Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   House committee moves forward with Fast & Furious 6 starring Eric Holder. This time fewer cars, more guns   (cbsnews.com) divider line 395
    More: Spiffy, Furious, House committees, house oversight committee, contempt, committees, socialist country  
•       •       •

1558 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2012 at 10:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



395 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-11 07:54:52 PM  

HeadLever:

Per bugontherug: The underlined portion of your response indicates affirmatively that yes, you believe the notion that Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation.

The underlined portion was a sentence from a link providing information per his own request and was not of my own construct. It had nothing to do with my beliefs on the matter. No matter how hard you stuf straw into that suit, it does not mean that I belive that "Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation".


You did not write these words: "No clue. He was either being disingenious or had no clue. Maybe even a combination of both. In any case, when you see him justifying potential gun control legislation because of an 'crisis' his own DOJ is actively participating in, red flags tend to go up."?

You are now claiming that you did NOT write these words? Because they were not from a link, in your original post at "2012-06-11 02:39:54 PM" which is what he was referring to.
 
2012-06-11 07:55:38 PM  

Nobodyn0se: And yet you've said over and over and over how you believe it was plausible.


Again for the 4th time, believing something to be plausible is not believing in something to be true.
 
2012-06-11 07:57:25 PM  

HeadLever: Nobodyn0se: And yet you've said over and over and over how you believe it was plausible.

Again for the 4th time, believing something to be plausible is not believing in something to be true.


And nobody is making the assumption that you believe it to be true. Everything he said is STILL ACCURATE even if you just believe it to be plausible.
 
2012-06-11 07:58:28 PM  

Nobodyn0se: You are now claiming that you did NOT write these words? Because they were not from a link, in your original post at "2012-06-11 02:39:54 PM" which is what he was referring to.


I wrote them. Your point?
 
2012-06-11 07:59:24 PM  

bugontherug: redmid17: bugontherug: HeadLever: As I have already pointed out to you, it was not controversial at all until they started to let guns walk across the border. This practice did not start with Bush but with Obama

By the way, this is flagrantly false. Gunwalking began under Bush, with "Operation Wide Receiver."

Link

The first known ATF "gunwalking" operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007.

Wide Receiver interdicted the guns before they crossed the border.

No, it didn't:

The first known ATF "gunwalking" operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007. Licensed dealer Mike Detty informed the ATF of a suspicious gun purchase that took place in February 2006 in Tucson, Arizona. In March he was hired as a confidential informant working with the ATF's Tucson office, part of their Phoenix, Arizona field division.[23] With the use of surveillance equipment, ATF agents monitored additional sales by Detty to straw purchasers. With assurance from ATF "that Mexican officials would be conducting surveillance or interdictions when guns got to the other side of the border",[24]

The distinction you're looking for, but are too steeped in right wing propaganda to make, isn't that Wide Receiver interdicted guns before they crossed the border. It's that there was close cooperation with Mexican law enforcement. Fast and Furious involved no such close cooperation.

Now, if only we could figure out some plausible reason why, after one gunwalking operation targeting wealthy, powerful cartels failed, producing no prosecutions, the ATF would avoid notifying Mexican officials for the next gunwalking operation... It's a huge mystery.


Both were colossally dumb. One assumed Mexican law enforcement agencies were not already overrun by cartels even though it was well known this was the case, the other attempted to correct that flaw with no mechanism to track the weapons.

Both were criminally stupid. Not sure either was actually criminal.

There's no real reason to suspect F&F was a ruse designed to provide an excuse to reinstate the so-called AWB, if people in the US gave a shiat about dead Mexicans, we'd knock the drug war off. If there was any hope of bringing back gun control to the national dialogue, one should expect the shooting of a sitting congresswoman, a federal judge and several innocent bystanders to do it. Yet, despite that incident, the laws haven't changed and I can still by drum magazines for the AK.
 
2012-06-11 08:01:20 PM  

HeadLever: Nobodyn0se: You are now claiming that you did NOT write these words? Because they were not from a link, in your original post at "2012-06-11 02:39:54 PM" which is what he was referring to.

I wrote them. Your point?


That this:

HeadLever: The underlined portion was a sentence from a link providing information per his own request and was not of my own construct. It had nothing to do with my beliefs on the matter.


is a blatant lie, and here's proof:


bugontherug: Here is your response:

No clue. He was either being disingenious or had no clue. Maybe even a combination of both. In any case, when you see him justifying potential gun control legislation because of an 'crisis' his own DOJ is actively participating in, red flags tend to go up.

