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.

(Washington Times)   ATF blocking book exposing "Fast and Furious" secrets because a book exposing the agency's gun running to drug lords and hit men, might "damage morale" at the agency   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 119
    More: Obvious, gun-running, Furious, ATF, special agent in charge, radiation damages, morale, 1st amendment, interdiction  
•       •       •

392 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2013 at 9:25 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-07 09:15:21 AM  
img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-10-07 09:36:18 AM  
Lots of crazy on the page today, Fark...
 
2013-10-07 09:42:05 AM  

karmaceutical: Lots of crazy on the page today, Fark...


What is crazy here?
 
2013-10-07 09:46:55 AM  
Wait a sec. I though "gun-walking" was great for the country. I haz a confuzed.
 
2013-10-07 09:50:54 AM  

liam76: What is crazy here?


Subby: exposing the agency's gun running to drug lords and hit men
 
2013-10-07 10:08:08 AM  
It's that damn George Bush again, who is still the president.
 
2013-10-07 10:25:23 AM  

sprawl15: liam76: What is crazy here?

Subby: exposing the agency's gun running to drug lords and hit men


You are familiar with the operation, yes?

Where do you think an operation that encouraged gun running to Mexico sent guns?
 
2013-10-07 10:31:25 AM  

liam76: Where do you think an operation that encouraged gun running to Mexico sent guns?


Before I even begin to address this statement, I first need to make sure you're aware that "the agency ran guns" and "the agency encouraged other people to run guns" are completely different claims.

You do understand that you're moving the goalposts before we even start, right?
 
2013-10-07 10:38:31 AM  

sprawl15: Before I even begin to address this statement, I first need to make sure you're aware that "the agency ran guns" and "the agency encouraged other people to run guns" are completely different claims.



In this case when sellers flag sales and the ATF tells them to go ahead, they are taking an action that allows the sales. It wasn't just them sitting by. So while "ran guns" may not be completely accurate, it is close enough.

Yes it is an embelleshment, but in line with what is normally seen in Fark headlines, and nto far fromt he truth.
 
2013-10-07 10:38:45 AM  

sprawl15: liam76: Where do you think an operation that encouraged gun running to Mexico sent guns?

Before I even begin to address this statement, I first need to make sure you're aware that "the agency ran guns" and "the agency encouraged other people to run guns" are completely different claims.

You do understand that you're moving the goalposts before we even start, right?




Only to lawyers.
 
2013-10-07 10:51:35 AM  

liam76: In this case when sellers flag sales and the ATF tells them to go ahead, they are taking an action that allows the sales


And that still isn't "running guns" or "encouraging other people to run guns".

liam76: It wasn't just them sitting by.


In fact, that was the entire problem. There was no issue with letting a straw purchase happen, as long as there was followup. That was the original intent - allow straw purchases in the short term, then nail the whole ring of straw purchasers and hopefully their contacts across the border etc. They were authorized significantly stronger surveillance techniques than normal for taking down straw purchasers (like the heavy dependence on wiretaps) to get a broader scope of evidence. In theory, it wasn't a bad idea.

In practice, they did a lot of just sitting around. They didn't follow up on the straw purchases, they relied almost entirely on wiretaps for surveillance which has the obvious warrant lag, they didn't really report much of what they were doing, their supervisors sat around instead of saying "hey maybe we should stop this if we aren't going to actually stop the guns". Or, as the IG assigned to review the case (.pdf warning) put it:
We found that what began as an important and promising investigation of serious firearms trafficking along the Southwest Border that was developed through the efforts of a short-staffed ATF enforcement group quickly grew into an investigation that lacked realistic objectives, did not have appropriate supervision within ATF or the U.S. Attorney's Office, and failed to adequately assess the public safety consequences of not stopping or controlling the alarming purchasing activity that persisted as the investigation progressed. Both ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office focused almost from the outset on a longer-term investigative approach that prioritized obtaining court-authorized electronic surveillance in order to gather evidence about the trafficking conspiracy and to identify the individuals who were financing the purchases and transporting the weapons to Mexico. We found that the wiretap was pursued to the exclusion of, instead of in combination with, additional tactics that could have deterred some of the purchasing activity and resulted in more firearms seizures and arrests. As a consequence, in the months prior to and after the wiretap was in place, the purchasing activity by Operation Fast and Furious subjects continued unabated, individuals who had engaged in serious and dangerous criminal conduct remained at large, and the public was put in harm's way.
 
