August 16, 2013, 08:49 PM | #2776 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
|
|
August 16, 2013, 09:34 PM | #2777 |
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... |
August 17, 2013, 06:49 AM | #2778 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
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. |
|
August 17, 2013, 02:46 PM | #2779 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,847
|
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? |
August 19, 2013, 06:48 AM | #2780 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
According to the guy who sold most of the Wide Receiver guns: Quote:
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:
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. |
|||
August 19, 2013, 09:20 AM | #2781 |
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? |
August 19, 2013, 05:00 PM | #2782 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,847
|
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. |
August 20, 2013, 05:21 PM | #2783 |
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.
|
October 1, 2013, 01:44 PM | #2784 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
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:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 1, 2013, 10:05 PM | #2785 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
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. Last edited by KyJim; October 1, 2013 at 10:10 PM. |
October 7, 2013, 01:01 PM | #2786 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
October 7, 2013, 01:28 PM | #2787 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
And let's not forget that the 1st Amendment only protects speech "when it doesn't affect the morale of government agents."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
October 7, 2013, 02:41 PM | #2788 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
His problem is publishing it while still employed by ATF.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
October 7, 2013, 02:55 PM | #2789 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
October 7, 2013, 03:43 PM | #2790 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 10, 2013, 08:57 AM | #2791 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
from Glenn's wiki link:
Quote:
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. |
|
October 10, 2013, 09:33 AM | #2792 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 642
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 10, 2013, 12:21 PM | #2793 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,839
|
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. |
October 11, 2013, 12:32 PM | #2794 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,847
|
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. |
October 16, 2013, 12:08 PM | #2795 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
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 |
October 17, 2013, 12:30 PM | #2796 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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. |
October 17, 2013, 01:19 PM | #2797 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
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. |
October 17, 2013, 08:03 PM | #2798 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
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. |
October 17, 2013, 08:55 PM | #2799 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
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. |
November 17, 2013, 01:20 PM | #2800 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
Tags |
atf , fast and furious |
|
|