http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/09/pr ... al-border/

I heard about this last night and was hoping it was not true.

Apparently, we need to be worried about the incompetence of our government (specifically the BATF) who worries more about my guns than actual illegal guns. I think Eric Holder and Deputy of the BATF should be fired for a Border Agent being killed and another wounded because the weapon used in the shooting was being tracked by this program. Thank God for Whistle Blowers.

It will go nowhere and the anti-gun folks will continue pressing forth their opinion as fact.

You know how it is, people who follow the law are the dangerous ones.

Really, guys? The ATF tries to take down an organized network of gunrunners, and you're saying they don't care about illegal guns?

And we're to believe that it was this sting operation set up from ten gun shops, last year, in Arizona that led to the surge of illegal guns going to Mexico? That there wasn't otherwise an onslaught of illegal gun shipments? That the 90% statistic waved by the left is somehow invalidated by less than twelve months of a small sting operation?

What the f***, you guys.

Two Federal Agents were kill/hurt due to a firearm that was a part of this Straw Purchase program. Had the program yielded any relevant arrests for the Drug Cartels or gun runners they were targeting, that would be one thing. But the BATF never followed up on the tracking of these firearms after the straw purchase. You know.. straw purchases that are illegal.

Again, people doing illegal things are breaking the law which makes them criminals.

Cold_Zero wrote:Two Federal Agents were kill/hurt due to a firearm that was a part of this Straw Purchase program. Had the program yielded any relevant arrests for the Drug Cartels or gun runners they were targeting, that would be one thing. But the BATF never followed up on the tracking of these firearms after the straw purchase. You know.. straw purchases that are illegal.

The scenario you pose assumes the person who pulled the trigger would not have had a gun otherwise. Its a remote possibility that he might not. But that's likely to be statistically improbable. First, do you really think the 5 men who were there would have been unarmed? They were likely there to effect some type of crime so would they have been there if they could not get a hold of firearms? And secondly, if Fox News was correct in this article then with 83% of firearms coming from other sources, would the shooter really have that hard a time finding a gun?

I would really cringe if anyone was using the dead agent's death for political motive. From either side. I really hope that's not the case.

That said, I can see the potential value of being able to track how guns move through the system. But I do draw some parallels with the whole A.Q Khan debacle. Though the magnitude of a miscalculation here would be much much smaller...

C-Kwik wrote:The scenario you pose assumes the person who pulled the trigger would not have had a gun otherwise. Its a remote possibility that he might not. But that's likely to be statistically improbable. First, do you really think the 5 men who were there would have been unarmed? They were likely there to effect some type of crime so would they have been there if they could not get a hold of firearms? And secondly, if Fox News was correct in this article then with 83% of firearms coming from other sources, would the shooter really have that hard a time finding a gun?

I would really cringe if anyone was using the dead agent's death for political motive. From either side. I really hope that's not the case.

That said, I can see the potential value of being able to track how guns move through the system. But I do draw some parallels with the whole A.Q Khan debacle. Though the magnitude of a miscalculation here would be much much smaller...

While I agree with you that it is debatable whether or not these Drug Cartel gang members would have been armed regardless of the BATF's program. I think what really concerns me is it appears that you are implying that the BATF is not culpable in this situation. Let’s boil it down to an example that I think we can all understand. If I fail to do what is prudent to secure my fire arms and someone steals one (or heaven forbid sell a firearm in a straw purchase to someone) that that person goes out and kills a police officer, do you think that I am culpable for the murder? Or would you just shrug and say, the criminal could have gotten a firearm from another source so who cares? No, you would not.

Also what is shocking is that curbing the sale and possession of illegal guns is part of the BATF’s mandate. While I agree with you that it is probably good to see where these guns are going and there is an inherent risk to a program like this, in order to prosecute gun runners and illegal arms dealers. But the failure of the BATF to follow up on these firearms purchases, in my mind makes them culpable. This reminds me of the US Military handing our firearms to the Iraqi police, not tracking who they are issuing the firearms to and then the firearms end up showing up in the hands of the Militias and Al Qaeda in Iraq groups. It thoroughly pisses me off when our government does this. It doesn’t matter what Administration is running the Federal Government at the time.

And as for my motives, please be assured that this isn’t political. I have despised the BATF since the 1990’s. Furthermore, I think the thing that pisses me off the most is how easily our Federal Government dumps on our Federal Agents! A perfect example is the jailing of Agents Ramos and Compean. I am appalled at how easy our government can throw our civil servants under the bus to make a neighbor (who I think operates in bad faith) happy.

Fighting organized crime is part of the FBI's mandate, yet they go and sneak in undercover agents that actually HELP take part in crimes!

HOW DARE THEY?! Yes, curbing the sale and possession of illegal guns is part of ATF's mandate, but I think you're missing the entire point of a "sting" operation.

It's a sad situation.