2013-10-07 10:59:25 AM  

paygun: It's that damn George Bush again, who is still the president.


Whatever stupid lies you have to tell yourself at night

They took a badly run program under Bush and decided how can we fark this up even worse; resulting in them to not telling the Mexican authorities and let the guns "walk" across the border
 
2013-10-07 11:11:46 AM  

ShadowKamui: Whatever stupid lies you have to tell yourself at night


It's not a lie, Barak Obama is a myth.  He has no responsibility for what happened at the ATF since 2008.
 
2013-10-07 11:17:45 AM  

liam76: sprawl15: Before I even begin to address this statement, I first need to make sure you're aware that "the agency ran guns" and "the agency encouraged other people to run guns" are completely different claims.


In this case when sellers flag sales and the ATF tells them to go ahead, they are taking an action that allows the sales. It wasn't just them sitting by. So while "ran guns" may not be completely accurate, it is close enough.

Yes it is an embelleshment, but in line with what is normally seen in Fark headlines, and nto far fromt he truth.


Not to mention that the ATF actually directly trafficked a few guns itself:

On June 1, 2010, [ATF Agent John]  Dodson used $2,500 of ATF funds to purchase six AK Draco pistols from local gun dealers, which he then gave to Mr. Fernandez, who reimbursed him for the expense of the guns, plus $700 for his assistance. Two days later, Agent Dodson went on a scheduled vacation without interdicting the weapons. As a result, the weapons were never recovered, no arrests were ever made, and the case was closed without charges being filed.
 
2013-10-07 11:25:46 AM  
The cartels didn't have guns before Fast and Furious.  This is what some people actually believe.
 
2013-10-07 11:29:30 AM  

dittybopper: Not to mention that the ATF actually directly trafficked a few guns itself:


I appreciate how you trimmed out the previous sentences (from your very deep examination of Wikipedia) mentioning the one real documented instance of ATF agents (and not the ATF itself) actually being involved in the transfer of weapons:
On April 13, 2010, ATF Agent John Dodson, with assistance from Agents Casa and Alt, directed a cooperating straw purchaser to give three guns to Isaiah Fernandez, a suspected gun trafficker, and had taped the conversations without prosecutor approval.

After being instructed by his superiors to obtain approval from prosecutors (albeit retroactively), Dodson's proposal was later rejected by his immediate superior David Voth, although he later received permission from Voth's supervisor after submitting a written proposal for the program.
That's the kind of duplicitous, low-effort nonsense I've come to expect from you.
 
2013-10-07 11:55:33 AM  
Republicans BADLY need SOMETHING to change the topic, here.  Scandals ahoy!
 
2013-10-07 11:56:28 AM  

Fart_Machine: The cartels didn't have guns before Fast and Furious.  This is what some people actually believe.


Who?  Never seen someone say that cartels never had guns before?  Or is your butt typing again?
 
2013-10-07 11:57:07 AM  

sprawl15: dittybopper: Not to mention that the ATF actually directly trafficked a few guns itself:

I appreciate how you trimmed out the previous sentences (from your very deep examination of Wikipedia) mentioning the one real documented instance of ATF agents (and not the ATF itself) actually being involved in the transfer of weapons:On April 13, 2010, ATF Agent John Dodson, with assistance from Agents Casa and Alt, directed a cooperating straw purchaser to give three guns to Isaiah Fernandez, a suspected gun trafficker, and had taped the conversations without prosecutor approval.

After being instructed by his superiors to obtain approval from prosecutors (albeit retroactively), Dodson's proposal was later rejected by his immediate superior David Voth, although he later received permission from Voth's supervisor after submitting a written proposal for the program. That's the kind of duplicitous, low-effort nonsense I've come to expect from you.


So they not only trafficked guns, but they retroactively approved it when they could have sanctioned him for it?

You think that strengthens your case?
 
2013-10-07 12:00:46 PM  

sprawl15: mentioning the one real documented instance of ATF agents (and not the ATF itself)


Lol, so the ATF agents doing something is not the same thing as the ATF doing the same thing?  Let me ask this to you - if an ATF is going to perform any action, isn't an ATF agent going to  have to carry said action out (or at least coordinate the action)?  How else would it ever get done?
 
