[Merged] House Leaders Urged to hold Holder in Contempt of Congress/Fast &Furious, Exec Priv - Page 2

wastepanel · 20th June 2012, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

I have little doubt that if this were not an election year, we'd be hearing very little about this situation.

From 2005 (a non election year):

http://m.comedycentral.com/tds_video...x.rbml&cid=300

logger · 20th June 2012, 06:06 PM

In responce to mattus

I don't know how in the hell you can say that, many people died cause of this. Its going to be so much worse than anything before. You libs always take it to the next level.

Its fun to watch you liberal critical thinkers going down with the ship.

I hope he fails, remember that.

jj · 20th June 2012, 06:08 PM

It's all about starting the impeachment process two weeks before the election, you know.

jj · 20th June 2012, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by logger

In responce to mattus

I don't know how in the hell you can say that, many people died cause of this. Its going to be so much worse than anything before. You libs always take it to the next level.

Its fun to watch you liberal critical thinkers going down with the ship.

I hope he fails, remember that.

Let's see, a bunch of people died due to a policy established during the 'W' administration, and now it's "liberal critical thinkers" who are to blame?

I would suggest that your statement is very seriously divorced from even the most remote similarity to reality.

logger · 20th June 2012, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by jj

It's all about starting the impeachment process two weeks before the election, you know.

I hope the gop does not do that. Let him lose gracefully

MattusMaximus · 20th June 2012, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by wastepanel

From 2005 (a non election year):

http://m.comedycentral.com/tds_video...x.rbml&cid=300

Ah yes, because it's clear that Jon Stewart speaks for Congress

Who exactly in Congress was making noise about this back in 2005?

MattusMaximus · 20th June 2012, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

How can Obama assert executive privilege if there is no White House involvement?

Because the White House oversees the DOJ, perhaps? Seriously, I'm just guessing, but I'm no constitutional lawyer. Anyone got a better answer?

MattusMaximus · 20th June 2012, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by AlexW

That's my congressman, I'm so proud.

MattusMaximus · 20th June 2012, 06:28 PM

Btw, there seem to be at least two threads on this same topic. Mods, could we get a merge?

BStrong · 20th June 2012, 06:46 PM

Having dealt with ATF as an officer and a licensee, I can't help but look at the jurisdictional area involved and remember how many bad ideas come out of the southwest district of ATF.

Holder may well know more than has been revealed, but I'm willing to bet that this whole deal had more to do with enthusiastic administrators at the local office level selling a half baked idea up the coc, and the individuals that had the authority to stop this abortion before it started weren't paying attention - same as it ever was with some of these administrators.

I want to see the whole ugly business brought into the light, and after just watching certain demo politicos play the "it's just politics" card, I'd love to see these same pols tell that to Brian Terry's family.

BStrong · 20th June 2012, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Because the White House oversees the DOJ, perhaps? Seriously, I'm just guessing, but I'm no constitutional lawyer. Anyone got a better answer?

Unless the President has privleged communication with Holder wrt F & F, I don't see how he can claim EP.

casebro · 20th June 2012, 06:53 PM

Let me stir up the partisanship here: Didn;t I just read that the Gun Walking program started under Bush?

crimresearch · 20th June 2012, 07:14 PM

[Welcome back, my friends
to the show that never ends.
We're so glad you could attend!
Come inside! Come inside!

Juniversal · 20th June 2012, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Muldur

LInk

I say it's about time. Operation Fast and Furious resulted in the death of a Border Patrol agent and has gunstore owners running scared. Holder, as the man ultimately responsible for all DoJ activities, has done nothing but block all attempts at investigating this scandal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious

The gunstore owners were only doing what they were told to do by DoJ, yet the gun smuggling into Mexico continues to be flogged by anti-gun nuts as a reason for even stricter gun controls..

Tell the truth, government...tell the truth, anti-gun nuts...it was the gunstore owners who outed this after repeatedly trying to warn DoJ, only to be pressured into continuing the sales. The store owners are blameless in this, and it's no reason to take away even more 2nd Amendment rights.

It's a stretch to say that Fast and Furious caused the death of the border patrol agent. He was killed by violent thugs trying to rob illegal immigrants. Not to marginalize the event but I surmise they would've been armed with or without guns from Fast & Furious.

Regardless, if any lessons are to be learned from Fast and Furious it's not that gun laws should be stricter, it's that operations like Fast and Furious shouldn't happen.