The underlined portion of your response indicates affirmatively that yes, you believe the notion that Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation. When you said "red flags," you were referring to "red flags" indicating a possible conspiracy.


HeadLever: I wrote them. Your point?

 
2012-06-11 08:01:26 PM  

Nobodyn0se: And nobody is making the assumption that you believe it to be true.


BZZT wrong:

per bugontherug, "The underlined portion of your response indicates affirmatively that yes, you believe the notion that Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation."
 
2012-06-11 08:03:18 PM  
Oh shiat. I just realized I made a major fark up.

My bad Headlever. I apologize. I was wrong. I was mixing up two separate quotes.
 
2012-06-11 08:04:26 PM  
Yikes. I am done with aruging semantics for someone who was not even a part of the origional discussion. On to other things.
 
2012-06-11 08:05:00 PM  

HeadLever: Nobodyn0se: And nobody is making the assumption that you believe it to be true.

BZZT wrong:

per bugontherug, "The underlined portion of your response indicates affirmatively that yes, you believe the notion that Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation."


Yes, that conclusion is correct based on the fact that you believe it to be plausible and the other things you have said in this thread, accompanied by the "evidence" you used to "prove" your point.

So yes, every conclusion made about you in this thread is still accurate even if you only think it's plausible.
 
2012-06-11 08:05:59 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Oh shiat. I just realized I made a major fark up.

My bad Headlever. I apologize. I was wrong. I was mixing up two separate quotes.


Lol, let's just chalk this up to one of the farking stupid arguments that should have never even started.

:)
 
2012-06-11 08:07:39 PM  

HeadLever: Nobodyn0se: Oh shiat. I just realized I made a major fark up.

My bad Headlever. I apologize. I was wrong. I was mixing up two separate quotes.

Lol, let's just chalk this up to one of the farking stupid arguments that should have never even started.

:)


Oh, I just meant wrong about this part:

Nobodyn0se: HeadLever: Nobodyn0se: You are now claiming that you did NOT write these words? Because they were not from a link, in your original post at "2012-06-11 02:39:54 PM" which is what he was referring to.

I wrote them. Your point?

That this: HeadLever: The underlined portion was a sentence from a link providing information per his own request and was not of my own construct. It had nothing to do with my beliefs on the matter.

is a blatant lie, and here's proof:


bugontherug: Here is your response:

No clue. He was either being disingenious or had no clue. Maybe even a combination of both. In any case, when you see him justifying potential gun control legislation because of an 'crisis' his own DOJ is actively participating in, red flags tend to go up.

The underlined portion of your response indicates affirmatively that yes, you believe the notion that Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation. When you said "red flags," you were referring to "red flags" indicating a possible conspiracy.

HeadLever: I wrote them. Your point?




I still believe bugontherug is right about you thinking the conspiracy theory is plausible, and all of the associated conclusions he made based on that belief.
 
2012-06-11 08:12:23 PM  

Fark It: Where is the scandal? If you or I did something like this we would be facing lengthy terms in federal prison.


Which is a completely useless standard, because law enforcement operatives frequently violate the law in the course of undercover operations. If you or I trafficked heroine across state lines and were video taped doing it we'd spend time in federal prison, while DEA agents set up these types of stings all the time. This despite the fact that any time you put these known criminals into such a stressful situation you are endangering any bystanders who happen to be in the area, similarly to the situation in F&F. If you're not fundamentally opposed to those DEA stings you have no reasonable argument to oppose F&F style operations.
 
2012-06-11 08:20:45 PM  

actualhuman: Fark It: Where is the scandal? If you or I did something like this we would be facing lengthy terms in federal prison.

Which is a completely useless standard, because law enforcement operatives frequently violate the law in the course of undercover operations. If you or I trafficked heroine across state lines and were video taped doing it we'd spend time in federal prison, while DEA agents set up these types of stings all the time. This despite the fact that any time you put these known criminals into such a stressful situation you are endangering any bystanders who happen to be in the area, similarly to the situation in F&F. If you're not fundamentally opposed to those DEA stings you have no reasonable argument to oppose F&F style operations.


Very good point.
 
2012-06-11 08:29:16 PM  

BillCo: dr_blasto: If DOJ has turned over tens of thousands of documents and Holder has appeared some 8 times, what is the committee still expecting? What is contempt for?

I ask, only because it seems they are mad that DOJ didn't turn over documents that specifically say Holder personally handed guns to Mexican drug lords. What if nothing more is actually there?

