ATF Project Gunrunner
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
Armorer-at-Law
New member
My question is, "To what end?" What good does it do to link a weapon, known to have been bought in the US and recovered at a crime scene in Mexico, with a king-pin? That doesn't make the king pin any more convictable. It doesn't make the straw purchacer, who you had and then let go in the US, and more convictable. It doesn't help Identify the king-pin.
Unfortuantely, the only conceivable utility for the gun walking plan, with no attempt to follow the weapons -- just wait for them to turn up at a crime sceme and a trace request to come in from MX -- is for political anecdotal support for ill-conceived gun control laws. The local agents don't benefit from that -- unless they get some personal gratification from narrowing the rights of Americans. The only political appeal for such a plan is higher up the ladder. There HAS to be some paper trail evidencing that. Hmmm . . . Wonder why exec privilege has been asserted for the documents subpoenaed?
Last edited:
Luger_carbine
New member
^ +1
Very few people in the media ever make a critical examination of the the F&F plan.
Even if the agents had never lost track of the weapons, does anyone believe those weapons were going to end up on the mantle over the fireplace of a Mexican drug lord's mansion or something?
Did they think the head of an entire syndicate was going to take one of these straw-purchase weapons and start carrying it themselves?
Those weapons only ever would have circulated among the bottom few tiers of the organization between the people who use them - the workers, the people who transport and guard shipments, assassins, enforcers and the soldiers of the organization.
The operation NEVER made sense for the stated goal. Instead of scrutinizing the stated objective, the reporters just chalk it up to a few bad choices, a few bad decisions. " Mistakes were made", "the strategy was flawed."
Only the NRA keeps beating the drum, that it wasn't a flawed strategy - the real objective of F&F was different from the stated objective, and the tactics made sense in light of the real objective - building a case for lax U.S. gun laws being responsible for the high level of violence in Mexico.
Very few people in the media ever make a critical examination of the the F&F plan.
Even if the agents had never lost track of the weapons, does anyone believe those weapons were going to end up on the mantle over the fireplace of a Mexican drug lord's mansion or something?
Did they think the head of an entire syndicate was going to take one of these straw-purchase weapons and start carrying it themselves?
Those weapons only ever would have circulated among the bottom few tiers of the organization between the people who use them - the workers, the people who transport and guard shipments, assassins, enforcers and the soldiers of the organization.
The operation NEVER made sense for the stated goal. Instead of scrutinizing the stated objective, the reporters just chalk it up to a few bad choices, a few bad decisions. " Mistakes were made", "the strategy was flawed."
Only the NRA keeps beating the drum, that it wasn't a flawed strategy - the real objective of F&F was different from the stated objective, and the tactics made sense in light of the real objective - building a case for lax U.S. gun laws being responsible for the high level of violence in Mexico.
Ack! Not here too!
I understand that the propaganda line being put forth by almost all media sources is that some agents lost track of some guns, and that is the whole problem with Fast and Furious. If you misidentify the problem, getting to the wrong solution becomes easier.
The agents did not "lose track" of some guns. They deliberately allowed them to get away on orders from their superiors and despite their better judgment. Saying they "lost track" of the guns implies it was a mistake and that agent competence might be the problem.
It was no mistake, the agents were competent. They did not lose track of any guns. They walked them. BIG difference, even if the media is trying to erase it.
Its fashionable to complain about the news media. i don't see any so called "propaganda". CBS has been on the case since early on:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/23/eveningnews/main20035609.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
Not all the F&F guns went to Mexico. Never saw this one reported by any other news organization:
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local...roversial-atf-strategy-found-in-valley-crimes
Posted: 06/30/2011
• By: Lori Jane Gliha
CBS won the Edward R. Murrow award for investigative journalism:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/i...-reporting-on-operation-fast-and-furious.aspx
Thallub, Sharyl Attkisson is a notable exception to what I'm talking about, and the ABC report you linked is another. It says:
That's exactly right. Contrast with NPR:
or the LA Times:
My point is that saying the agents lost track of some guns suggests a different problem, and different solutions, than saying "that they knowingly allowed weapons to slip into the hands of straw buyers who would then distribute the weapons to known criminals."
That's exactly right. Contrast with NPR:
or the LA Times:
My point is that saying the agents lost track of some guns suggests a different problem, and different solutions, than saying "that they knowingly allowed weapons to slip into the hands of straw buyers who would then distribute the weapons to known criminals."