C_Felix · 20th June 2012, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Welcome back, my friends
to the show that never ends.
We're so glad you could attend!
Come inside! Come inside!

Meet the new boss...
Same as the old boss!

BenBurch · 20th June 2012, 07:34 PM

As I understood this program, the idea was like using tagged fish to survey the number of fish in a lake. You put in say, 100 fish. Then you go fishing. If you catch two tagged fish and ten untagged fish, you can infer that there are 600 fish in the lake.

The rational was that the cartels were routinely getting weapons from gun shows, so you were not going to be giving them anything extra, and by injecting a certain number of guns, you could look at captures and estimate the size of the force.

Then if you are forced to order an invasion of Mexico, you know exactly how many Marines to send. Not an unlikely scenario right now.

And this would be why executive privilege. That is very sensitive information, and could become valueless if exposed. Also, we without a doubt are already conducting operations there, and the exposure could result in loss of those assets.

MattusMaximus · 20th June 2012, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

Let me stir up the partisanship here: Didn;t I just read that the Gun Walking program started under Bush?

From what I've read, yes (unless I'm missing something). But I don't recall anyone in Congress making noise about this then.

As I said in the other thread, my guess is that were this not an election year, we'd be hearing nary a peep about this affair.

maxpower1227 · 20th June 2012, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2786384536.jpg

No, he's a Senator.

BStrong · 20th June 2012, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

Let me stir up the partisanship here: Didn;t I just read that the Gun Walking program started under Bush?

I believe you're correct, but I don't know the extent of the op under Bush.

BStrong · 20th June 2012, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

From what I've read, yes (unless I'm missing something). But I don't recall anyone in Congress making noise about this then.

As I said in the other thread, my guess is that were this not an election year, we'd be hearing nary a peep about this affair.

Absent Brian Terry's murder, you might be right.

Anyone want to assert that an ATF op that runs a gun to a criminal operation that is later used to murder a federal LEO isn't a serious issue?

Puppycow · 20th June 2012, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

It's either that, or the government was intentionally allowing guns to walk over the border, without tracking them in Mexico, without notifying the Mexican authorities, in order to accomplish the legitimate goal of "_______".

Lemmie know if you can fill in that blank. Yes, I know there's an excluded middle of EXTREME incompetence, but I have an equally hard time believing that was the case. In previous years, law enforcement rarely ever allowed guns to walk, and then only when it was closely monitored.

Well you could read the Wiki article on it, which was posted in the OP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious

Quote:

The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, in theory leading to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels.[8][9]

Quote:

ATF "gunwalking" operations were, in part, a response to longstanding criticism of the bureau for focusing on relatively minor gun violations while failing to target high-level gun smuggling figures.[18]

crimresearch · 20th June 2012, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Unless the President has privleged communication with Holder wrt F & F, I don't see how he can claim EP.

Executive privilege is a process privilege. It can be used for, but isn't limited to Presidential communications.

R.Mackey · 20th June 2012, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Juniversal

It's a stretch to say that Fast and Furious caused the death of the border patrol agent. He was killed by violent thugs trying to rob illegal immigrants. Not to marginalize the event but I surmise they would've been armed with or without guns from Fast & Furious.

Regardless, if any lessons are to be learned from Fast and Furious it's not that gun laws should be stricter, it's that operations like Fast and Furious shouldn't happen.

Bingo. I don't care if W started it or not, bottom line is this is sloppy government and needs to be corrected. The White House is not helping.

Originally Posted by BenBurch

The rational was that the cartels were routinely getting weapons from gun shows, so you were not going to be giving them anything extra, and by injecting a certain number of guns, you could look at captures and estimate the size of the force.

Then if you are forced to order an invasion of Mexico, you know exactly how many Marines to send. Not an unlikely scenario right now.

And this would be why executive privilege. That is very sensitive information, and could become valueless if exposed. Also, we without a doubt are already conducting operations there, and the exposure could result in loss of those assets.

No way are we sending Marines to invade Mexico. This is totally daft.

Somehow we manage to estimate the size of other armed forces -- the ones that we actually might face someday -- without this kind of hare-brained "tagging" procedure. Unless you think we ordered gun stores to sell a couple of radio-labelled T-72 tanks to the WP...

