Did the ATF intentionally allow guns to fall into the hands of Mexican cartels? Fortune mag says no.

[davidm]

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...-furious-truth

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal
June 27, 2012: 5:00 AM ET

A Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust.

...

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.

More...

Interesting development, if true.

[thelurkinghorror]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

R.J. Hanlon

[davidm]

I haven't read the whole article yet, but so far any stupidity doesn't appear to be on the part of the ATF.

Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.

ETA: I should add that it appears that some of the roadblocks may be due to past NRA lobbying.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by davidm

I haven't read the whole article yet, but so far any stupidity doesn't appear to be on the part of the ATF.


ETA: I should add that it appears that some of the roadblocks may be due to past NRA lobbying.

And the fact that in many areas gun-running was perfectly legal.

It's a great article and goes into just how dramatically different it was for the ATF than other law enforcement agencies.

[Marley23]

I read this story earlier today, and if it's accurate, it does change a lot of things about the scandal - such as making it appear the entire scandal is phony.

[GIGObuster]

Man, as if there were not enough reasons already to criticize the current legislative and executive leaders of Arizona.

Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl has let it be know that the United States would be a better place if Eric Holder wasn’t the attorney general, when I see how the Arizona laws tied the hands of many ATF investigators, I would have to say that guys like Kyl have a nice racket going in the way they assign blame elsewhere and at the same time they ignore the mess that they have at home.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl has let it be know that the United States would be a better place if Eric Holder wasn’t the attorney general, when I see how the Arizona laws tied the hands of many ATF investigators, I would have to say that guys like Kyl have a nice racket going in the way they assign blame elsewhere and at the same time they ignore the mess that they have at home.

The ATF is a federal agency. How do state laws hinder federal investigations?

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I read this story earlier today, and if it's accurate, it does change a lot of things about the scandal - such as making it appear the entire scandal is phony.

Which begs the question why all the resistance from the AG and the President. My guess would be that it involves something embarrassing like illegal aliens buying the guns.

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

Man, as if there were not enough reasons already to criticize the current legislative and executive leaders of Arizona.

Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl has let it be know that the United States would be a better place if Eric Holder wasn’t the attorney general, when I see how the Arizona laws tied the hands of many ATF investigators, I would have to say that guys like Kyl have a nice racket going in the way they assign blame elsewhere and at the same time they ignore the mess that they have at home.

To be fair Kyl is a US Senator not a State Senator and has no say in Arizona state laws.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Which begs the question why all the resistance from the AG and the President. My guess would be that it involves something embarrassing like illegal aliens buying the guns.

Or Issa wants documents that can't be shared because of security concerns.

Issa is pushing a right-wing conspiracy theory and Holder has cooperated extensively. It makes sense that eventually he would ask for something that can't be shared.

[Algher]

Interesting article - did Voth write it for them? Reading this feels like a reprint of press release in a business publication.

At first skim, questions I have:

1) How did Fortune get access to 2,000 confidential files?

Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.

Maybe they should provide them to Congress, since ATF seems to want to use Executive Privilege.

2) What Fortune writer uses the term "long-gun"?

The group had little equipment and no long guns

That sounds like a parroted quote from the interviews with Voth.

Now, even with my skeptic's specs on - this does appear to show the Fast & Furious debacle to be more of an incompetent manager (Voth) / laziness (Hurley) than a scandal. But if that was true, why didn't ATF just share all of this with Congress? Hang Hurley out to dry and protect your organization!

Very interesting - can't wait to see what comes next.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Which begs the question why all the resistance from the AG and the President. My guess would be that it involves something embarrassing like illegal aliens buying the guns.

That's not what "begs the question" means. I think you mean "raises the question". The answer to the question of why Obama asserted executive privilege (which I assume is what you mean) is that the Justice Department says that the documents are related to ongoing criminal investigations and thus cannot be released.

It strikes me that, assuming this article is correct, it doesn't raise any such question. If it's correct then it eliminates the question since, if there's nothing to hide, then the Justice Department's claims are perfectly reasonable and believable.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by davidm

That's not what "begs the question" means. I think you mean "raises the question". The answer to the question of why Obama asserted executive privilege (which I assume is what you mean) is that the Justice Department says that the documents are related to ongoing criminal investigations and thus cannot be released.

