow I see them having a dog in that fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, I'm a bit surprised at your angle here. You usually are bIt more level-headed when it comes to this stuff. I personally think your theory that the NRA is attempting to smear the BATF to support the gun makers as well as make the ATF "go away" is about as foolish as the original assertion that Obama and holder deliberately sent those guns across the border so a BP agent would get shot with a US traced gun so they could have ammunition (pun intended) to take away ALL guns.

 

I think it was a monumental cockup and the lower level ATF agents blew the whistle when it was obvious we were going to lose control of these weapons. I think the NRA has a legitimate beef to bang the drum on here because regardless if Obama and holder conspired to have the guns show up back here or not - it ws obvious that was going to happen and had happened, so therefore it was in the interest of protecting citizens gun rights to expose this cock up for what it was..... Lest the usual MSM suspects latch onto a story about how many US guns are being used by Mexican cartels because of our lax gun laws. Again regardless of whether it was obama that walked the guns across or just monumental stupidity - the end result would have been that people would be clamoring to "shut down the (non-existant) flow of weapons to Mexico". I think that's a legit case for the NRA to trumpet rather than the theory that they are only doing it to protect the manufacturers and bring down the ATF.

 

 

I don't think the NRA rightfully has a dog in this fight myself. This is between the ATF and the Mexican cartels. One has to believe the crazy theory that it was being done deliberately to get tighter gun laws. They don't have anything to do with the drug war in Mexico. Not even Tom is buying that one.

 

I think there are very legitimate reasons to wonder about what they are trying to do by sticking their noses into this, a gun sting in Mexico, and making it as public as possible. Even getting congressional investigations going on it. They have some interest here, and maybe they are stupid enough to believe their own bullshit, but I doubt it. They do very definitely have a financial interest though. The manufacturers are making big money selling guns to that war.

 

Look, the manufacturers are in the business of selling guns, and the ATF is their natural enemy. It's not silly to think they would take advantage of this opportunity, and it's pretty obvious that they can only do that if they pretend that this sting was designed to take-r-guns.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns (and the BATF will be selling the guns to them).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some practical questions about this whole mess that perhaps some of you with in-depth knowledge of laws surrounding gun purchases can help me sort out.

 

As I understand it, a "straw purchaser" is by definition someone who can pass the background check and legally buy firearms.

 

So let's say, for example, the ATF suspects that "Mr. Jones," a US citizen, is a straw purchaser of firearms for some drug cartel in Mexico. He buys a heck of a lot of guns and he seems to travel to Mexico frequently. That's all they've got on him.

 

Can the ATF order a gun dealer not to sell guns to this guy? Can the ATF arrest this guy when he walks out of a gun shop with a shopping cart full of firearms? Is that what the NRA wants the ATF to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A straw purchaser is an otherwise legal buyer who is buying for someone else. That's a crime. I'm not supposed to buy a gun for my wife, who is another concealed weapons permit holder and I'm pretty darn sure could buy her own guns.

 

I don't know the answer to your first question. They actually did rather the opposite in this case, allegedly. The dealers called the ATF saying something fishy was going on and were told to proceed with the sales. Dealers can refuse to sell if they think you are a straw purchaser.

 

The answer to 2 is almost certainly no. To make it stick, it would be helpful to have videotape of the guns actually crossing the border, which might explain why they have some of that. The problem is, no one in Mexico knew they were coming, and there was no way to track them once across, as far as I can tell. So they have great evidence against a straw purchaser, considered a fairly minor crime by federal prosecutors, but nothing after that. That is why the IG report linked earlier references prosecutors dropping the cases.

 

It seems like someone forgot to assemble the rest of the operation: the part that was to take place below the border. I don't know what the NRA wants, but it seems to me that right after the videotape shows the guns going across the border, it should show authorities on the other side moving in for the bust. From what I can tell, the Mexicans would prefer that the actual bust take place on our side, had anyone asked them. I think they have a stronger case against a straw purchaser who actually carries guns across the border than against one who carries them up to the border. Buying guns and carrying them to the border, while suspicious behavior, is probably not a crime.

 

As I have mentioned several times, actual firearms enthusiasts at places like The Firing Line know a lot more than I do about these laws. A few dealers have actually chimed in on the thread about this situation over there. They actually know the law. I know what I seem to remember them saying, but I don't go to prison for ten years if I screw up, so may not be quite as careful about learning all details and staying up to date.