You are reeeeally reaching to justify this. Again, I think it was well-intended, just incredibly stupid. Those responsible need to be kept far, far away from sharp objects ever again. And I say this as someone who is not in the tank for the GOP in any way, shape, or form.

bynmdsue · 20th June 2012, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

Let me stir up the partisanship here: Didn;t I just read that the Gun Walking program started under Bush?

Yes, with a few small differences. In the Bush era "Wide Receiver" program, the weapons were actually to be tracked with RFIDs but you know how those wascally gun smugglers are, they outsmarted the Bureau, but that's what they do for a living. Also the Mexican government knew about that operation.

Then there's this...

Quote:

In a second major retraction over its version of the the gun-walking scandal, the Justice Department has retracted Attorney General Eric Holder's charge in a hearing last week that his Bush administration predecessor had been briefed on the affair.http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder...rticle/2500157

As for it being an election year, this has been going on for a couple of years, the president can thank his AG for stalling on into an election year.

BStrong · 20th June 2012, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Executive privilege is a process privilege. It can be used for, but isn't limited to Presidential communications.

Ah, now I get it.

I've got to get my own self some of that.

crimresearch · 20th June 2012, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Ah, now I get it.

I've got to get my own self some of that.

Go down to the crossroads at midnight, with a sharp quill pen and a copy of A Message for Garcia.

A man who looks like Al Sharpton will appear on the last stroke, and offer you a contract...

crimresearch · 20th June 2012, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by bynmdsue

Yes, with a few small differences. In the Bush era "Wide Receiver" program, the weapons were actually to be tracked with RFIDs but you know how those wascally gun smugglers are, they outsmarted the Bureau, but that's what they do for a living. Also the Mexican government knew about that operation.

Then there's this...

As for it being an election year, this has been going on for a couple of years, the president can thank his AG for stalling on into an election year.

Love the new 'do.

Ranb · 20th June 2012, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Juniversal

It's a stretch to say that Fast and Furious caused the death of the border patrol agent. He was killed by violent thugs trying to rob illegal immigrants. Not to marginalize the event but I surmise they would've been armed with or without guns from Fast & Furious.

Some people think that placing more restrictions on the sale of firearms in the USA or in the states near the border will reduce crime in Mexico. Others are of the opinion that Mexico will obtain firearms from other sources if they are not getting them from the States therefore making additional restrictions useless.

But then we have the BATFE telling dealers to allow straw purchases of firearms to they can allegedly track them across the border. I have no idea how they are supposed to be doing this when they do not seem to be able to track/prevent other legally sold firearms as they cross the border.

Ranb

jj · 20th June 2012, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by logger

I hope the gop does not do that. Let him lose gracefully

If he loses, we're in the hands of religious fascists. Good luck with that.

Why else do you think that there are so many lies, frauds, and deliberate misreprestations of events put forth? This is the chance for the religious right to get a 100 year lock on the USA and destroy us in exactly the same way radical islam destroyed the Arabic and Moorish civilizations.

stevea · 20th June 2012, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by jj

Let's see, a bunch of people died due to a policy established during the 'W' administration, and now it's "liberal critical thinkers" who are to blame?

I would suggest that your statement is very seriously divorced from even the most remote similarity to reality.

I would suggest you consider the facts and stop substituting your political bias for evidence.

Bush justice dept was not involved or aware of F&F despite Holders several (er um) lies.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder...rticle/2500157

The similar seeming 'Wide Receiver' program was in cooperation with Mexico to catch the low level buyers, however it seems that most of ~450 weapons sold did find their way to Mexico and that Mexican authorities were very ineffective at tracking the buyers even with considerable intel (co-option is suspected). That program was shut down due to these problems.

F&F intended to use similar tactics to crack the larger networks, not the small fry, and allowed the flow of over 2000 weapons to mexican drug cartels. Only stopped when a whistleblower spoke up the chain of command eventually to Grassley of the judiciary committee. There was no attempt to interdict the movement of arms and no co-operation w/ Mexico, that reportedly violates ATF policy and certainly Mexican law.

So there are similarities, but the two aren't equal. In one we did not violate law and from an ethical POV had reasonable expectations of the guns being recaptured. In he other we aided the violation of Mexican law, ATF policy and had no expectation of recapturing the weapons. With 20-20 hindsight it went from dumb to much dumber,

===

Is it political - yes of course. Harriet Meiers & Joshua Bolten was political too. That doesn't mean the cases have no validity - it means they are pursued with a more vigor and bias.