2013-10-07 12:00:56 PM  

sprawl15: dittybopper: Not to mention that the ATF actually directly trafficked a few guns itself:

I appreciate how you trimmed out the previous sentences (from your very deep examination of Wikipedia) mentioning the one real documented instance of ATF agents (and not the ATF itself) actually being involved in the transfer of weapons:On April 13, 2010, ATF Agent John Dodson, with assistance from Agents Casa and Alt, directed a cooperating straw purchaser to give three guns to Isaiah Fernandez, a suspected gun trafficker, and had taped the conversations without prosecutor approval.

After being instructed by his superiors to obtain approval from prosecutors (albeit retroactively), Dodson's proposal was later rejected by his immediate superior David Voth, although he later received permission from Voth's supervisor after submitting a written proposal for the program. That's the kind of duplicitous, low-effort nonsense I've come to expect from you.


So it's your contention that the ATF didn't directly traffic any guns at all to the Mexican cartels, because his immediate supervisor (Voth) vetoed the plan, but Dodson went over Voth's head and got approval and subsequently did it?

WTF?

I wasn't wrong.  But don't take my word for it:

htmlimg3.scribdassets.com
 
2013-10-07 12:03:28 PM  
Not sure if I want to click on Cultist Times, but I'm guessing it's actually because the book reveals sources or other sensitive information that could endanger ongoing operations.
 
2013-10-07 12:05:02 PM  

redmid17: So they not only trafficked guns, but they retroactively approved it when they could have sanctioned him for it?

You think that strengthens your case?


sprawl15 has a hard-on for me, for some reason.  Doesn't matter if I'm actually right, sprawl15 has to argue to the contrary in a gun thread.

I'd put him or her on ignore, but I don't roll that way.  Plus, I have a sneaking suspicion that sprawl15 is the one who has gifted me with TotalFark.
 
2013-10-07 12:05:49 PM  

dittybopper: Doesn't matter if I'm actually right,


I should point out that I am, on occasion, wrong.
 
2013-10-07 12:07:31 PM  

redmid17: So [a person acting on their own volition, without any supervisor's approval] not only [allowed guns to enter the hands of a suspected gun trafficker who was later dropped from Fast & Furious because he was not connected to the cartels] , but [not the immediate supervisor but some guy above him who was pretty strongly removed from the facts who also didn't pass word up the chain] retroactively approved it when [the immediate supervisor that shot down the idea because of obvious reasons] could have sanctioned him for it [but instead just sat around]?

You think that strengthens your case?


Yes, I think that another example of some low level guy doing something farking retarded and everyone who had any level of responsibility sitting on their hands instead of stopping it plays right into my point that it was a program that failed primarily because of shiatty police work/supervision.

My 'case'. so far as I have one, is simply pointing out reality. So I don't get why you think pointing out more reality would undermine the other parts of reality that already exist.
 
2013-10-07 12:11:21 PM  

dittybopper: I should point out that I am, on occasion, wrong.


Yeah, when that happens, just look for the dogpile.

:)
 
2013-10-07 12:11:21 PM  

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: The cartels didn't have guns before Fast and Furious.  This is what some people actually believe.

Who?  Never seen someone say that cartels never had guns before?  Or is your butt typing again?


Claiming that "Fast and Furious killed thousands", which you can find with any Google search (it may take longer if you use your butt), is saying that the cartels wouldn't be using firearms without them being walked into the country.
 
2013-10-07 12:14:45 PM  

Arkanaut: Not sure if I want to click on Cultist Times, but I'm guessing it's actually because the book reveals sources or other sensitive information that could endanger ongoing operations.


The Moonie Times doesn't care about endangering operations when there are political points to be made.
 
2013-10-07 12:15:35 PM  

HeadLever: Lol, so the ATF agents doing something is not the same thing as the ATF doing the same thing? Let me ask this to you - if an ATF is going to perform any action, isn't an ATF agent going to have to carry said action out (or at least coordinate the action)?


Of course it's not the same thing. Holder personally saying "Hey, Dodson, go out and let some guns get into the hands of known traffickers" is different than Dodson getting his buddies together, doing it on his own, and then asking for forgiveness after the fact. The running narrative is that the ATF set up a program that had HUGE flaws in concept that acted as a flood of guns flowing to the cartels, and the only real example of conceptual stupidity is one time six guns were given out without permission to someone who wasn't associated with the cartels anyway.