The NY Times provides another example:
The 2009 operation was ongoing in December of 2010 right up until Brian Terry was killed.
Saying that "agents did not move quickly" against straw buyers and that they lost track of the guns is certainly part of the truth, in addition to being an excellent example of why courts ask people to swear to tell the whole truth.
On orders from superiors, the agents did not act quickly against those buyers, and when the agents were ordered to lose track of the shipments in various ways, they did as ordered. When you put it that way, it kind of suggests a different problem than the one the NY Times and the rest are suggesting.
The 2009 operation was ongoing in December of 2010 right up until Brian Terry was killed.
Saying that "agents did not move quickly" against straw buyers and that they lost track of the guns is certainly part of the truth, in addition to being an excellent example of why courts ask people to swear to tell the whole truth.
On orders from superiors, the agents did not act quickly against those buyers, and when the agents were ordered to lose track of the shipments in various ways, they did as ordered. When you put it that way, it kind of suggests a different problem than the one the NY Times and the rest are suggesting.
Thallub, you should also check out the coverage on MSNBC, CNN, and Huffington, for TV and web coverage bias.
NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, AJC, even Kansas City Star, too, for print and web.
Most of the major media seem to deliberately miss the point on F&F.
Without going into my own politics, I try to follow news across a fairly broad spectrum. Patterns in coverage definitely begin to show.
Luger, while praising the NRA is fine, don't forget David Codrea or Sharyl Atkisson.
NYT, WaPo, Boston Globe, AJC, even Kansas City Star, too, for print and web.
Most of the major media seem to deliberately miss the point on F&F.
Without going into my own politics, I try to follow news across a fairly broad spectrum. Patterns in coverage definitely begin to show.
Luger, while praising the NRA is fine, don't forget David Codrea or Sharyl Atkisson.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
They didn't have to be ordered to lose track of the guns. They had no way to track them.Publius42 said:
One of the earlier gun-running operations, IIRC, did have tracking devices attached to or embedded in the guns, and my recollection is that the Mexicans found them and disabled them, rendering the operation a failure. The F&F guns did NOT have any tracking devices. The operation was not briefed even to BATFE agents in Mexico, or to any Mexican authorities. Which means that, even if the U.S. agents had managed to keep eyeballs directly on all 2000 guns right to the border ... once they were across the border they were gone. No tracking devices, nobody in law enforcement even knew they existed, let alone that they were coming into Mexico.
There was no need to "order" anyone to lose track of them. The operation was designed to lose track of them. The only "tracking" contemplated was to "trace" them back to U.S. gun shops after they were used in crimes in Mexico and recovered. Any innocent (or guilty) Mexicans killed by the guns were just collateral damage.
armoredman
New member
Aguila, I watched the original Committee hearings - the agents in question DID testify that they had gun runners in sight about to transfer, asked for permission to arrest/interdict, and were ordered from above to allow the firearms to leave surveillance unhindered. They did testify they were ordered to let firearms "walk" out of their sight into Mexico, unlike the first operation, Wide Receiver, which the guns were watched all the way to the border and the Mexican authorities were advised...and did nothing, which was one major reason why Wide Receiver was terminated. One ATFE agent during the first hearing did testify he tried to build a tracking device, but it failed due to off the shelf components, limited range and limited battery life.
The agents on the ground testified they were repeatedly ordered to suspend surveillance and to allow known criminals to walk the firearms across the border, sometimes over strenuous objections by the agents testifying.
Yes, I remember seeing the report on F&F firearms found in Phoenix and Glendale, as well as other Arizona jurisdictions. Some of them are smuggled in, others probably walk in with the cartel enforcers along that lovely fed.gov superhighway gifted to them up through the state, the one marked "US Citizens stay out". That's not too many miles from my home.
The agents on the ground testified they were repeatedly ordered to suspend surveillance and to allow known criminals to walk the firearms across the border, sometimes over strenuous objections by the agents testifying.