So, they named the person at DOJ who was ultimately responsible for this? I must have missed that. What was his name again?


This. Until they say exactly who authorized letting guns cross the border they didn't give enough info.

I don't see how I am not voting for Obama in the next election, but this is a huge farking black mark, and anyone who thinks it is ok that they did this and is fine with them not passing on exactly who authorized should stop following politics and just vote Dem the rest of your life.
 
2012-06-11 08:30:09 PM  
Specifically, I'm saying that this:

HeadLever: bugontherug: Are you insinuating Holder hatched Fast and Furious to create a false impression of gun smuggling across the border with Mexico so he could justify re-enacting the assault weapons ban?

No clue. He was either being disingenious or had no clue. Maybe even a combination of both. That being said, records indicate he knew of the F&F program.

In any case, when you see him justifying potential gun control legislation because of an 'crisis' his own DOJ is actively participating in, red flags tend to go up.
As a genuine inquirey of the 'other side', what is your take Holder's apparent misstep?



And this:


HeadLever: bugontherug: that Holder used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation, and

Here you go: Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.


that records show Holder knew of the specifics of the Fast and Furious operation.

Link

Regarding the details, I have two words - plausible deniability. Only he knows how much he knew and at which date. Since he has a knack of denying knowing anything until he gets caught, I would not take any of his statements very seriously. I fact, it is on this point everyone is trying to ascertain but are being mostly blocked by the DOJ at every turn. Hence the contempt charges.



justifies this:


bugontherug: 1) that Holder used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation, and

On this point, I feel I've satisfactorily exposed you as an insane conspiracy theorist. Fast and Furious was a law enforcement operation using a controversial tactic developed under the Bush administration that went awry. Not a plot by Holder to take away yer guns.

2) that records show Holder knew of the specifics of the Fast and Furious operation.

On this point, you've produced no evidence Holder knew about Fast and Furious timely enough or with enough specificity to be responsible for it.

But I got other things to do, so I gotta go now.



and this:


bugontherug: So I asked again whether or not Holder had ever used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation. This time, you answered with a link. Here is what you said:

Here you go. Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

In the strictest sense, this is non-responsive to the question I had at that point asked you twice, suggesting that you, not me, have the problem with reading comprehension.

But given your post about "red flags"--indicating that you believed the notion that Holder had fabricated Fast and Furious to justify gun control plausible, this answer was most reasonably understood as an affirmative response. "Yes, he used Fast and Furious to justify gun control legislation, and here is the link proving it."

 
2012-06-11 08:33:59 PM  

liam76:

This. Until they say exactly who authorized letting guns cross the border they didn't give enough info.

I don't see how I am not voting for Obama in the next election, but this is a huge farking black mark, and anyone who thinks it is ok that they did this and is fine with them not passing on exactly who authorized should stop following politics and just vote Dem the rest of your life.


So does this mean you will be able to tell me how the world would have been better off if the F&F thing hadn't happened? Because nobody else has been able to yet.....
 
2012-06-11 08:35:53 PM  

actualhuman: Fark It: Where is the scandal? If you or I did something like this we would be facing lengthy terms in federal prison.

Which is a completely useless standard, because law enforcement operatives frequently violate the law in the course of undercover operations. If you or I trafficked heroine across state lines and were video taped doing it we'd spend time in federal prison, while DEA agents set up these types of stings all the time. This despite the fact that any time you put these known criminals into such a stressful situation you are endangering any bystanders who happen to be in the area, similarly to the situation in F&F. If you're not fundamentally opposed to those DEA stings you have no reasonable argument to oppose F&F style operations.


If "those type of DEA stings" are the norm for the DEA then not only should they not be allowed, but the DEA should be disbanded.

But as colossally stupid as F&F and how bad it makes the DEA look I don't think all their stings are that dumb.

In F&F they had virtually no way to track the guns. There is no way a half-way intelligent and honest person could argue there was any conceivable way this would help them catch more than a tiny fraction of the people using the gun in Mexico.
 
2012-06-11 08:37:17 PM  

liam76:
In F&F they had virtually no way to track the guns. There is no way a half-way intelligent and honest person could argue there was any conceivable way this would help them catch more than a tiny fraction of the people using the gun in Mexico.


Is a "tiny fraction" improvement better than no improvement?
 
2012-06-11 08:39:09 PM  

liam76: BillCo: dr_blasto: If DOJ has turned over tens of thousands of documents and Holder has appeared some 8 times, what is the committee still expecting? What is contempt for?