I'm not saying what they did wasn't farking stupid, I'm saying it's not some smoking gun that shows F&F was an ATF sponsored gun running program.

dittybopper: but Dodson went over Voth's head and got approval and subsequently did it?


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=retroactively+definition

Also note that the date that you quoted for the gun transfer was April 13, 2010 and the date on the memo picture is June 1, 2010. Last I checked, June comes after April.

dittybopper: Doesn't matter if I'm actually right


I've not seen you be right on something we've debated yet. Did you ever get around to actually reading Manchin-Toomey?
 
2013-10-07 12:16:07 PM  

sprawl15: Yes, I think that another example of some low level guy doing something farking retarded and everyone who had any level of responsibility sitting on their hands instead of stopping it plays right into my point that it was a program that failed primarily because of shiatty police work/supervision.


But yet, that does not refute the implication that the 'ATF did it'.  It actually drive his point home.  From the information you have given in your own copy/past of the link, they were ultimatly complicit in this decision.
 
2013-10-07 12:20:00 PM  

Fart_Machine: Claiming that "Fast and Furious killed thousands", which you can find with any Google search (it may take longer if you use your butt), is saying that the cartels wouldn't be using firearms without them being walked into the country.


lolwat?  Claiming that Fast and Furious killed thousands is irrelevent to the argument that a cartel may have had firearms before said program.

Try again or tell you butt to quit typing.
 
2013-10-07 12:20:43 PM  

sprawl15: liam76: In this case when sellers flag sales and the ATF tells them to go ahead, they are taking an action that allows the sales

And that still isn't "running guns" or "encouraging other people to run guns".


Really? Telling gun sellers to go ahead and sell to people they know are doing straw purchases isn't encouraging people to run guns?


sprawl15: liam76: It wasn't just them sitting by.

In fact, that was the entire problem. There was no issue with letting a straw purchase happen, as long as there was followup.


Just sitting by implies they took no positive action to allow it. That isn't true.

sprawl15: In theory, it wasn't a bad idea.


In theory it was a terrible idea. They had no way to track guns once in Mexico. They knew from past problems with mexican authorities that they couldn't track across the border.
 
2013-10-07 12:22:05 PM  

Arkanaut: Not sure if I want to click on Cultist Times, but I'm guessing it's actually because the book reveals sources or other sensitive information that could endanger ongoing operations.


I doubt it.  The operation was ended almost 3 years ago, it's water under the bridge.

The ATF could deny permission to publish on the valid grounds that it compromises sensitive information, and it could do that without saying what that sensitive information was.  Government agencies do that sort of thing all the time.  That's not what they are doing.

Plus, all the important stuff is already a matter of Congressional record.  You can just get on the web and look it up for free.

Of course, the only real reason Dodson needs their permission is that he's still employed by the ATF.  I don't know what sort of non-disclosure agreements go along with ATF employment, but I'm betting that if he were to quit, publishing it would be a lot easier.
 
2013-10-07 12:23:46 PM  

sprawl15: I'm saying it's not some smoking gun that shows F&F was an ATF sponsored gun running program.


If the ATF didn't sponsor it, who did?  Someone had to come up with this dumb program.  I am sure it was not the IRS or the DEA.  No, I am pretty sure it was the ATF that started the program and the ATF alone.
 
2013-10-07 12:24:42 PM  

sprawl15: The running narrative is that the ATF set up a program that had HUGE flaws in concept that acted as a flood of guns flowing to the cartels, and the only real example of conceptual stupidity is one time six guns were given out without permission to someone who wasn't associated with the cartels anyway.


That is the truth.

The ATF may not have directly sold the overwhelming majority of guns but under this program thousands of guns they could have stopped made it intot he hands of mexican criminals.
 
2013-10-07 12:26:14 PM  

sprawl15: Also note that the date that you quoted for the gun transfer was April 13, 2010 and the date on the memo picture is June 1, 2010. Last I checked, June comes after April.


Look at the dates on this approval letter in lieu of Form 4473s:

img.fark.net

Transfer was approved on June 1st, and the guns were picked up on June 10th.

That's not what I would call "retroactive approval".

The ATF directly transferred some guns to the cartels, which is the only thing I was asserting, and yes, it was approved, and not just the actions of a rogue agent.
 
2013-10-07 12:31:36 PM  

HeadLever: But yet, that does not refute the implication that the 'ATF did it'.