It strikes me that, assuming this article is correct, it doesn't raise any such question. If it's correct then it eliminates the question since, if there's nothing to hide, then the Justice Department's claims are perfectly reasonable and believable.

When statements are made about when something is known and then those statements turn out to be false then it raises questions. And the "ongoing criminal investigations" aspect of it doesn't ring true if they've already been handing over information on it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Algher

Interesting article - did Voth write it for them?

It was written by Katherine Eban.

Reading this feels like a reprint of press release in a business publication.

In what way? I don't see that at all. Anyone else get that impression from it?

1) How did Fortune get access to 2,000 confidential files?

2,000 pages, not 2,000 files, which would be a lot more that 2,000 pages. They must have gotten them from an informant. Where else?

2) What Fortune writer uses the term "long-gun"?

That sounds like a parroted quote from the interviews with Voth.

"Parroted quote"? Just what do you think "quote" means? A quote is parroted by definition. What exactly would be wrong with using Voth's terms?

Now, even with my skeptic's specs on - this does appear to show the Fast & Furious debacle to be more of an incompetent manager (Voth) / laziness (Hurley) than a scandal. But if that was true, why didn't ATF just share all of this with Congress? Hang Hurley out to dry and protect your organization!

We don't know what they did or didn't share with Congress and whether or not Congress misinterpreted it (unintentionally or otherwise) in their zeal to attack Obama.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Magiver

When statements are made about when something is known and then those statements turn out to be false then it raises questions.

What statements were made that turned out to be false? Issa's mistaken representation about the nature of the gun running?

And the "ongoing criminal investigations" aspect of it doesn't ring true if they've already been handing over information on it.

Seriously? I have to explain this? Not all information is equal. Some documents are confidential and some aren't.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by davidm

What statements were made that turned out to be false?

When AG Eric Holder knew about the operation.

Originally Posted by davidm

Seriously? I have to explain this? Not all information is equal. Some documents are confidential and some aren't.

Yes, you have to explain it. This is a Congressional investigation and not a FOIA request.

[Lobohan]

I am constantly amazed at how gullible the Republicans are. The very concept of this conspiracy theory requires that Obama gave guns to Mexican criminals, hoping that they would murder people. That Obama literally set up innocent people to get murdered to further his political goals.

The God-damn stupidity of the people who bought into this is very upsetting.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Odesio

The ATF is a federal agency. How do state laws hinder federal investigations?

One would think that they do not, but in practice local enforcement can make it harder.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...furious-truth/

By January 2010 the agents had identified 20 suspects who had paid some $350,000 in cash for more than 650 guns. According to Rep. Issa's congressional committee, Group VII had enough evidence to make arrests and close the case then.

Prosecutors: Transferring guns is legal in Arizona

This was not the view of federal prosecutors. In a meeting on Jan. 5, 2010, Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. Attorney in Phoenix overseeing the Fast and Furious case, told the agents they lacked probable cause for arrests, according to ATF records. Hurley's judgment reflected accepted policy at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona. "[P]urchasing multiple long guns in Arizona is lawful," Patrick Cunningham, the U.S. Attorney's then–criminal chief in Arizona would later write. "Transferring them to another is lawful and even sale or barter of the guns to another is lawful unless the United States can prove by clear and convincing evidence that the firearm is intended to be used to commit a crime." (Arizona federal prosecutors referred requests for comment to the Justice Department, which declined to make officials available. Hurley noted in an e-mail, "I am not able to comment on what I understand to be an ongoing investigation/prosecution. I am precluded by federal regulation, DOJ policy, the rules of professional conduct, and court order from talking with you about this matter." Cunningham's attorney also declined to comment.)

It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party, sufficient evidence to seize them.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq

To be fair Kyl is a US Senator not a State Senator and has no say in Arizona state laws.