I ask, only because it seems they are mad that DOJ didn't turn over documents that specifically say Holder personally handed guns to Mexican drug lords. What if nothing more is actually there?

So, they named the person at DOJ who was ultimately responsible for this? I must have missed that. What was his name again?

This. Until they say exactly who authorized letting guns cross the border they didn't give enough info.

I don't see how I am not voting for Obama in the next election, but this is a huge farking black mark, and anyone who thinks it is ok that they did this and is fine with them not passing on exactly who authorized should stop following politics and just vote Dem the rest of your life.


Two people, one of whom was the USA were identified upthread.
 
2012-06-11 08:41:12 PM  

liam76: In F&F they had virtually no way to track the guns.


As opposed before, when they had absolutely no way to track the guns.

/Perhaps the reason people on drugs are winning the war on drugs is because you idjits who want to be 'tough on crime' are too farking stupid to be effective at it. The guy selling tenths on the corner is not a goddamn criminal mastermind.
 
2012-06-11 08:42:04 PM  

Nobodyn0se: liam76:

This. Until they say exactly who authorized letting guns cross the border they didn't give enough info.

I don't see how I am not voting for Obama in the next election, but this is a huge farking black mark, and anyone who thinks it is ok that they did this and is fine with them not passing on exactly who authorized should stop following politics and just vote Dem the rest of your life.

So does this mean you will be able to tell me how the world would have been better off if the F&F thing hadn't happened? Because nobody else has been able to yet.....


Unless you believe more weapons in the hands of mexican criminals is a good thing it should be pretty easy to see why this was a bad thing.

Do I need to break it down for you more?

Guns in the hands of mexican criminals is bad. They use them to break the law and kill people. Ignoring the law breaking angle (that we usually want law enforcement to, you know, enforce) it makes it easier for mexican criminals to commit more crimes.
 
2012-06-11 08:42:48 PM  
completing that thought: ...and the guy actually handling any individual illegal weapon is incidental to the organization which traffics in them.
 
2012-06-11 08:44:53 PM  

liam76:

Unless you believe more weapons in the hands of mexican criminals is a good thing it should be pretty easy to see why this was a bad thing.

Do I need to break it down for you more?

Guns in the hands of mexican criminals is bad. They use them to break the law and kill people. Ignoring the law breaking angle (that we usually want law enforcement to, you know, enforce) it makes it easier for mexican criminals to commit more crimes.


If you think the US government is the only source the cartels can use for guns, you're naive. If you think it's NOT the only source they have for guns, then the amount of law breaking and death after F&F is going to be the same as the amount of law breaking and death without F&F.

How is getting shot by a gun given to the cartels by the US government worse than being shot by a gun the cartels got in another way?

I can't think of a single way in which one is any worse than the other.
 
2012-06-11 08:46:21 PM  

LasersHurt: ... even if not "true," you really believe it's even PLAUSIBLE that this was to push for gun control?



Since crime in Mexico due to American guns crossing the border was referenced when discussing further gun control laws, the answer is astoundingly, yes.
 
2012-06-11 08:49:41 PM  

Rich Cream: LasersHurt: ... even if not "true," you really believe it's even PLAUSIBLE that this was to push for gun control?


Since crime in Mexico due to American guns crossing the border was referenced when discussing further gun control laws, the answer is astoundingly, yes.


I must have missed the part of reality where ANYONE tried to actually legislate any new restrictions on guns. Or is talking about it also bad?
 
2012-06-11 08:50:57 PM  

Nobodyn0se: liam76:
In F&F they had virtually no way to track the guns. There is no way a half-way intelligent and honest person could argue there was any conceivable way this would help them catch more than a tiny fraction of the people using the gun in Mexico.

Is a "tiny fraction" improvement better than no improvement?


Well first off I may have overstated the "tiny fraction" as they didn't catch anyone, did they?

And no I don't think a "tiny fraction" (that in reality is 0%) is worth the lives of people who were killed with those guns.

actualhuman: liam76: In F&F they had virtually no way to track the guns.

As opposed before, when they had absolutely no way to track the guns.


Operation "wide reciever" relied on Mexican officials" and while stupid, did eventually lead to arrests.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#2006.E2.80.932007 : _Operation_Wide_Receiver_and_other_probes

With the use of surveillance equipment, ATF agents monitored additional sales by Detty to straw purchasers. With assurance from ATF "that Mexican officials would be conducting surveillance or interdictions when guns got to the other side of the border",

As of October 4, 2011, nine people had been charged with making false statements in acquisition of firearms and illicit transfer, shipment or delivery of firearms.