Holder has lied under oath (or else doesn't read his documents and is of dubious competence). Yes Wide Receiver has a mess, but F&F was technically a crime and a much bigger mess - repeating the same error with some of the same ATF personnel. Major F'up and deserves an investigation.

Holder turned over ~1k pages of 7600 requested if I read correctly. It's no wonder the committee smells smoke and expects to find fire. I can understand using executive privilege to protect internal policy discussions, but it smells like they are trying to avoid a legitimate criminal investigation. I'm willing to wait and see, but it looks bad.

My guess is Obama drops Holder under the bus before election time, but only after the House has chewed on him for a while.

Caper · 20th June 2012, 11:27 PM

I don't know much of the back ground on the issue. I do know I read that Obama had a big problem with executive privilege when Bush used it... and now he is.... But I don't really care.... what politician isn't going to contradict himself?

Puppycow · 20th June 2012, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by applecorped

The vote came after Obama escalated the conflict

Nice touch!

Juniversal · 21st June 2012, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

As I understood this program, the idea was like using tagged fish to survey the number of fish in a lake. You put in say, 100 fish. Then you go fishing. If you catch two tagged fish and ten untagged fish, you can infer that there are 600 fish in the lake.

The rational was that the cartels were routinely getting weapons from gun shows, so you were not going to be giving them anything extra, and by injecting a certain number of guns, you could look at captures and estimate the size of the force.

Then if you are forced to order an invasion of Mexico, you know exactly how many Marines to send. Not an unlikely scenario right now.

And this would be why executive privilege. That is very sensitive information, and could become valueless if exposed. Also, we without a doubt are already conducting operations there, and the exposure could result in loss of those assets.

Not quite. The idea was that the straw purchasers would sell to the small buyers/foot soldiers who would eventually place the guns in the hands of the big time purchasers (i.e. at the top of the purchasing hierarchy) with the most power, influence and likely the most money, disturbing the purchasing network and infrastructure once they were detained.

Problem is they didn't intercept the guns once they allowed them to walk and they lost many of them. It seems the Phoenix ATF concocted the gunwalking scheme and the overall plot of the operations but the DOJ is being implicated for it's seeming awareness and cooperation with the ATF.

I'm not necessarily convinced it made the cartels much more capable or even more violent (i'm sure most had arsenals that would make the U.S. military blush prior to these operations) but i'm certain it was a complete and utter failure and did more harm then good by in essence aiding and abetting their violence.

wastepanel · 21st June 2012, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Ah yes, because it's clear that Jon Stewart speaks for Congress

Who exactly in Congress was making noise about this back in 2005?

The difference between now and then is that executive privilege was claimed after the stonewall was already happening.

In 2005, executive privilege was claimed immediately.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/wa...6contempt.html

bynmdsue · 21st June 2012, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Love the new 'do.

Weird, itn't it? Hard to tell exactly where one begins and the other ends.

bynmdsue · 21st June 2012, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Caper

I don't know much of the back ground on the issue. I do know I read that Obama had a big problem with executive privilege when Bush used it... and now he is.... But I don't really care.... what politician isn't going to contradict himself?

None of them. A fellow will say all sorts of things to get elected, but what's the point of getting the job if you can't play with all the toys?

But it's kinda bad to do this now when not long ago (Nov. '11 maybe) he was saying he didn't know nothin' about nothin'.

Newtons Bit · 21st June 2012, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by casebro

Let me stir up the partisanship here: Didn;t I just read that the Gun Walking program started under Bush?

Indeed. There was some serious differences, however. The program under Bush allowed about a dozen guns to walk across the border. And in that case, the Mexician authorities were notified when the guns were crossing the border. The review by the agency decided that this was unacceptable and shut it down. Here's Issa's comment on the previous program:

Quote:

In contrast to Operation Fast and Furious, where Mexican authorities were deliberately kept in the dark, this operation was conducted in coordination with Mexican authorities and when supervisors discovered problems that resulted in the loss of a dozen weapons they moved to shut down the effort,” Issa communications director Frederick Hill said. “The committee continues to press the Justice Department for information about this and other operations.

bynmdsue · 21st June 2012, 06:47 AM

Let's say that along with the economy, negative world opinion and rainy days that make your brown eyes blue, that this is all Bush's fault. Why are Holder and Obama protecting him?

Puppycow · 21st June 2012, 08:26 AM

Video: Rachel Maddow Deconstructs the ‘Fast and Furious’ Fake Outrage

rcfieldz · 21st June 2012, 08:39 AM

Can we expect to see 50 caliber holes in the fence?