Well, you are correct there, but I think it is too much to assume that Kyl was that ignorant of what was actually happening.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

One would think that they do not, but in practice local enforcement can make it harder.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...furious-truth/

The quote you cite talks about federal prosecutors thwarting ATF. "Federal prosecutors". That is, Holder's people. Not Arizona state officials.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

One would think that they do not, but in practice local enforcement can make it harder.

I hate to sound obtuse but why would federal prosecutors be going after someone for anything other than violating federal laws?

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Terr

The quote you cite talks about federal prosecutors thwarting ATF. "Federal prosecutors". That is, Holder's people. Not Arizona state officials.

That was the "U.S. Attorney in Phoenix" I'm not experienced on that, but the gist of the report is that no Federal agent goes alone into an state, they get to work with the agents that are assigned to the locals and that are involved with them.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Magiver

When AG Eric Holder knew about the operation.

Well gee, lets see. The judiciary committee was asking him about an operation where ATF agents were deliberately aiding in the smuggling of guns. Could it be that he didn't recognize it as being the same operation as one he read a briefing about a year ago that didn't involve the deliberate smuggling of guns by ATF agents?

I know. You're going to say that he should have recognized it by the name "Fast and Furious". How many briefings do you think Holder receives daily, and why would this one particular briefing stand out and stick in his memory? Does he even read every briefing personally?

Yes, you have to explain it. This is a Congressional investigation and not a FOIA request.

I just did explain it. I guess I have to do it again. Not all information is equal. Some documents are confidential and some aren't. Now maybe you can explain to me why it's not being a FOIA request is relevant.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I am constantly amazed at how gullible the Republicans are. The very concept of this conspiracy theory requires that Obama gave guns to Mexican criminals, hoping that they would murder people. That Obama literally set up innocent people to get murdered to further his political goals.

The God-damn stupidity of the people who bought into this is very upsetting.

No, the controversy involves a government program designed to follow illegal gun purchases alerted them by gun dealers. They tracked them to the border and waved goodbye in the hopes that the Mexican government would track them. So far, it hasn't worked well. When asked to explain it the AG has been slow to respond. That's not a conspiracy. It's something that's politically embarrassing during an election cycle.

[doorhinge]

The BATFE is not looking at Congressional contempt charges. The head of the Just-Us department, Eric Holder, is.

What does the article actually say?

It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party, sufficient evidence to seize them.

The BATFE agents witnessed firearms being purchased illegally. The agents wanted to make an arrest but were ordered not to.

The federal firearms check alerted authorities that someone who was NOT allowed to purchase firearms in the U.S. was attempting to violate the law by buying firearms. Federal prosecutors ordered agents not to make an arrest.

Federal prosecutors ordered the gun shops to sell the firearms regardless of the fact that the sale was actually illegal. Federal prosecutors ordered guns shops to violate federal law and make the sale.

This article says that the BATFE did not allow guns to walk out of the U.S. and into Mexico and that somehow makes the case against Holder and the Just-Us department invalid. It doesn't.

The BATFE agents are pointing their fingers at the Just-Us department.

What did Holder know and when did he know it?

And now that Obama has claimed Executive Privilage for the F&F operation and what's occured afterward - What did Obama know and when did he know it?

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by davidm

Well gee, lets see. The judiciary committee was asking him about an operation where ATF agents were deliberately aiding in the smuggling of guns. Could it be that he didn't recognize it as being the same operation as one he read a briefing about a year ago that didn't involve the deliberate smuggling of guns by ATF agents?

I know. You're going to say that he should have recognized it by the name "Fast and Furious". How many briefings do you think Holder receives daily, and why would this one particular briefing stand out and stick in his memory? Does he even read every briefing personally?

are you seriously going to posit that the AG doesn't keep records of what goes on in his meetings? It's a simple matter of electronically surfing his own records. "The dog ate my email" doesn't work here.

Originally Posted by davidm

I just did explain it. I guess I have to do it again. Not all information is equal. Some documents are confidential and some aren't. Now maybe you can explain to me why it's not being a FOIA request is relevant.