I can understand what they were trying to do, but they failed miserably in carrying out the plan. Not exactly uncommon in the law enforcement world. :/

And that's a fine criticism, Matt, and I'll stand behind it: ATF, you f*** this one up. But to try and blame ATF for gun violence in Mexico on the basis of this f***-up sting is beyond retarded, and it's clearly only stated for partisan reasons. Maybe not by the people relaying it to NICO, but FOX doesn't do a very good job of hiding its agenda in the actual article.

EDIT: Providing supporting evidence...

FOXNews wrote:as officials at the Department of Justice close ranks, hoping to cover up an investigation critics say is responsible for an untold number of dead.

There's no evidence in the article to support that allegation.

FOXNews wrote:Grassley and others say Gunrunner was a dismal and deadly failure, with ATF intentionally allowing thousands of weapons to be illegally trafficked to Mexico..

Having already told us that it was an attempted sting operation, isn't this a bit inflammatory and unnecessary?

FOXNews wrote:ATF could have said no, or later seized the guns in an arrest. Instead, owners were urged to sell, even though agents often knew the buyer was a straw for the Mexican cartels.

Because, as you've already told us, FOXNews, it was a sting operation. Why would they say "no?" This, also, was unnecessary and only served to be inflammatory.

FOXNews wrote:Until now, administration officials blamed Mexico's drug violence on Arizona and border state gun shops, repeatedly making the false claim that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were sold in the U.S.

What makes it false? And, in the absence of that can we at least get some records of them actually saying it?

FOXNews wrote:Now Desaye, paraphrasing Second Amendment activist Jeff Knox, says, "the truth is coming out. It's becoming obvious the largest supplier to Mexican gun violence is ATF, not the dealers. And they are using us as scapegoats."

Yeah, okay, it's a paraphrase of a third-party quote. But would a reputable news agency actually reprint the thing?

FOXNews wrote:As the scandal began to draw more media attention, the chief of Public Affairs at the ATF in Washington issued this memo February 28 to media relations staff throughout the agency. Critics say it's evidence the agency is trying to hide, or at least distract the media, from reporting on Project Gunrunner.

"ATF needs to proactively push positive stories this week in an effort to preempt some negative reporting, or at a minimum lessen the coverage of (Project Gunrunner) in the news cycle by replacing them with good stories about the ATF."

Was that the memo? Or did we just get someone to spit out a quote that we could throw in there to look like a memo, but also look ambiguous enough not to be called on a libel charge?

I figure these portions were the least I could do - if I'm going to be honest when I ask people to come up with examples of NPR's liberal bias, I might as well put my money where my mouth is when I'm accusing a news agency of bias.

IBCoupe wrote:But to try and blame ATF for gun violence in Mexico on the basis of this f***ed-up sting is beyond retarded, and it's clearly only stated for partisan reasons.

Yep I agree. It's much more complicated. Many reasons for the violence, most of them policy-based.

At least we have the internet to hash out the misinformation being spewed by most of the 24-hour networks. They never waste an opportunity to sensationalize and misconstrue the message.

Gives me something to do on spring break.

Open border would make the Mexicans more friendly and less violent. We need to simply let them all in.

The thing about caricatures is that they're best when they exaggerate the actual qualities of their subjects. "Open borders" isn't really an argument about violence.

People being happy make for less violence

It's not really an argument about making people happy, either - at least, not in the sense that you're using it.

I'm just saying what others have said before, that opening the border will resolve all the violence and issues....that and making pot legal.

audtatious wrote:People being happy make for less violence

True... unless violence makes the people happy. Anyone up for some Call of Honor: Medal of Duty 4 for xRox 350?

audtatious wrote:I'm just saying what others have said before, that opening the border will resolve all the violence and issues....that and making pot legal.

Opening the border won't do much to alleviate violence, from what I understand. Legalizing drugs, however, would stomp out the multi-billion dollar cartels and their armies.

Not all the violence, but a large percentage would be alleviated.

Anyways, not meaning to steer the direction of the convo into that direction any further than it is.

There is more to the border than just drugs. We are unfairly keeping people from prosperity here in the US.

Also, by unnecessarily restricting immigration, we're the source of our own pain when it comes to illegal immigration. Allow anyone who wants to be a citizen the ability to become one easily, like we used to, and none of the ills associated with people evading the system are realized.

THAT'S the argument for open borders.

Interesting, and possibly related...

Washington Post wrote:While drug violence raged in the Mexican town of Puerto Palomas, the mayor and police chief of next-door Columbus, New Mexico, formed part of a U.S. smuggling ring selling weapons to gangsters across the border, U.S. prosecutors say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05906.html

Cold_Zero wrote:While I agree with you that it is debatable whether or not these Drug Cartel gang members would have been armed regardless of the BATF's program. I think what really concerns me is it appears that you are implying that the BATF is not culpable in this situation. Let’s boil it down to an example that I think we can all understand. If I fail to do what is prudent to secure my fire arms and someone steals one (or heaven forbid sell a firearm in a straw purchase to someone) that that person goes out and kills a police officer, do you think that I am culpable for the murder? Or would you just shrug and say, the criminal could have gotten a firearm from another source so who cares? No, you would not.