20th June 2012, 05:58 PM	#41
wastepanel Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 574	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus I have little doubt that if this were not an election year, we'd be hearing very little about this situation. From 2005 (a non election year): http://m.comedycentral.com/tds_video...x.rbml&cid=300
wastepanel Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 574

20th June 2012, 06:06 PM	#42
logger Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 285	In responce to mattus I don't know how in the hell you can say that, many people died cause of this. Its going to be so much worse than anything before. You libs always take it to the next level. Its fun to watch you liberal critical thinkers going down with the ship. I hope he fails, remember that.
logger Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 285	Last edited by logger; 20th June 2012 at 06:08 PM.

20th June 2012, 06:08 PM	#43
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,491	It's all about starting the impeachment process two weeks before the election, you know.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

20th June 2012, 06:09 PM	#44
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,491	Originally Posted by logger In responce to mattus I don't know how in the hell you can say that, many people died cause of this. Its going to be so much worse than anything before. You libs always take it to the next level. Its fun to watch you liberal critical thinkers going down with the ship. I hope he fails, remember that. Let's see, a bunch of people died due to a policy established during the 'W' administration, and now it's "liberal critical thinkers" who are to blame? I would suggest that your statement is very seriously divorced from even the most remote similarity to reality.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

20th June 2012, 06:10 PM	#45
logger Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 285	Originally Posted by jj It's all about starting the impeachment process two weeks before the election, you know. I hope the gop does not do that. Let him lose gracefully
logger Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 285

20th June 2012, 06:18 PM	#46
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by wastepanel From 2005 (a non election year): http://m.comedycentral.com/tds_video...x.rbml&cid=300 Ah yes, because it's clear that Jon Stewart speaks for Congress Who exactly in Congress was making noise about this back in 2005?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

20th June 2012, 06:25 PM	#47
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by applecorped How can Obama assert executive privilege if there is no White House involvement? Because the White House oversees the DOJ, perhaps? Seriously, I'm just guessing, but I'm no constitutional lawyer. Anyone got a better answer?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

20th June 2012, 06:27 PM	#48
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by AlexW That's my congressman, I'm so proud.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

20th June 2012, 06:28 PM	#49
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Btw, there seem to be at least two threads on this same topic. Mods, could we get a merge?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

20th June 2012, 06:46 PM	#50
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,797	Having dealt with ATF as an officer and a licensee, I can't help but look at the jurisdictional area involved and remember how many bad ideas come out of the southwest district of ATF. Holder may well know more than has been revealed, but I'm willing to bet that this whole deal had more to do with enthusiastic administrators at the local office level selling a half baked idea up the coc, and the individuals that had the authority to stop this abortion before it started weren't paying attention - same as it ever was with some of these administrators. I want to see the whole ugly business brought into the light, and after just watching certain demo politicos play the "it's just politics" card, I'd love to see these same pols tell that to Brian Terry's family.

20th June 2012, 06:48 PM	#51
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,797	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Because the White House oversees the DOJ, perhaps? Seriously, I'm just guessing, but I'm no constitutional lawyer. Anyone got a better answer? Unless the President has privleged communication with Holder wrt F & F, I don't see how he can claim EP.

20th June 2012, 06:53 PM	#52
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,787	Let me stir up the partisanship here: Didn;t I just read that the Gun Walking program started under Bush?
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,787	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

20th June 2012, 07:14 PM	#53
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	[Welcome back, my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend! Come inside! Come inside!
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

20th June 2012, 07:24 PM	#54
Juniversal CIA + FBI + NWO Employee Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Cincinnati, USA Posts: 1,845	Originally Posted by Muldur LInk I say it's about time. Operation Fast and Furious resulted in the death of a Border Patrol agent and has gunstore owners running scared. Holder, as the man ultimately responsible for all DoJ activities, has done nothing but block all attempts at investigating this scandal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious The gunstore owners were only doing what they were told to do by DoJ, yet the gun smuggling into Mexico continues to be flogged by anti-gun nuts as a reason for even stricter gun controls.. Tell the truth, government...tell the truth, anti-gun nuts...it was the gunstore owners who outed this after repeatedly trying to warn DoJ, only to be pressured into continuing the sales. The store owners are blameless in this, and it's no reason to take away even more 2nd Amendment rights. It's a stretch to say that Fast and Furious caused the death of the border patrol agent. He was killed by violent thugs trying to rob illegal immigrants. Not to marginalize the event but I surmise they would've been armed with or without guns from Fast & Furious. Regardless, if any lessons are to be learned from Fast and Furious it's not that gun laws should be stricter, it's that operations like Fast and Furious shouldn't happen.
	__________________ "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." - Neil deGrasse Tyson Last edited by Juniversal; 20th June 2012 at 07:30 PM.