It's relevant because it's a Congressional investigation. It's their JOB to investigate stupid when it comes out the other side of the fan.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Odesio

I hate to sound obtuse but why would federal prosecutors be going after someone for anything other than violating federal laws?

IMHO there would had been also hell to pay for going over state laws regarding guns.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Magiver

No, the controversy involves a government program designed to follow illegal gun purchases alerted them by gun dealers. They tracked them to the border and waved goodbye in the hopes that the Mexican government would track them. So far, it hasn't worked well. When asked to explain it the AG has been slow to respond. That's not a conspiracy. It's something that's politically embarrassing during an election cycle.

Have your read the article? It's painting a different picture. Is it true? I don't know, but it makes more sense then what you're describing.

The idea that the ATF would knowingly and deliberately plan for and then allow the illegal smuggling of guns into Mexico is up there with explosives in the twin towers and missiles fired at the pentagon. Add to that the claim that it was done in order to strengthen gun control laws and it's in the stratosphere of crazy conspiracy theories.

[Lobohan]

Originally Posted by Magiver

No, the controversy involves a government program designed to follow illegal gun purchases alerted them by gun dealers. They tracked them to the border and waved goodbye in the hopes that the Mexican government would track them. So far, it hasn't worked well. When asked to explain it the AG has been slow to respond. That's not a conspiracy. It's something that's politically embarrassing during an election cycle.

You're wrong, of course. Issa has been promoting the same conspiracy theory I just mentioned. It is also being promoted by the NRA in a statement today.

Next time, maybe read up on the story a bit before correcting me.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by davidm

Have your read the article? It's painting a different picture. Is it true? I don't know, but it makes more sense then what you're describing.

The idea that the ATF would knowingly and deliberately plan for and then allow the illegal smuggling of guns into Mexico.

That's exactly what the article talked about. They were alerted by gun dealers, they tried to track the proxy purchases in the hopes of catching the people organizing it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Magiver

are you seriously going to posit that the AG doesn't keep records of what goes on in his meetings?

No. I'm not. Where did I say anything like that?

It's a simple matter of electronically surfing his own records. "The dog ate my email" doesn't work here.

I also didn't say anything about disappearing emails. Let's drop the straw men, please. What would he have searched on? Was it even called "Fast and Furious" when he received the original briefing? We don't know. You're assuming that he's lying when there could easily be another much more mundane explanation. This just isn't relevant to determining what the facts are.

It's relevant because it's a Congressional investigation. It's their JOB to investigate stupid when it comes out the other side of the fan.

Correct, and ... not all information is equal. Some documents are confidential and some aren't.

This is not the first time the justice department has had a dispute with congress over confidential documents. It's very possible that some of what was requested could compromise an ongoing investigation or prosecution and it's not unreasonable to be concerned that a Congress on a witch hunt may not do the best job of keeping confidential information confidential.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Magiver

That's exactly what the article talked about. They were alerted by gun dealers, they tried to track the proxy purchases in the hopes of catching the people organizing it.

But you characterized it as them waving goodbye and hoping that the Mexican authorities would apprehend them. That's a disingenuous characterization of what the article says. It says that they were blocked by laws and policies and attorneys telling them they couldn't do certain things. That's not the same as cavalierly waving goodbye as they disappear across the border.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

The BATFE is not looking at Congressional contempt charges. The head of the Just-Us department, Eric Holder, is.

What does the article actually say?

It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser. The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party, sufficient evidence to seize them.

The BATFE agents witnessed firearms being purchased illegally. The agents wanted to make an arrest but were ordered not to.

The federal firearms check alerted authorities that someone who was NOT allowed to purchase firearms in the U.S. was attempting to violate the law by buying firearms. Federal prosecutors ordered agents not to make an arrest.

Federal prosecutors ordered the gun shops to sell the firearms regardless of the fact that the sale was actually illegal. Federal prosecutors ordered guns shops to violate federal law and make the sale.

This article says that the BATFE did not allow guns to walk out of the U.S. and into Mexico and that somehow makes the case against Holder and the Just-Us department invalid. It doesn't.

The BATFE agents are pointing their fingers at the Just-Us department.