I don't disagree completely. But I'd prefer to see some real statistics before jumping to any kind of a conclusion. The most relevant numbers would be how many guns did they push into the system vs how many are actually introduced into the black market there. If it ended up being a significant number, than sure. But if it was insignificant, then I do think the benefits might outweigh the risks. The caveat being how effective was the program in providing the information that they desired.

Cold_Zero wrote:Also what is shocking is that curbing the sale and possession of illegal guns is part of the BATF’s mandate. While I agree with you that it is probably good to see where these guns are going and there is an inherent risk to a program like this, in order to prosecute gun runners and illegal arms dealers. But the failure of the BATF to follow up on these firearms purchases, in my mind makes them culpable. This reminds me of the US Military handing our firearms to the Iraqi police, not tracking who they are issuing the firearms to and then the firearms end up showing up in the hands of the Militias and Al Qaeda in Iraq groups. It thoroughly pisses me off when our government does this. It doesn’t matter what Administration is running the Federal Government at the time.

I'm not convinced there was a lack of follow-up. There some statistics for cases on this. I wasn't sure what the all the numbers specifically represented but it appeared there were many charges filed and many recommendations to charge.

Cold_Zero wrote:And as for my motives, please be assured that this isn’t political. I have despised the BATF since the 1990’s. Furthermore, I think the thing that pisses me off the most is how easily our Federal Government dumps on our Federal Agents! A perfect example is the jailing of Agents Ramos and Compean. I am appalled at how easy our government can throw our civil servants under the bus to make a neighbor (who I think operates in bad faith) happy.

I actually was making a more general comment about political motives. Perhaps a little more directed at the media and politicians.

audtatious wrote:There is more to the border than just drugs. We are unfairly keeping people from prosperity here in the US.

Definitely much more dynamic than just the drug war.

I have been following this for a while thanks to NRA-ILA. Interesting to see that this case taken on a life of its own. Inter Departmental fighting between the BATF and the DoJ; a Congressional investigation, Mexican Officials want to extradite US officials for prosecution in their country, the whistle blower terminated from the ATF (which I thought was illegal to retaliate), and the body count of these 2,500 guns keeps going up. I really hope that Congress gets to the bottom of this.

And before anyone jumps my case for bringing this backup. I have to ask, what actionable intelligence have we learned from this probe? The only thing I can gather (realizing that the investigation is still going on) is that the BATF targeted an FBI terrorism informant that was deported by the DEA to Mexico. The BATF did nothing, technologically, to track these weapon as they were released to the Mexican drug cartels. It should be pointed out that one BATF agent did took it upon himself to attempt to hide a GPS unit on the guns to track them. But this is not the methodology the BATF proposed for tracking the weapons. They employed a wait and see method. As firearms show up in crimes inside the US and Mexico, they track the serial number back to their list.

We all know that something like +20% of illegal firearms in Mexico come from the United States. We had already established that fact. Why then did the BATF officials deny the request of field agents to apprehend the people buying these 2500 firearms and let the firearms ‘walk?’

(I am speculating here and I hope that this Congressional investigation proves me wrong)

I can’t help but wonder that there was another motive for letting these fire arms ‘walk.’ And that is to prove a point that was really not there, that the United States IS the major supplier of illegal firearms to Mexican Drug cartels and gun control legislation needs to be proposed to stem the flow of illegal guns to Mexico. Personally, I think we have to look at rogue states and China as the source of illegal firearms in regards to the Mexican Cartels. Sure, we need to crack down on Straw purchases (period) and especially stem the +20% that go to Mexico. But our Government doesn’t need to artificially manufacture illegal guns sales to prove another point. Either that or the BATF and DoJ f’ed dropped the ball on this probe, the probe only exposed how Federal Law Enforcement agencies in this country don’t share information and everyone is trying to cover their a**. It is probably the later.

Dont be surprised in the coming days the news media gets a hold that the Tampa office of the BATF was running guns to Drug Dealers in Honduras in a similar probe.

Cold_Zero wrote:Why then did the BATF officials deny the request of field agents to apprehend the people buying these 2500 firearms and let the firearms ‘walk?’

Still looks like a failed sting operation to me.

It is indicative of the BATF. Burn the s*** out of Waco acting like cowboys, arm Drug gangs. Pretty standard stuff.

This is all sorts of trouble for Holder:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 4103.story

It is never a good sign when the DOJ or BATF avoids and stalls Congressional inquiries. It typically means the s*** is going to go down soon.

That would probably depend on the Congressional inquiry - what exactly did they ask for?