Yes, I remember seeing the report on F&F firearms found in Phoenix and Glendale, as well as other Arizona jurisdictions. Some of them are smuggled in, others probably walk in with the cartel enforcers along that lovely fed.gov superhighway gifted to them up through the state, the one marked "US Citizens stay out". That's not too many miles from my home.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Yes, I understand that. But that was on the U.S. side of the border. As I wrote, with NOBODY in Mexico even aware of the operation, the U.S.-based agents could have had eyes-on contact with the guns all the way to the border and they would have gone walk-about as soon as they entered Mexico anyway, because the operation simply didn't include any provisions for keeping track of the guns in Mexico.armoredman said:
Some above appearing posts make mention of "media coverage" or the lack thereof re the details of Operation Fast & Furious in particular, and might I add, of "gun control" in general.
Given the media in general are great supporters of the Tales of the Vienna Woods, also known as Gun Control, one would hardly be surprised, though the facts of the matter are worth mentioning.
Given the media in general are great supporters of the Tales of the Vienna Woods, also known as Gun Control, one would hardly be surprised, though the facts of the matter are worth mentioning.
There have been many hours or testimony and documents placed before the Committee. Some of the most telling have been overlooked by the media and I think the lawmakers themselves.
The Commanding General for Southern Command testified that the Arsenals of Central America were the major source of weapons for the Cartels.
The Commanding General for Southern Command testified that the Arsenals of Central America were the major source of weapons for the Cartels.
What will be interesting to see is what happens if the election goes against the current administration. The reason I say that is then it would really limit the time the president has to give pardons and it would be interesting to see if he used this power to make this issue go away. For myself if a pardon is issued on this I think it will have ramifications that won’t easily go away... Yet if they do loose then they have to already be aware they could very well end up being prosecuted at some point over this issue... Murder is still murder...
Luger_carbine
New member
^ This links to the State Department again.
If the United States was arming some government and the weapons "just happened" to find their way into the hands of right-wing death squads... the media would be running stories on the bloodshed (and blaming America) nightly. There would be protests calling for the U.S. to cut off foreign aid to the country, cease military coperation and cease military aid, freeze assets, etc, etc...
The State Department was arming narco terrorists in Mexico, and hundreds and hundreds of people were getting killed with weapons that were procured through the Direct Commercial Sales program, and the media hardly said a word. Sharyl Attkisson was the notable exception.
I think the architects of the whole thing counted on things being too chaotic for people to ever be able to track down which weapons were from the Mexican armories and which were from U.S. gunstores.
And with the media coverage on border issues being as bad as it was, their strategy probably would have worked, except for 2 things, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed and some BATFE blew the whistle.
The death of Brian Terry was a game changer, but the State Department's role in this has never been brought to light by the media
Baba Louie
New member
Well, I'll be...
http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-detains-man-accused-fast-furious-gun-running-030319793.html
I wonder if Meza will live long enough to make it to the US for any upcoming trial should the USA or AZ govt decide to place charges. AZ I would expect action. From DC... hmmm. I wonder.
http://news.yahoo.com/mexico-detains-man-accused-fast-furious-gun-running-030319793.html
This could be interesting. Very interesting.
I wonder if Meza will live long enough to make it to the US for any upcoming trial should the USA or AZ govt decide to place charges. AZ I would expect action. From DC... hmmm. I wonder.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Being a conspiracy theorist, I find it "convenient" that after two YEARS, an arrest is made just two months before a very hotly-contested presidential election that the incumbent stands in serious jeopardy of losing. Usually, whenever Mexico arrests someone who is wanted in the U.S. there is a long period of negotiations until the U.S. formally agrees not to pursue the death penalty, since Mexico will not extradite anyone who would be facing a death penalty.
No such delay here, and no mention of the U.S. making such an agreement. That suggests to me that the fix was in well before-hand, and that the timing of the arrest may have been scheduled to give Obama some much-needed popular publicity.
No such delay here, and no mention of the U.S. making such an agreement. That suggests to me that the fix was in well before-hand, and that the timing of the arrest may have been scheduled to give Obama some much-needed popular publicity.
kilimanjaro
New member
Mexico's planning to extradite him and actually doing it are two different things. I think the Administration would have to promise no death penalty first, which would create a very negative publicity for the DOJ and the White House.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
As opposed to what? NOT extraditing him, after we know he's in custody in Mexico? It has long been accepted practice to agree not to seek the death penalty when we extradite a criminal from Mexico. I can't imagine how NOT agreeing to this -- and thus leaving the guy in Mexico -- would be better for the adminisitration.kilimanjaro said: