The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 16, 2013, 08:49 PM   #2776
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,061
Quote:
primarily by saying it was a continuation of the Bush administration's "Wide Receiver," which was false.
Both ops were run by the same BATFE agents. Guns walked into Mexico during both ops. Anyone who says they did not have not done their homework.
thallub is offline  
Old August 16, 2013, 09:34 PM   #2777
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Wide Receiver had cooperation and coordination with Mexican authorities: RFID devices in walked guns; agents assigned to monitor both sides of the border; and tracking aircraft. The operation was cancelled after approximately 200 guns were lost from the tracking grid.

F&F operations had none of the above, and were designed to let thousands of guns walk without tracking capability.

Anybody who equates the two has not done his homework...
MLeake is offline  
Old August 17, 2013, 06:49 AM   #2778
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,979
Quote:
Both ops were run by the same BATFE agents. Guns walked into Mexico during both ops. Anyone who says they did not have not done their homework.
thallub is offline Report Post
So what? Wide Receiver was shut down as not only ineffective but actively dangerous by the previous administration when it realized that firearms could not be traced once they left this country, even with the active assistance of Mexican authorities.

In F&F, no attempt was even made to trace the firearms. The intent was clearly just to flood Mexico with firearms of American origin and see what chaos could be generated.

You seem to think that somehow low-level agents and an SAIC pulled this off without any sort of DOJ oversight. The facts clearly indicate otherwise.
csmsss is offline  
Old August 17, 2013, 02:46 PM   #2779
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,737
thallub closed a post as follows:

"i want that agency reformed."

Re that expressed desire, the following comes to my mind, other things might come to the minds of others:

1. That agency (BATFE) is far beyond "reform", partly because, as you noted, "oversight committees lack the stomach".

2. Additionally, empires have been built, they would, of needs, be destroyed.

3. A large number of "rice bowls" would need to be shaken, profoundly shaken.

4. Once again, one notes the lack of congressional stomach or integrity, whichever you might want to reference.

5. Perhaps a bit off point, but appropriate I think. Have you noticed the seemingly out of control growth of the TSA?
alan is offline  
Old August 19, 2013, 06:48 AM   #2780
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,061
Quote:
Wide Receiver had cooperation and coordination with Mexican authorities: RFID devices in walked guns; agents assigned to monitor both sides of the border; and tracking aircraft.
This is a popular political myth. Wide Receiver guns were found at crime scenes in Mexico.

According to the guy who sold most of the Wide Receiver guns:

Quote:
Among these misconceptions being repeated: that no Wide Receiver guns “walked” to Mexico because they were all controlled deliveries; that no one was killed; that the Mexican government was fully informed; that RFID tracking devices were placed in all the guns; and that the program was shut down at the first sign of danger.
http://www.examiner.com/article/trut...t-to-determine

More:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...-11172011.html

The first congressional priority should have been the the overhaul of the BATFE. It's not like the BATFE suddenly became a broken agency the day the current president came into office.

Quote:
But with the goal of holding everyone accountable and ensuring cross-border gunwalking never happens again, those interested in the truth ought to welcome full investigations, including of corruption allegations happening in preceding administrations. Its’ not like ATF management suddenly reversed polarity and started misbehaving when Obama took office.

To that end, those insisting on expanding investigations to include Wide Receiver need to first account for the deliberate indifference the Oversight Committee showed to whistleblower allegations back when it was controlled by Democrats. Then they need to do the same thing Mike Vanderboegh and this correspondent did back when the Gunwalker ball got rolling: Get agency insiders in the know and capable of producing documented testimony to trust them, get politicians able to do something about it to open an investigation, and scream from the rooftops until someone in the mainstream press notices and picks up on it. And it would also be a good idea to talk to Detty.
http://www.examiner.com/article/trut...t-to-determine


The F&F investigation failed to resonate with the vast majority of US citizens, who were busy eking out a living and/or those who saw the investigation as an election year extravaganza when the investigators refused to investigate all the gun walking schemes or conduct a comprehensive reform the BATFE.

i read everything that came from Issa's committee, most of it several times. Believing that the political truth is usually somewhere in the middle, i also read the minority report.

Last edited by thallub; August 19, 2013 at 07:23 AM.
thallub is offline  
Old August 19, 2013, 09:20 AM   #2781
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
It seems the two articles you linked rely very heavily on Detty, both for things he says he did or saw, and for hearsay.

Did you ever find the promised follow-up by the Examiner?
MLeake is offline  
Old August 19, 2013, 05:00 PM   #2782
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,737
thallub:

Re the "ATF", more properly these days, the BATFE, there have been serious problems with that agency, throughout it's entire life span, under several different names, under different administrations both Democratic and Republican.