It does. The ATF as an organization had nothing to do with the decision making to let those six guns go. Nobody above Dodson knew until after the fact.

liam76: Telling gun sellers to go ahead and sell to people they know are doing straw purchases isn't encouraging people to run guns?


Correct. From the IG report (really, you should read it):
We believe that at a minimum the government's requests for substantial assistance and its equivocal explanations about what it was doing with respect to the firearms being sold reasonably led the FFLs to believe that ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office were taking steps to prevent the weapons' unlawful transfers and might have caused them to complete sales they otherwise would not have.
Telling gun sellers to go ahead and sell to people they know are doing straw purchases implies that it's OK because the ATF will do something downstream. That the ATF didn't doesn't retroactively burn the FFLs with a 'gun runner' mark.

liam76: Just sitting by implies they took no positive action to allow it.


I'm trying to parse this sentence and failing. Just sitting by implies they took no positive action to allow...what? Straw purchases? They weren't trying to prevent straw purchases. What's the 'it' referring to?

liam76: In theory it was a terrible idea. They had no way to track guns once in Mexico.


The idea was to stop them before they got to Mexico. Basically straw purchasers were working with traffickers who were in turn working with the cartel. Their goal was to nail the traffickers (and hopefully some of the cartel), so they were going to let straw purchases happen and then arrest the traffickers after figuring out the trafficking ring - as the straw purchasing isn't really the problem so much as the trafficking.

But they didn't do any of the latter part. Which is where the stupidity happened.
 
2013-10-07 12:38:19 PM  

sprawl15: In theory, it wasn't a bad idea.


WTF, you have to just be trolling.

Obligatory
 
2013-10-07 12:41:11 PM  

sprawl15: Telling gun sellers to go ahead and sell to people they know are doing straw purchases implies that it's OK because the ATF will do something downstream. That the ATF didn't doesn't retroactively burn the FFLs with a 'gun runner' mark.


No not the FFL's, but the ATF itself. They are responsible for it.


sprawl15: I'm trying to parse this sentence and failing. Just sitting by implies they took no positive action to allow...what? Straw purchases? They weren't trying to prevent straw purchases. What's the 'it' referring to?


Gun running. They knew the guns were going to criminals. They told the dealers to go ahead and sell.

sprawl15: The idea was to stop them before they got to Mexico. Basically straw purchasers were working with traffickers who were in turn working with the cartel. Their goal was to nail the traffickers (and hopefully some of the cartel), so they were going to let straw purchases happen and then arrest the traffickers after figuring out the trafficking ring - as the straw purchasing isn't really the problem so much as the trafficking.


No, thatw asn';t the idea. Otherwise they wouldn't have stood down when they knew guns were going itno mexico.

this was an underwear gnome scheme. They had a step 1, let gun running to criminals in mexico happen. they had a step 3, break up the gun trafficking. There was no step 2.

The plan was worthless without a solid step 2, and from previous operations they knew how difficult a workable step 2 would be.
 
2013-10-07 12:45:10 PM  

sprawl15: The ATF as an organization had nothing to do with the decision making to let those six guns go. Nobody above Dodson knew until after the fact.


Right after Ditty's memo showing you are lying.

OhSnap.jpg
 
2013-10-07 12:46:37 PM  

dittybopper: The operation was ended almost 3 years ago, it's water under the bridge.


Sure, but theoretically it could reveal methods and tactics that are still being used, or maybe they had contacts who might be exposed.

Of course I'm basing this on nothing, so if you tell me that no they couldn't, I might just believe you.
 
2013-10-07 12:47:21 PM  

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Claiming that "Fast and Furious killed thousands", which you can find with any Google search (it may take longer if you use your butt), is saying that the cartels wouldn't be using firearms without them being walked into the country.

lolwat?  Claiming that Fast and Furious killed thousands is irrelevent to the argument that a cartel may have had firearms before said program.

Try again or tell you butt to quit typing.


Yes it's an idiotic claim to say a program "killed thousands" when those getting the guns were already armed. Stop thinking with your butt.
 
2013-10-07 12:52:40 PM  

liam76: The ATF may not have directly sold the overwhelming majority of guns but under this program thousands of guns they could have stopped made it intot he hands of mexican criminals.