So while dumb it did lead to arrests and had at least a chance of success, not so for fast and furious.

/Perhaps the reason people on drugs are winning the war on drugs is because you idjits who want to be 'tough on crime' are too farking stupid to be effective at it. The guy selling tenths on the corner is not a goddamn criminal mastermind.

You do know Obama is not only going with the "tough on crime" idits, but taking it a step futher with his version of fast and furious. And make no mistake, until heads roll for it, it is his mistake because he isn't punishing those behind it.
 
2012-06-11 08:52:34 PM  

LasersHurt: I must have missed the part of reality where ANYONE tried to actually legislate any new restrictions on guns. Or is talking about it also bad?



When the same people who "discuss needed controls due to increased crime in Mexico" are the same ones creating it? yes.

/legislated? not just asked requested, recommended or suggested? oh I see. goals something something
 
2012-06-11 09:00:12 PM  

Nobodyn0se: liam76:

Unless you believe more weapons in the hands of mexican criminals is a good thing it should be pretty easy to see why this was a bad thing.

Do I need to break it down for you more?

Guns in the hands of mexican criminals is bad. They use them to break the law and kill people. Ignoring the law breaking angle (that we usually want law enforcement to, you know, enforce) it makes it easier for mexican criminals to commit more crimes.

If you think the US government is the only source the cartels can use for guns, you're naive.


Where did I say the "only source"? In fact the bolded portion above shows pretty clearly I don't think that? So for you to imply that was what I meant is either dishonest or stupid.


If you think it's NOT the only source they have for guns, then the amount of law breaking and death after F&F is going to be the same as the amount of law breaking and death without F&F.


Using that logic if it is possible for criminals to get guns in a city, the city should just go ahead and sell them to any criminal, beacuse if the city is not the only source they have for guns, then the amount of law breaking and death after the city sells guns will remain the same. See how your statement makes no sense?

How is getting shot by a gun given to the cartels by the US government worse than being shot by a gun the cartels got in another way?

I can't think of a single way in which one is any worse than the other.


Because without that gun you don't know if the crime would have happened. Providing those guns directly contributed to the murder of a US citizen and an unknown number of Mexicans.
 
2012-06-11 09:11:23 PM  

Rich Cream: LasersHurt: I must have missed the part of reality where ANYONE tried to actually legislate any new restrictions on guns. Or is talking about it also bad?


When the same people who "discuss needed controls due to increased crime in Mexico" are the same ones creating it? yes.

/legislated? not just asked requested, recommended or suggested? oh I see. goals something something


Sorry for setting the goalposts at "something actually happening."
 
2012-06-11 09:12:16 PM  

Fark It: coeyagi: inner ted: EyeballKid: BillCo: So, who was ultimately responsible for this? Until they decide to throw someone under the bus, I can only assume that Holder himself and quite possibly Obama were in on this from the beginning.

So, guilty until proven innocent? My, but you are a learned student of the law!

vs. your (& other crying sobbing libs here in farkland) take that seems to say "meh... no big whoop.. and besides Bu.. B... BUSH!!!"

lulz.

Well, on the scale of 1 to 4000, 4000 being the approximate number of unncessary military deaths in Iraq caused by the 43rd President George Walker B-b-b-bush, this would seem to be on the lesser side comparatively, but I would say let the facts decide the case. But thanks for summarizing, falsely, the sentiment of the liberal voice here.

Moral relativism.
Blaming the other guy.
Non-sequitur.

It's amazing, partisan lemmings sound exactly the same no matter what side of the aisle they're on.


I see you missed the part where I said "but I would say let the facts decide the case", but you were looking for only the parts of my narrative that fit your well-honed and unwavering perspective. Talk about being a lemming.
 
2012-06-11 09:14:55 PM  

liam76: Using that logic if it is possible for criminals to get guns in a city, the city should just go ahead and sell them to any criminal


Never make analogies again.
 
2012-06-11 09:31:59 PM  

LasersHurt: Rich Cream: LasersHurt: I must have missed the part of reality where ANYONE tried to actually legislate any new restrictions on guns. Or is talking about it also bad?


When the same people who "discuss needed controls due to increased crime in Mexico" are the same ones creating it? yes.

/legislated? not just asked requested, recommended or suggested? oh I see. goals something something

Sorry for setting the goalposts at "something actually happening."