Part of the problem lies in and with overly loosely written legislation, which included such phraseology as " and The Secretary, or his delegate shall promulgate ...", verbiage that has seemingly served to authorize law/rule by bureaucratic decree, shame on The Congress.

I could site other problematic situations with the law, things that have been spoken of at great length in the past, failings that The Congress refused to correct, though it has had many opportunities to so do.
alan is offline  
Old August 20, 2013, 05:21 PM   #2783
fragtagninja
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2013
Posts: 194
I don't know about you guys, but I am running out of energy for all of this stuff. Everyday there is something new. It is exhausting. With so much of this going on, and so few people concerned about these things.... I just don't see how we can tackle it all. We need more informed free thinking individuals.
fragtagninja is offline  
Old October 1, 2013, 01:44 PM   #2784
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,047
Well, we're back. In a way. In a 44-page opinion [pdf], the Washington District Court has refused the DOJ's motion to dismiss the case brought by the House Oversight Committee:

Quote:
The motion to dismiss will be denied. The fact that this case arises out of a dispute between two branches of government does not make it non-justiciable; Supreme Court precedent establishes that the third branch has an equally fundamental role to play, and that judges not only may, but sometimes must, exercise their responsibility to interpret the Constitution and determine whether another branch has exceeded its power. In the Court’s view, endorsing the proposition that the executive may assert an unreviewable right to withhold materials from the legislature would offend the Constitution more than undertaking to resolve the specific dispute that has been presented here. After all, the Constitution contemplates not only a separation, but a balance, of powers.
Essentially, yes, the courts do have a role to play in this matter. Darryl Issa has a statement on the matter here.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 1, 2013, 10:05 PM   #2785
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,450
Good decision, though I haven't read the opinion. It will undoubtedly be appealed.

Added: After a quick (30 second glance), the opinion is not appealable yet. There is not yet an accompanying order. More importantly, the opinion only resolves the question of jurisdiction of the district court which means it is not appealable because it does not resolve any actual claims.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.

Last edited by KyJim; October 1, 2013 at 10:10 PM.
KyJim is offline  
Old October 7, 2013, 01:01 PM   #2786
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,047
John Dodson, one of the original ATF whistleblowers, has authored a book on the whole incident. However, the ATF is attempting to block publication on the grounds that it "would have a negative impact on morale in the Phoenix FD and would have a detrimental effect on our relationships with DEA and FBI."

Right. Because running over 2000 guns to Mexican cartels, threatening agents who came forward, and lying to Congress did none of those things.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 7, 2013, 01:28 PM   #2787
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,955
And let's not forget that the 1st Amendment only protects speech "when it doesn't affect the morale of government agents."
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old October 7, 2013, 02:41 PM   #2788
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 354
His problem is publishing it while still employed by ATF.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old October 7, 2013, 02:55 PM   #2789
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,519
For our legal scholars, is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos
the relevant case?

If he works for the ATF, it would suggest that he does not have 1st Amend. protection?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 7, 2013, 03:43 PM   #2790
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,047
Quote:
His problem is publishing it while still employed by ATF.
That's the odd part. I figured he'd have left by now, especially considering how hard they made things on him even before F&F.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 10, 2013, 08:57 AM   #2791
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,885
from Glenn's wiki link:

Quote:
The Court wrote that its "precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job." Instead, public employees are not speaking as citizens when they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job.
The argument would be that Dodson is writing the book "in the course of doing his job" so he has no first amendment protection?

The two are obviously related, but the book seems separate from his job. The government is not paying him to write it, nor is it anywhere in his duties. If anything, it's within his duties as a citizen, not as a LEO, to tell his story.
publius42 is offline  
Old October 10, 2013, 09:33 AM   #2792
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
Quote:
The argument would be that Dodson is writing the book "in the course of doing his job" so he has no first amendment protection?

The two are obviously related, but the book seems separate from his job. The government is not paying him to write it, nor is it anywhere in his duties. If anything, it's within his duties as a citizen, not as a LEO, to tell his story.
The Government can restrict you from doing activities closely related to you job duties. Writing about the ATF while working at the ATF would certainly fall under this regulation. This happened in my organization, one of the engineers wanted to take a job as a consultant in his area of expertise, also the area he work in at the Gov, the boss said no. This is part of the ethics standards to keep persons from earning outside income while doing government work and being paid by the taxpayers. Of course there is a lot of discretion involved in these type of decisions. If the boss determines the duties are beneficial for the Government they can permit a lot of outside activities even if they have conflicts. I had to get permission to serve as treasurer of the local high school band boosters, because, even though it was for no pay, I was an official of a corporation.