What did Holder know and when did he know it?

And now that Obama has claimed Executive Privilage for the F&F operation and what's occured afterward - What did Obama know and when did he know it?

You know, I was on the fence about this. It's hard to keep track of who did what. Was there wrongdoing? Was there a conspiracy? I just didn't know.

But your masterful and repeated use of the phrase "Just-Us department" really seals the deal, here. I'm convinced. Off with their heads!

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by davidm

No. I'm not. Where did I say anything like that?

"How many briefings do you think Holder receives daily, and why would this one particular briefing stand out and stick in his memory? Does he even read every briefing personally?

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by davidm

But you characterized it as them waving goodbye and hoping that the Mexican authorities would apprehend them. That's a disingenuous characterization of what the article says. It says that they were blocked by laws and policies and attorneys telling them they couldn't do certain things. That's not the same as cavalierly waving goodbye as they disappear across the border.

The guns disappeared and then resurfaced in a Border Patrol death. Put whatever lipstick you want on that pig.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

But your masterful and repeated use of the phrase "Just-Us department" really seals the deal, here. I'm convinced. Off with their heads!

I was sort-of nodding along to his post, too, until I ran into that "Just-Us" stuff, at which point that record-screech sound effect interrupted my thought process.

[TriPolar]

You guys just aren't following the logic. Eric Holder, under orders from our Muslim Kenyan president, enforced federal laws in order to prevent BATF from stopping illegal gun trafficing in order to undermine the 2nd amendment.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

You guys just aren't following the logic.

You keep using that word...

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

Issa is pushing a right-wing conspiracy theory . . .

Is that the gun-nuts' theory that's going around, where Holder planned this whole thing to justify an assault-weapons ban or some shit like that?

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by davidm

Have your read the article? It's painting a different picture. Is it true? I don't know, but it makes more sense then what you're describing.

The idea that the ATF would knowingly and deliberately plan for and then allow the illegal smuggling of guns into Mexico is up there with explosives in the twin towers and missiles fired at the pentagon. Add to that the claim that it was done in order to strengthen gun control laws and it's in the stratosphere of crazy conspiracy theories.

The BATFE agents mentioned in the article are saying that Holder's Just-Us dept refused to allow them to arrest the people making the illegal firearm purchases.

The purpose of F&F was to track U.S. purchased firearms into Mexico and into the hands of the drug cartels.

However, the Feds never bother to notified the Mexican authorities that the weapons were coming. How were the Mexican police/military supposed to track firearms that they weren't aware were entering Mexico?

[Rick]

Something about this deal stinks like a fish left in the sun.
The first report I read about F&F was in a newspaper when the story first broke (LATimes?*). Anyway this story had quotes from gun shop owners saying that they were specifically instructed by BATF agents to break the law.
Now this story is about as far from that as Pollyanna is from Silence of the Lambs.
I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I would like to point out it would take some Major League balls to lie to the press about the agency that issues the license you need to be a gun dealer.


*In the history of the world no one has ever accuses the LA Timea of being a right wing rag.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by davidm

But you characterized it as them waving goodbye and hoping that the Mexican authorities would apprehend them. That's a disingenuous characterization of what the article says. It says that they were blocked by laws and policies and attorneys telling them they couldn't do certain things. That's not the same as cavalierly waving goodbye as they disappear across the border.

This makes no sense. The claim is that they were blocked by local laws from making arrests. Did they not think this out prior to implementing the plan? Maybe run the idea up to a couple of US attorneys and to determine if they would even be able to make a case BEFORE guns were sent across the border and agents killed?

If that is truly what happened, everyone involved should be fired for incompetence at the very least. It's not like AZ gun laws are particularly hard to find in documented form nor hard to understand.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Lobohan

I am constantly amazed at how gullible the Republicans are. The very concept of this conspiracy theory requires that Obama gave guns to Mexican criminals, hoping that they would murder people. That Obama literally set up innocent people to get murdered to further his political goals.

The God-damn stupidity of the people who bought into this is very upsetting.