Silly liberal believes in thought crimes, apparently ;)
 
2012-06-11 09:35:02 PM  

liam76:

You do know Obama is not only going with the "tough on crime" idits, but taking it a step futher with his version of fast and furious. And make no mistake, until heads roll for it, it is his mistake because he isn't punishing those behind it.


Has Obama even weighed in on it? Wasn't the standard for responsibility re-set to "physically participated in" back during the whole Osama Bin Laden raid?
 
2012-06-11 09:51:02 PM  

actualhuman: liam76:

You do know Obama is not only going with the "tough on crime" idits, but taking it a step futher with his version of fast and furious. And make no mistake, until heads roll for it, it is his mistake because he isn't punishing those behind it.

Has Obama even weighed in on it? Wasn't the standard for responsibility re-set to "physically participated in" back during the whole Osama Bin Laden raid?


Apparently praise doesn't flow uphill, only scorn.
 
2012-06-11 10:11:08 PM  

HeadLever: Nobodyn0se: And nobody is making the assumption that you believe it to be true.

BZZT wrong:

per bugontherug, "The underlined portion of your response indicates affirmatively that yes, you believe the notion that Holder fabricated Fast and Furious as part of a plot to justify gun control legislation."


"is plausible," numnutz. You left "is plausible" off the end of that sentence.

But you know that very well, trolly mctrollerson.

*plonk*
 
2012-06-11 10:18:55 PM  

dr_blasto: Both were colossally dumb. One assumed Mexican law enforcement agencies were not already overrun by cartels even though it was well known this was the case, the other attempted to correct that flaw with no mechanism to track the weapons.

Both were criminally stupid. Not sure either was actually criminal


Whether or not they were really stupid in more than a political way depends on whether you believe the cartels would otherwise have come into similar weapons or not. I don't know who didn't foresee the PR nightmare when one of the guns would inevitably be used in a crime. They should be fired. Otherwise, it's really a clever idea.
 
2012-06-11 10:27:38 PM  

liam76: Nobodyn0se: liam76:
In F&F they had virtually no way to track the guns. There is no way a half-way intelligent and honest person could argue there was any conceivable way this would help them catch more than a tiny fraction of the people using the gun in Mexico.

Is a "tiny fraction" improvement better than no improvement?

Well first off I may have overstated the "tiny fraction" as they didn't catch anyone, did they?

And no I don't think a "tiny fraction" (that in reality is 0%) is worth the lives of people who were killed with those guns.


Those people would have been dead either way, so you can't blame their deaths on F&F.

And a "tiny fraction increase" was to the CHANGE of catching someone, not the actual occurrence.
 
2012-06-11 10:32:39 PM  

liam76:

Where did I say the "only source"? In fact the bolded portion above shows pretty clearly I don't think that? So for you to imply that was what I meant is either dishonest or stupid.


You didn't. I was providing you with two choices. Either you think the US is the only source for guns, or you don't. You obviously chose the latter, but in either case, your beliefs about F&F would be wrong.

liam76:

Using that logic if it is possible for criminals to get guns in a city, the city should just go ahead and sell them to any criminal, beacuse if the city is not the only source they have for guns, then the amount of law breaking and death after the city sells guns will remain the same. See how your statement makes no sense?


Not all criminals are members of an international band of drug traffickers. Shocking, I know, but that does need to be taken into context.

On the other hand, using YOUR logic, we shouldn't provide safe needle exchanges to drug users, because that only results in people doing more drugs!

liam76:

Because without that gun you don't know if the crime would have happened. Providing those guns directly contributed to the murder of a US citizen and an unknown number of Mexicans.


And that's where you're wrong. We CAN know that crime would have been committed, with damn near 100% certainty. Enough that I would be willing to bet my life on it. Cartels have THOUSANDS of guns. Thinking that not giving them a few extra would prevent any shooting from happening is statistical lunacy.
 
2012-06-11 10:36:34 PM  

bugontherug:

Whether or not they were really stupid in more than a political way depends on whether you believe the cartels would otherwise have come into similar weapons or not. I don't know who didn't foresee the PR nightmare when one of the guns would inevitably be used in a crime. They should be fired. Otherwise, it's really a clever idea.


This.
 
2012-06-11 10:39:01 PM  

liam76: I don't see how I am not voting for Obama in the next election, but this is a huge farking black mark, and anyone who thinks it is ok that they did this and is fine with them not passing on exactly who authorized should stop following politics and just vote Dem the rest of your life.