If the contract is worth a lot of money, he can quit and publish the book, assuming no confidential/secret information is included. My engineering friend quit his job because he could get better money elsewhere.
wally626 is offline  
Old October 10, 2013, 12:21 PM   #2793
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,110
Of course they want to block the book, as they are sure it will not paint them in the way they want to be seen.

As Wally626 mentioned, the tactic they are using to block it is not a First Amendment issue. It is a contractual issue, involving conflict of interest and intellectual property rights. It just looks like a 1st Amendment issue on the surface.

Nowdays, when you work for anyone above the mom & pop business level, there is almost always some kind of conflict of interest/intellectual property policy or agreement involved. Abiding by it is a condition of employment.

Anything that you do outside of your job duties that could be, or could create the appearance of a conflict of interest must be reviewed and approved by the company before you do it. Otherwise the company can take legal action against you for doing it. Most of the time, they can also terminate your employment for doing it, aside from any other actions they could take.

Say I worked for Westinghouse (for example), making appliances. I want to write a book about the history of the US Marine battles on Guadalcanal during WWII. Even though it has NO relationship to my employer I still have to get their approval (because of the employment contract I work under) before I can publish it. Otherwise they can take action against me.

If I wanted to write a book about the ATF, I could, and would not need to get their approval. I don't work for them.

But if I did work for them, I would have to get their approval. No matter what the subject matter was.

While it is a free speech issue, it is NOT a 1st Amendment free speech issue. ITs a contractual matter that he voluntarily entered into, when he took the job.

On the surface, its a simple solution, terminate employment with the ATF, and then publish. That will knock the legs out of their argument.

IF he does that, I think they will still try to block the book, but they will have to use a different argument. Essentially they would have to prove that he used classified, sensitive, or proprietary information, without authorization. OR that he used company (in this case govt) resources in writing the book.

Better hope he never had so much as one page of draft on any govt computer...otherwise, they have standing for that argument.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old October 11, 2013, 12:32 PM   #2794
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,737
Re this book written by a BATFE employee/agent, and the agencies attempts to block publication, mentioned in several posts hered, the following point comes to mind re government attermpts to block publication. Might this be yet anothert exapmple of what Obama promised, but has failed to deliver, that being the most open and honest administration? I think that "transparent was mentioned too.

BTW, as I recall, others might too if they think back to John Ross's book Unintended Consequences, the BATF, as it was then called, tried to block publication/distribution of that work too.
alan is offline  
Old October 16, 2013, 12:08 PM   #2795
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
The BATF now says they approve the publication of the book about "Fast & Furious" ...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20131016/DA9FAIE81.html

but, it looks like there may be consequences ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-firing-squad/
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old October 17, 2013, 12:30 PM   #2796
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,637
ATF (Phoenix office, same players) now linked to "Grenade Walking" scandal:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...lking-scandal/

Clearly, another abuse of the private sale of grenades loophole requiring more regulation.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old October 17, 2013, 01:19 PM   #2797
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,298
Did we think that guns were the only think being moved "fast and furiously" into Mexico? Really?

Of course the tell is if any other "news agencies" pick up this latest development.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 17, 2013, 08:03 PM   #2798
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Looks like Sheryl Attkisson was the first of the MSM to break the story. The rest will probably ignore it or minimize it. It's really 2 years old, but just now getting some scrutiny.

For the record, David Codrea wrote about "Project Bombwalker" in his Sept 5, 2011 Examiner column.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)

Last edited by BillCA; October 17, 2013 at 08:19 PM.
BillCA is offline  
Old October 17, 2013, 08:55 PM   #2799
Luger_carbine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 377
Allowing grenades to go across the border wouldn't help the anti-gun agenda.

Making a claim that loose American gun laws are killing Mexicans and then showing a table full of those guns - ya, and they certainly tried that.

Showing a table of grenades - eh - not so much.

I do think that Burke, and the administration wanted to rack up a body count and a big gun count of American firearms at Mexican crime scenes to plead their case to the American public that stricter gun laws were needed to end the carnage.

But this grenade thing just looks like your typical BATFE stupidity.
Luger_carbine is offline  
Old November 17, 2013, 01:20 PM   #2800
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,519
Some new legal moves by Holder and crew:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...665.html?hp=l5
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Reply

Tags
atf , fast and furious

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.53261 seconds with 10 queries