20th June 2012, 07:33 PM	#55
C_Felix Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Right outside Raleigh, NC Posts: 1,041	Originally Posted by crimresearch Welcome back, my friends to the show that never ends. We're so glad you could attend! Come inside! Come inside! Meet the new boss... Same as the old boss!
	__________________ No, his mind is not for rent To any god or government. Always hopeful, yet discontent, He knows changes aren't permanent, But change is.

20th June 2012, 07:34 PM	#56
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,091	As I understood this program, the idea was like using tagged fish to survey the number of fish in a lake. You put in say, 100 fish. Then you go fishing. If you catch two tagged fish and ten untagged fish, you can infer that there are 600 fish in the lake. The rational was that the cartels were routinely getting weapons from gun shows, so you were not going to be giving them anything extra, and by injecting a certain number of guns, you could look at captures and estimate the size of the force. Then if you are forced to order an invasion of Mexico, you know exactly how many Marines to send. Not an unlikely scenario right now. And this would be why executive privilege. That is very sensitive information, and could become valueless if exposed. Also, we without a doubt are already conducting operations there, and the exposure could result in loss of those assets.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

20th June 2012, 07:37 PM	#57
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by casebro Let me stir up the partisanship here: Didn;t I just read that the Gun Walking program started under Bush? From what I've read, yes (unless I'm missing something). But I don't recall anyone in Congress making noise about this then. As I said in the other thread, my guess is that were this not an election year, we'd be hearing nary a peep about this affair.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

20th June 2012, 07:58 PM	#58
maxpower1227 Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,015	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...2786384536.jpg No, he's a Senator.
	__________________ Warning. If you don't want to see your treasured "evidence" completely pwned in public, don't show it to the posters at JREF. - Rolfe

20th June 2012, 08:15 PM	#59
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,797	Originally Posted by casebro Let me stir up the partisanship here: Didn;t I just read that the Gun Walking program started under Bush? I believe you're correct, but I don't know the extent of the op under Bush.

20th June 2012, 08:19 PM	#60
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,797	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus From what I've read, yes (unless I'm missing something). But I don't recall anyone in Congress making noise about this then. As I said in the other thread, my guess is that were this not an election year, we'd be hearing nary a peep about this affair. Absent Brian Terry's murder, you might be right. Anyone want to assert that an ATF op that runs a gun to a criminal operation that is later used to murder a federal LEO isn't a serious issue?

20th June 2012, 08:20 PM	#61
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,714	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit It's either that, or the government was intentionally allowing guns to walk over the border, without tracking them in Mexico, without notifying the Mexican authorities, in order to accomplish the legitimate goal of "_______". Lemmie know if you can fill in that blank. Yes, I know there's an excluded middle of EXTREME incompetence, but I have an equally hard time believing that was the case. In previous years, law enforcement rarely ever allowed guns to walk, and then only when it was closely monitored. Well you could read the Wiki article on it, which was posted in the OP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious Quote: The stated goal of allowing these purchases was to continue to track the firearms as they were transferred to higher-level traffickers and key figures in Mexican cartels, in theory leading to their arrests and the dismantling of the cartels.[8][9] Quote: ATF "gunwalking" operations were, in part, a response to longstanding criticism of the bureau for focusing on relatively minor gun violations while failing to target high-level gun smuggling figures.[18]
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

20th June 2012, 08:21 PM	#62
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by BStrong Unless the President has privleged communication with Holder wrt F & F, I don't see how he can claim EP. Executive privilege is a process privilege. It can be used for, but isn't limited to Presidential communications.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