1) A powwow of DOJ bigwigs was held by teleconference. Holder was not there, but his deputy, David Ogden, was there. They discussed strategy, but did not discuss tactics, i.e., gunwalking.

2) Based on that meeting, David Ogden drafted a memo. It outlined the strategy discussed at the powwow, but did not discuss gunwalking.

3) I believe that memo went next to the head of the ATF. But whether it did or not, it ended up in the hands of Bill Newell, special agent in charge of the Phoenix ATF field office.

4) Bill Newell got together with David Burke, U.S. Attorney in that region, and decided to implement the strategy using the gunwalking tactic.

5) Newell and Burke both submitted their version of the operation, complete with gunwalking tactic, to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force office in Washington, DC, for funding and approval.

6) Operation Fast and Furious went into effect.

These people compose the "leadership" of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force as of today:

Link

We know exactly who authorized what, when, why, and how.
 
2012-06-11 10:41:02 PM  

bugontherug: dr_blasto: Both were colossally dumb. One assumed Mexican law enforcement agencies were not already overrun by cartels even though it was well known this was the case, the other attempted to correct that flaw with no mechanism to track the weapons.

Both were criminally stupid. Not sure either was actually criminal

Whether or not they were really stupid in more than a political way depends on whether you believe the cartels would otherwise have come into similar weapons or not. I don't know who didn't foresee the PR nightmare when one of the guns would inevitably be used in a crime. They should be fired. Otherwise, it's really a clever idea.


Clever, but only if they had some real way to follow them. I say not clever as the plan was clearly half-baked with no legitimate method to follow through.

If they managed to keep track of them electronically in spite of the Mexican government, if they had a plan in place and ready to interdict, if they had bothered to vet their plan through the head office, well, this might have become clever.

They didn't appear to do any of that.
 
2012-06-11 10:45:00 PM  

dr_blasto: Clever, but only if they had some real way to follow them. I say not clever as the plan was clearly half-baked with no legitimate method to follow through.

If they managed to keep track of them electronically in spite of the Mexican government, if they had a plan in place and ready to interdict, if they had bothered to vet their plan through the head office, well, this might have become clever.

They didn't appear to do any of that.




I do believe he said that's why the IDEA was clever, and not the implementation.
 
2012-06-11 10:47:04 PM  

dr_blasto: bugontherug: dr_blasto: Both were colossally dumb. One assumed Mexican law enforcement agencies were not already overrun by cartels even though it was well known this was the case, the other attempted to correct that flaw with no mechanism to track the weapons.

Both were criminally stupid. Not sure either was actually criminal

Whether or not they were really stupid in more than a political way depends on whether you believe the cartels would otherwise have come into similar weapons or not. I don't know who didn't foresee the PR nightmare when one of the guns would inevitably be used in a crime. They should be fired. Otherwise, it's really a clever idea.

Clever, but only if they had some real way to follow them. I say not clever as the plan was clearly half-baked with no legitimate method to follow through.

If they managed to keep track of them electronically in spite of the Mexican government, if they had a plan in place and ready to interdict, if they had bothered to vet their plan through the head office, well, this might have become clever.

They didn't appear to do any of that.


I see your point. It didn't produce the hoped for results. But properly understood, this story is about a boring bureaucratic process to authorize a type of operation that by 2009 had already become practice.
 
2012-06-11 10:51:57 PM  

bugontherug: liam76: I don't see how I am not voting for Obama in the next election, but this is a huge farking black mark, and anyone who thinks it is ok that they did this and is fine with them not passing on exactly who authorized should stop following politics and just vote Dem the rest of your life.

1) A powwow of DOJ bigwigs was held by teleconference. Holder was not there, but his deputy, David Ogden, was there. They discussed strategy, but did not discuss tactics, i.e., gunwalking.

2) Based on that meeting, David Ogden drafted a memo. It outlined the strategy discussed at the powwow, but did not discuss gunwalking.

3) I believe that memo went next to the head of the ATF. But whether it did or not, it ended up in the hands of Bill Newell, special agent in charge of the Phoenix ATF field office.

4) Bill Newell got together with David Burke, U.S. Attorney in that region, and decided to implement the strategy using the gunwalking tactic.

5) Newell and Burke both submitted their version of the operation, complete with gunwalking tactic, to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force office in Washington, DC, for funding and approval.

6) Operation Fast and Furious went into effect.

These people compose the "leadership" of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force as of today:

Link

We know exactly who authorized what, when, why, and how.