 

The update today is that Chairman Issa has issued the subpoenas he promised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, I'm a bit surprised at your angle here. You usually are bIt more level-headed when it comes to this stuff. I personally think your theory that the NRA is attempting to smear the BATF to support the gun makers as well as make the ATF "go away" is about as foolish as the original assertion that Obama and holder deliberately sent those guns across the border so a BP agent would get shot with a US traced gun so they could have ammunition (pun intended) to take away ALL guns.

 

I think it was a monumental cockup and the lower level ATF agents blew the whistle when it was obvious we were going to lose control of these weapons. I think the NRA has a legitimate beef to bang the drum on here because regardless if Obama and holder conspired to have the guns show up back here or not - it ws obvious that was going to happen and had happened, so therefore it was in the interest of protecting citizens gun rights to expose this cock up for what it was..... Lest the usual MSM suspects latch onto a story about how many US guns are being used by Mexican cartels because of our lax gun laws. Again regardless of whether it was obama that walked the guns across or just monumental stupidity - the end result would have been that people would be clamoring to "shut down the (non-existant) flow of weapons to Mexico". I think that's a legit case for the NRA to trumpet rather than the theory that they are only doing it to protect the manufacturers and bring down the ATF.

 

 

I don't think the NRA rightfully has a dog in this fight myself. This is between the ATF and the Mexican cartels. One has to believe the crazy theory that it was being done deliberately to get tighter gun laws. They don't have anything to do with the drug war in Mexico. Not even Tom is buying that one.

 

I think there are very legitimate reasons to wonder about what they are trying to do by sticking their noses into this, a gun sting in Mexico, and making it as public as possible. Even getting congressional investigations going on it. They have some interest here, and maybe they are stupid enough to believe their own bullshit, but I doubt it. They do very definitely have a financial interest though. The manufacturers are making big money selling guns to that war.

 

Look, the manufacturers are in the business of selling guns, and the ATF is their natural enemy. It's not silly to think they would take advantage of this opportunity, and it's pretty obvious that they can only do that if they pretend that this sting was designed to take-r-guns.

Mark, you completely missed my point. If it was just a sting op in the Mexican drug war, you'd have a case to make. What I'm trying to say is that the fact that these US guns that were walked across the border are showing up in crimes in both Mexico and the US, regardless of the original intent, WILL be used as ammo to bring up more gun restrictions. THAT ALONE, IMHO, is enough for the NRA to weigh in and shed some light on WHY these US guns are showing up. Because the reality is that if the ATF did their job and prevented these guns from crossing the border in the 1st place, we wouldn't be talking about it now.

 

Sting op, but against who, and to discover what? The Army and police down there are, in many places, as crooked as a dogs hind leg.

 

"If it was just a sting op.....?"

What else is it besides a sting op in the Mexican drug war?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the NRA rightfully has a dog in this fight myself.

 

A year ago you did:

 

Cutting off the flow of arms to the Cartels could get pretty gol-derned draconian for a spell. The NRA has to be on board for that to happen. Only they can give Blue Dogs and rational Republicans the political cover they would need on this.

 

You never did say what kinds of draconian things the NRA should agree to on behalf of gun owners, but somehow I see them having a dog in that fight.

 

This whole deal is proving that I was right. The NRA is in the process of NOT being on board. Now watch them restrict the efforts of the ATF, and quite effectively.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The NRA is in the process of NOT being on board.

 

Good for them!

 

Now and then I do agree with those compromising weenies over at the NRA, and not being on board with this operation or with covering it up seems right to me. Really, I don't know how anyone could read the Inspector General's report and still be on board with this operation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The NRA is in the process of NOT being on board.

 

Good for them!

 

Now and then I do agree with those compromising weenies over at the NRA, and not being on board with this operation or with covering it up seems right to me. Really, I don't know how anyone could read the Inspector General's report and still be on board with this operation.

 

Well, it won't make a heck of a lot of difference in how things shake out in Mexico anyway. I think the Mexicans were trying to let the ATF know that, actually, reading the government report. They were "uninterested".

Link to post
Share on other sites
The NRA is in the process of NOT being on board.

 

Good for them!

 

Now and then I do agree with those compromising weenies over at the NRA, and not being on board with this operation or with covering it up seems right to me. Really, I don't know how anyone could read the Inspector General's report and still be on board with this operation.

 

Well, it won't make a heck of a lot of difference in how things shake out in Mexico anyway. I think the Mexicans were trying to let the ATF know that, actually, reading the government report. They were "uninterested".

 

I did not see that word used. Are you talking about where the IG report says:

 

...Mexican law enforcement officials view gun tracing as merely a tool that ATF uses to further its own investigations.

 

Seems they can hardly be blamed under the circumstances...

Link to post
Share on other sites