Which was not the concept of the program. The program could have been "We are going to set up a mousetrap where we put some cheese on the floor and then an agent pushes a button when a mouse eats that cheese to kill the mouse. But we have to let it nibble a bit first to get it into the kill zone." Then the agent falls asleep and doesn't push the button, and the narrative is spun that the point of the program was to feed mice. What the program was designed to do conceptually and what actually happened are distinct cases, but they're being blurred for a political narrative.

Your takeaway is "The program was set up bad". My takeaway is "There's a farkton of people who didn't do their job responsible for utterly botching the program". If you really want to argue that the program would have been an utter failure had they actually done their job, you're free to argue that. But pointing out all the botching of the extant program in the world doesn't actually help that argument.

dittybopper:

I see the confusion. The Apr 13 transfer of 3 guns is what I was talking about - Dodson did it without approval, handed guns to a suspected trafficker, and after the fact it was denied, then approved. Then, later, he did the same thing after getting approval (presumably using the last approval as precedent). The memo has nothing to do with the first transfers to Fernandez, which were retroactively approved. The later guns (the ones from the memo you posted) were performed under the same retroactive authority granted on May 28.

I'd love to see the May 28 approval, but I can't seem to google-fu it out of the interwebs. I can't imagine the approval stated that he wouldn't need to follow up on anything at all but who knows.
 
2013-10-07 12:54:01 PM  

liam76: sprawl15: The running narrative is that the ATF set up a program that had HUGE flaws in concept that acted as a flood of guns flowing to the cartels, and the only real example of conceptual stupidity is one time six guns were given out without permission to someone who wasn't associated with the cartels anyway.

That is the truth.

The ATF may not have directly sold the overwhelming majority of guns but under this program thousands of guns they could have stopped made it intot he hands of mexican criminals.


And I totally agree with that.

The only thing I was pointing out was that the ATF actually *DID* run a few guns themselves.  And I did say (though didn't emphasize) "a few".

The whole planning on this seems to have been:

1. Let guns go to Mexico.
2. ???
3. Profit!

It's no wonder that conspiracy theorists came up with the idea that the White House was running guns to Mexico in order to be able to point to US guns being purchased directly from dealers and showing up shortly thereafter in crimes, especially given the emphasis that problem seemed to be given in the early months of the Obama administration.

From the well-know right wing news site NPR.org, Why Operation Fast And Furious Failed:


CONAN: Here's an email question. This is from Rick(ph): I think the Obama administration used Fast and Furious as an existing program to make an attempt to force new restrictive gun rules on U.S. gun owners. As - he says, like Obama said, keep gun control under the radar.
Michel Marizco, is there any evidence of that?

MARIZCO: Well, I don't know about evidence. But when you look at the timeline of events, in 2008, Bill Newell - and he was the head of the ATF during Fast and Furious - came out to say that 90 percent of the guns being used in Mexican killings came from the U.S. What he should have said was 90 percent of the guns that were seized in Mexico, that were used in crimes came from the U.S. They don't know how many guns were actually used, obviously.

ROBBINS: And traced. Seized and traced.

MARIZCO: Exactly. And when - as a result of that statement - and, of course, that went like wildfire, but as a result of that statement, he kept, you know, pushing this mandate. You know, now we're - now - last summer, the Obama administration started a reporting requirement for anybody trying to buy more than two rifles in a border state.
And more and more of these types of questions started coming up because, at the end of the day, I don't know that they meant to implement this as a way to create gun control in border states, but the argument can certainly be made that that's what happened as a result of this.


I don't necessarily endorse that interpretation, but I can easily see how some would come to that conclusion.
 
2013-10-07 12:57:12 PM  

Fart_Machine: Yes it's an idiotic claim to say a program "killed thousands" when those getting the guns were already armed


That is a big stretch at the best.  Again, you have failed to directly show that anyone said or belived that the cartels didn't possess guns beforehand.  You moving of the goalpost and implied statements is not an indication of said assertion.  Please continue to try.  Or you can just admit you were wrong.
 
2013-10-07 01:11:21 PM  

HeadLever: Fart_Machine: Yes it's an idiotic claim to say a program "killed thousands" when those getting the guns were already armed

That is a big stretch at the best.  Again, you have failed to directly show that anyone said or belived that the cartels didn't possess guns beforehand.  You moving of the goalpost and implied statements is not an indication of said assertion.  Please continue to try.  Or you can just admit you were wrong.