Pardon me. The link I posted there identifies DEA leadership. I posted it because it links to the "leadership" button on this, the OCDETF page:

Link

Offhand, I do not know who comprises the OCDETF, and I don't think I'll have time to find out, because The Daily Show starts in eight minutes.
 
2012-06-11 10:56:00 PM  

Nobodyn0se: dr_blasto: Clever, but only if they had some real way to follow them. I say not clever as the plan was clearly half-baked with no legitimate method to follow through.

If they managed to keep track of them electronically in spite of the Mexican government, if they had a plan in place and ready to interdict, if they had bothered to vet their plan through the head office, well, this might have become clever.

They didn't appear to do any of that.



I do believe he said that's why the IDEA was clever, and not the implementation.


I can see the inherent value to uncovering the network used for arms trafficing in Mexico. The problem centers around the fact that there's almost no value to the weapons sold to civilians in the US.

I've seen the pictures of captured weapons caches there, semi-auto SKS or whatever is nothing compared to crew-served weaponry, assault rifles and explosives available to the primary offenders in the cartels. The Zetas have been linked to both military deserters as well as current soldiers. They steal from military armories with impunity.

What isn't known openly is whether the people who end up with some lame military-looking AR or AK from a legit FFL in the US have any direct relationship to the primary actors or if it is merely incidental. I suppose there's value in that knowledge.
 
2012-06-11 11:01:36 PM  

bugontherug: dr_blasto: bugontherug: dr_blasto: Both were colossally dumb. One assumed Mexican law enforcement agencies were not already overrun by cartels even though it was well known this was the case, the other attempted to correct that flaw with no mechanism to track the weapons.

Both were criminally stupid. Not sure either was actually criminal

Whether or not they were really stupid in more than a political way depends on whether you believe the cartels would otherwise have come into similar weapons or not. I don't know who didn't foresee the PR nightmare when one of the guns would inevitably be used in a crime. They should be fired. Otherwise, it's really a clever idea.

Clever, but only if they had some real way to follow them. I say not clever as the plan was clearly half-baked with no legitimate method to follow through.

If they managed to keep track of them electronically in spite of the Mexican government, if they had a plan in place and ready to interdict, if they had bothered to vet their plan through the head office, well, this might have become clever.

They didn't appear to do any of that.

I see your point. It didn't produce the hoped for results. But properly understood, this story is about a boring bureaucratic process to authorize a type of operation that by 2009 had already become practice.


Overreach of authority on the part of the USA and regional director for certain. Another issue created by a leadership vacuum and no real direction for the organization. The BATFE is and has been a mess for a very long time.

shiat, when was the last time they had a legitimate director? Probably back when they were Treasury? I think it is a bad idea for agencies to operate with no clear mission. The ATF, now BATFE haven't had one for well over a decade outside of cashing $200 checks and issuing licenses. Enforcement is just a matter of where you are, not consistent across the country.

It's probably a really shiatty place to work.
 
2012-06-11 11:44:08 PM  

Nobodyn0se: actualhuman: Fark It: Where is the scandal? If you or I did something like this we would be facing lengthy terms in federal prison.

Which is a completely useless standard, because law enforcement operatives frequently violate the law in the course of undercover operations. If you or I trafficked heroine across state lines and were video taped doing it we'd spend time in federal prison, while DEA agents set up these types of stings all the time. This despite the fact that any time you put these known criminals into such a stressful situation you are endangering any bystanders who happen to be in the area, similarly to the situation in F&F. If you're not fundamentally opposed to those DEA stings you have no reasonable argument to oppose F&F style operations.

Very good point.




It's a terrible point. If the DEA sold heroin and let it out on the street then they should be burned just the same for breaking the law.
 
2012-06-11 11:50:12 PM  

RolandGunner:


It's a terrible point. If the DEA sold heroin and let it out on the street then they should be burned just the same for breaking the law.



(facepalm)
 
2012-06-12 03:14:31 AM  
What y'all conservatives need to understand is that F&F is waaaay down the list of Why Libs are Pissed At Eric Holder. What with refusing to prosecute CIA torturers, actively defending overuse of the state secrets privilege, stepping up anti-pot enforcement... well, I could go on, but the point is that with all the actual substantive abuses of power in the Obama DoJ, a little stonewalling on a relatively minor enforcement fiasco is small potatoes.

I guess it's just that F&F is the only failing of the Obama DoJ that House Republicans actually object to.
 
Displayed 50 of 395 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report