You don't know how badly I want to find all of the similar accusations people on the Board made against Bush2

[waterj2]

Originally Posted by JXJohns

This makes no sense. The claim is that they were blocked by local laws from making arrests. Did they not think this out prior to implementing the plan? Maybe run the idea up to a couple of US attorneys and to determine if they would even be able to make a case BEFORE guns were sent across the border and agents killed?

Did you read the article? Fast and Furious did not send guns across the border. They were merely monitoring suspected straw purchasers, and trying to build a case that would convince an overly cautious Assistant US Attorney that the suspects in question had provably broken very permissive state and/or federal gun laws. The guns used in the shooting of the agent were purchased by one of the people they were watching, and the seller thought it seemed suspicious so he faxed the ATF the information, but by the time they got it, it was three days later. The guns in question were never in any way under ATF supervision.

[asterion]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I read this story earlier today, and if it's accurate, it does change a lot of things about the scandal - such as making it appear the entire scandal is phony.

I'm shocked, shocked that a Republican-trumpeted Obama scandal is actually complete bullshit.

[furt]

Originally Posted by davidm

I haven't read the whole article yet,

Always a great thing to read in an OP. "I haven't even finished reading this article yet, but I'm going to run to the SDMB and tell everyone how right it is!"

The article is, of course, all bullshit and slanderous lies. Complete fabrication. And the author is probably a pedophile. Mind you, I didn't read it, but it sounds like the kind of thing I might want to be true, and that's good enough for this thread, apparently.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by JXJohns

This makes no sense. The claim is that they were blocked by local laws from making arrests. Did they not think this out prior to implementing the plan? Maybe run the idea up to a couple of US attorneys and to determine if they would even be able to make a case BEFORE guns were sent across the border and agents killed?

If that is truly what happened, everyone involved should be fired for incompetence at the very least. It's not like AZ gun laws are particularly hard to find in documented form nor hard to understand.

The BATFE agents blamed the Justice Department for NOT authorizing any arrests. Local laws didn't prevent BATFE agents from arresting the people who were making illegal firearm purchases.

The Justice Department allowed the guns to "walk", NOT the BATFE agents.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by waterj2

Did you read the article? Fast and Furious did not send guns across the border. They were merely monitoring suspected straw purchasers, and trying to build a case that would convince an overly cautious Assistant US Attorney that the suspects in question had provably broken very permissive state and/or federal gun laws. The guns used in the shooting of the agent were purchased by one of the people they were watching, and the seller thought it seemed suspicious so he faxed the ATF the information, but by the time they got it, it was three days later. The guns in question were never in any way under ATF supervision.

It seems that you weren't the one reading for comprehension.

On June 1, Dodson used $2,500 in ATF funds to purchase six AK Draco pistols from local gun dealers, and gave these to Fernandez, who reimbursed him and gave him $700 for his efforts. Two days later, according to case records, Dodson—who would later testify that in his previous experience, "if even one [gun] got away from us, nobody went home until we found it"—left on a scheduled vacation without interdicting the guns. That day, Voth wrote to remind him that money collected as evidence needed to be vouchered within five days. Dodson e-mailed back, his sarcasm fully restored: "Do the orders define a 'day'? Is it; a calendar day? A business day or work day….? An Earth day (because a day on Venus takes 243 Earth days which would mean that I have plenty of time)?"

The ATF purchased guns and didn't follow up on them. The article does a masterful job of dressing it up and making excuses for it, but they can't deny the simple truth of it.

[Debaser]

What's most clear from reading this article is that these ATF agents are unprofessional to say the least and they certainly don't deserve their six figure salaries. We should get rid of the whole department.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Debaser

The ATF purchased guns and didn't follow up on them. The article does a masterful job of dressing it up and making excuses for it, but they can't deny the simple truth of it.

The article's thesis seems to me to be that the very agent who went and complained to Republican lawmakers about the operation is an incompetent dick who caused a lot of the problems himself. I believe his name is Dodson.

As for eliminating the whole BATF, I wonder if you'd let us know what profession you're in? I'm eager to see if all members of your profession are competent, or if we should eliminate it, too.