So you're shown that you can't use deductive reasoning. Well good job for that I guess.
 
2013-10-07 01:13:05 PM  

dittybopper: It's no wonder that conspiracy theorists came up with the idea that the White House was running guns to Mexico in order to be able to point to US guns being purchased directly from dealers and showing up shortly thereafter in crimes, especially given the emphasis that problem seemed to be given in the early months of the Obama administration.


Exactly.  When you have Obama and Holder pushing gun control via the AWB back in early 2009 using the excuse that all those damn guns are going to Mexico, and then this story breaks a year or so later, it is pretty easy to see how folks can start implying a motive between these two.
 
2013-10-07 01:14:44 PM  

sprawl15: Which was not the concept of the program. The program could have been "We are going to set up a mousetrap where we put some cheese on the floor and then an agent pushes a button when a mouse eats that cheese to kill the mouse. But we have to let it nibble a bit first to get it into the kill zone." Then the agent falls asleep and doesn't push the button, and the narrative is spun that the point of the program was to feed mice. What the program was designed to do conceptually and what actually happened are distinct cases, but they're being blurred for a political narrative.


What it was designed to do was impossible.
Nobody was alseep.
As I said above they had no step 2.

Nothing is being blurred. It was a program with no hope of taking downt he traffic rings and lead to thousands of guns going to the hands of criminals either through ATF looking the other way, or outright encouraging it.


sprawl15: Your takeaway is "The program was set up bad". My takeaway is "There's a farkton of people who didn't do their job responsible for utterly botching the program". If you really want to argue that the program would have been an utter failure had they actually done their job, you're free to argue that. But pointing out all the botching of the extant program in the world doesn't actually help that argument.


Please point out to me what job somebody could have done that would have neded up with the program doing what it was intended to do.
 
2013-10-07 01:18:38 PM  

Fart_Machine: So you're shown that you can't use deductive reasoning.


No, you can't back up your assertion and have had to backtrack to an implied assertion.
 
2013-10-07 01:20:37 PM  

liam76: Gun running. They knew the guns were going to criminals.


They knew the guns were going to criminal straw purchasers. They knew those guns were then going to go to criminal traffickers, who were then going to run them to cartels. The plan was to shut down those traffickers and prevent gun running. They failed at executing that plan. Very distinct from the "Lets spend a bunch of money on guns and see where they turn up" nonsense spouted as the plan.

liam76: They had a step 1, let gun running to criminals in mexico happen. they had a step 3, break up the gun trafficking. There was no step 2.


Step 1 was let straw purchases happen. Not 'let the guns go to Mexico'. Ideally, the guns would have made it from the straw purchasers to the traffickers and then been confiscated in an arrest before the trafficker made it over the border. Ideally.

Step 2 was investigation of the straw purchasers supported by wiretapping. Again, from the IG's report:
We found that the wiretap was pursued to the exclusion of, instead of in combination with, additional tactics that could have deterred some of the purchasing activity and resulted in more firearms seizures and arrests. As a consequence, in the months prior to and after the wiretap was in place, the purchasing activity by Operation Fast and Furious subjects continued unabated, individuals who had engaged in serious and dangerous criminal conduct remained at large, and the public was put in harm's way.
That's where the farkup happened the hardest and the entire system broke down because of people 'just sitting by':
We concluded that the prosecutor assigned to Operation Fast and Furious had an exceedingly conservative and questionable view of the evidence required to establish probable cause to seize and forfeit firearms, and that he, like the agents, did not propose arresting any of the straw purchasers for their trafficking activity during the investigation despite sufficient evidence to do so. However, the prosecutor acknowledged to us that there were instances both before (at least with respect to Patino) and after the wiretaps began in March 2010 where agents could have made a case for seizing firearms. We did not find persuasive evidence that agents sought to seize firearms or make arrests during the investigative stage of the case and were rebuffed by the prosecutor, or that absent one incident with a .50 caliber rifle purchased by an individual not connected to Operation Fast and Furious, ATF agents or management complained during the investigation to anyone at the U.S. Attorney's Office about unreasonable evidentiary requirements for making seizures or effecting arrests in the investigation. We found that the lack of seizures and arrests was primarily attributable to the pursuit of a strategic goal shared by both the ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office - to eliminate a trafficking organization - and the belief that confronting subjects and seizing firearms could compromise that goal.
 
Displayed 50 of 119 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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