20th June 2012, 08:24 PM	#63
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by Juniversal It's a stretch to say that Fast and Furious caused the death of the border patrol agent. He was killed by violent thugs trying to rob illegal immigrants. Not to marginalize the event but I surmise they would've been armed with or without guns from Fast & Furious. Regardless, if any lessons are to be learned from Fast and Furious it's not that gun laws should be stricter, it's that operations like Fast and Furious shouldn't happen. Bingo. I don't care if W started it or not, bottom line is this is sloppy government and needs to be corrected. The White House is not helping. Originally Posted by BenBurch The rational was that the cartels were routinely getting weapons from gun shows, so you were not going to be giving them anything extra, and by injecting a certain number of guns, you could look at captures and estimate the size of the force. Then if you are forced to order an invasion of Mexico, you know exactly how many Marines to send. Not an unlikely scenario right now. And this would be why executive privilege. That is very sensitive information, and could become valueless if exposed. Also, we without a doubt are already conducting operations there, and the exposure could result in loss of those assets. No way are we sending Marines to invade Mexico. This is totally daft. Somehow we manage to estimate the size of other armed forces -- the ones that we actually might face someday -- without this kind of hare-brained "tagging" procedure. Unless you think we ordered gun stores to sell a couple of radio-labelled T-72 tanks to the WP... You are reeeeally reaching to justify this. Again, I think it was well-intended, just incredibly stupid. Those responsible need to be kept far, far away from sharp objects ever again. And I say this as someone who is not in the tank for the GOP in any way, shape, or form.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

20th June 2012, 08:57 PM	#64
bynmdsue Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,385	Originally Posted by casebro Let me stir up the partisanship here: Didn;t I just read that the Gun Walking program started under Bush? Yes, with a few small differences. In the Bush era "Wide Receiver" program, the weapons were actually to be tracked with RFIDs but you know how those wascally gun smugglers are, they outsmarted the Bureau, but that's what they do for a living. Also the Mexican government knew about that operation. Then there's this... Quote: In a second major retraction over its version of the the gun-walking scandal, the Justice Department has retracted Attorney General Eric Holder's charge in a hearing last week that his Bush administration predecessor had been briefed on the affair.http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder...rticle/2500157 As for it being an election year, this has been going on for a couple of years, the president can thank his AG for stalling on into an election year.

20th June 2012, 09:25 PM	#65
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,797	Originally Posted by crimresearch Executive privilege is a process privilege. It can be used for, but isn't limited to Presidential communications. Ah, now I get it. I've got to get my own self some of that.

20th June 2012, 09:30 PM	#66
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by BStrong Ah, now I get it. I've got to get my own self some of that. Go down to the crossroads at midnight, with a sharp quill pen and a copy of A Message for Garcia. A man who looks like Al Sharpton will appear on the last stroke, and offer you a contract...
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

20th June 2012, 09:31 PM	#67
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by bynmdsue Yes, with a few small differences. In the Bush era "Wide Receiver" program, the weapons were actually to be tracked with RFIDs but you know how those wascally gun smugglers are, they outsmarted the Bureau, but that's what they do for a living. Also the Mexican government knew about that operation. Then there's this... As for it being an election year, this has been going on for a couple of years, the president can thank his AG for stalling on into an election year. Love the new 'do.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

20th June 2012, 10:04 PM	#68
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,096	Originally Posted by Juniversal It's a stretch to say that Fast and Furious caused the death of the border patrol agent. He was killed by violent thugs trying to rob illegal immigrants. Not to marginalize the event but I surmise they would've been armed with or without guns from Fast & Furious. Some people think that placing more restrictions on the sale of firearms in the USA or in the states near the border will reduce crime in Mexico. Others are of the opinion that Mexico will obtain firearms from other sources if they are not getting them from the States therefore making additional restrictions useless. But then we have the BATFE telling dealers to allow straw purchases of firearms to they can allegedly track them across the border. I have no idea how they are supposed to be doing this when they do not seem to be able to track/prevent other legally sold firearms as they cross the border. Ranb

20th June 2012, 10:25 PM	#69
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,491	Originally Posted by logger I hope the gop does not do that. Let him lose gracefully If he loses, we're in the hands of religious fascists. Good luck with that. Why else do you think that there are so many lies, frauds, and deliberate misreprestations of events put forth? This is the chance for the religious right to get a 100 year lock on the USA and destroy us in exactly the same way radical islam destroyed the Arabic and Moorish civilizations.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

20th June 2012, 11:16 PM	#70
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,117	Originally Posted by jj Let's see, a bunch of people died due to a policy established during the 'W' administration, and now it's "liberal critical thinkers" who are to blame? I would suggest that your statement is very seriously divorced from even the most remote similarity to reality. I would suggest you consider the facts and stop substituting your political bias for evidence. Bush justice dept was not involved or aware of F&F despite Holders several (er um) lies. http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder...rticle/2500157 The similar seeming 'Wide Receiver' program was in cooperation with Mexico to catch the low level buyers, however it seems that most of ~450 weapons sold did find their way to Mexico and that Mexican authorities were very ineffective at tracking the buyers even with considerable intel (co-option is suspected). That program was shut down due to these problems. F&F intended to use similar tactics to crack the larger networks, not the small fry, and allowed the flow of over 2000 weapons to mexican drug cartels. Only stopped when a whistleblower spoke up the chain of command eventually to Grassley of the judiciary committee. There was no attempt to interdict the movement of arms and no co-operation w/ Mexico, that reportedly violates ATF policy and certainly Mexican law. So there are similarities, but the two aren't equal. In one we did not violate law and from an ethical POV had reasonable expectations of the guns being recaptured. In he other we aided the violation of Mexican law, ATF policy and had no expectation of recapturing the weapons. With 20-20 hindsight it went from dumb to much dumber, === Is it political - yes of course. Harriet Meiers & Joshua Bolten was political too. That doesn't mean the cases have no validity - it means they are pursued with a more vigor and bias. Holder has lied under oath (or else doesn't read his documents and is of dubious competence). Yes Wide Receiver has a mess, but F&F was technically a crime and a much bigger mess - repeating the same error with some of the same ATF personnel. Major F'up and deserves an investigation. Holder turned over ~1k pages of 7600 requested if I read correctly. It's no wonder the committee smells smoke and expects to find fire. I can understand using executive privilege to protect internal policy discussions, but it smells like they are trying to avoid a legitimate criminal investigation. I'm willing to wait and see, but it looks bad. My guess is Obama drops Holder under the bus before election time, but only after the House has chewed on him for a while.
stevea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,117

20th June 2012, 11:27 PM	#71
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	I don't know much of the back ground on the issue. I do know I read that Obama had a big problem with executive privilege when Bush used it... and now he is.... But I don't really care.... what politician isn't going to contradict himself?
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

20th June 2012, 11:28 PM	#72
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,714	Originally Posted by applecorped The vote came after Obama escalated the conflict Nice touch!
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

21st June 2012, 03:13 AM	#73
Juniversal CIA + FBI + NWO Employee Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Cincinnati, USA Posts: 1,845	Originally Posted by BenBurch As I understood this program, the idea was like using tagged fish to survey the number of fish in a lake. You put in say, 100 fish. Then you go fishing. If you catch two tagged fish and ten untagged fish, you can infer that there are 600 fish in the lake. The rational was that the cartels were routinely getting weapons from gun shows, so you were not going to be giving them anything extra, and by injecting a certain number of guns, you could look at captures and estimate the size of the force. Then if you are forced to order an invasion of Mexico, you know exactly how many Marines to send. Not an unlikely scenario right now. And this would be why executive privilege. That is very sensitive information, and could become valueless if exposed. Also, we without a doubt are already conducting operations there, and the exposure could result in loss of those assets. Not quite. The idea was that the straw purchasers would sell to the small buyers/foot soldiers who would eventually place the guns in the hands of the big time purchasers (i.e. at the top of the purchasing hierarchy) with the most power, influence and likely the most money, disturbing the purchasing network and infrastructure once they were detained. Problem is they didn't intercept the guns once they allowed them to walk and they lost many of them. It seems the Phoenix ATF concocted the gunwalking scheme and the overall plot of the operations but the DOJ is being implicated for it's seeming awareness and cooperation with the ATF. I'm not necessarily convinced it made the cartels much more capable or even more violent (i'm sure most had arsenals that would make the U.S. military blush prior to these operations) but i'm certain it was a complete and utter failure and did more harm then good by in essence aiding and abetting their violence.
	__________________ "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

21st June 2012, 04:54 AM	#74
wastepanel Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 574	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Ah yes, because it's clear that Jon Stewart speaks for Congress Who exactly in Congress was making noise about this back in 2005? The difference between now and then is that executive privilege was claimed after the stonewall was already happening. In 2005, executive privilege was claimed immediately. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/wa...6contempt.html
wastepanel Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 574

21st June 2012, 06:16 AM	#75
bynmdsue Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,385	Originally Posted by crimresearch Love the new 'do. Weird, itn't it? Hard to tell exactly where one begins and the other ends.