Fast & Furious Question [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Fast & Furious Question


Kingtubby
10-02-2012, 10:31
Please no flames, this is an honest question that I am struggling to find an honest answer too.

Okay, so I know a little about the situation from a number of different sources. Im not really concerned about teh congressional investigation, but more about how the ATF agents attempted to conduct their investigation into the strawman purchases and what it would have taken to justify an arrest and subsequent seizure of the purchased firearms.

My understanding is that numerous stops were made of suspected strawmen during the early stages of F&F, but that upon seeking arrest warrants from AZ US attorneys, they were told to let the strawmen go as they were legal purchasers who passed their background checks and beyond looking suspicious and buying several guns with cash, they had nothing to hold them on nor to justify seizing the guns.

Is my understanding of the situation incorrect? Should they have been able to make an arrest on someone with no criminal record, who passed the background check, yet for whatever reason, just doesnt smell right to the gunstore clerk? If so, doesnt that mean that the next time I walk into a gunstore and buy four semiauto rifles with cash, that I could be arrested and my guns seized because I look suspicious?

Im asking cause all the uproar over F&F seems like a damned if you do, damned if you dont scenario. A tough situation with no easy answers for gun advocates. We dont want to be hassled for buying an AR and an AK in one trip to the gunstore, but we are panfrying ATF for not doing just that in this situation. And if ATF shouldnt be able to affect an arrest in the parking lot of the gunstore, then is it gunwalking to not arrest the guy and attempt to surveil for evidence to justify an arrest warrant, however poorly executed that attempt was?

JW1178
10-02-2012, 10:42
I'll let someone chime in that is better at explaining things than I am but it's much worse that that. There wasn't much of anything legal about how the guns were sold.

The more you learn about it, the more you realize that someone needs to go to prison for this. It's not an "oops", not even a mistake, it's far and beyond the scope of rational thinking.

It would be like us selling Iran small nuclear devices to see where they go.

jp3975
10-02-2012, 10:48
We did all this without telling the Mexican govt, keep in mind.

They sold guns to drug cartels...people they knew would kill and did not track them. How hard is it to put lojack in the stock of a gun?

The liberals will tell you that the Bush admn did it too. What they dont tell you is that they worked with the Mexican govt and we stopped when their govt pulled the tracking devices and we lost track of some of them..

aplcr0331
10-02-2012, 12:35
We did all this without telling the Mexican govt, keep in mind.

They sold guns to drug cartels...people they knew would kill and did not track them. How hard is it to put lojack in the stock of a gun?

The liberals will tell you that the Bush admn did it too. What they dont tell you is that they worked with the Mexican govt and we stopped when their govt pulled the tracking devices and we lost track of some of them..


There's a 500 page report on the DOJ site that explicitly spells out that F&F is a new operation. Operation Wide Receiver ended in 2007. Completely. F&F started in 2009. New programs. It's in the report. Unfortunately most just like to repeat the lie that it was a bush program, as if that would make what happned recently OK.

jp3975
10-02-2012, 12:37
There's a 500 page report on the DOJ site that explicitly spells out that F&F is a new operation. Operation Wide Receiver ended in 2007. Completely. F&F started in 2009. New programs. It's in the report. Unfortunately most just like to repeat the lie that it was a bush program, as if that would make what happned recently OK.

Yeah, I know. My point is the liberals will tell you that Bush did it too. In that he had a similar program. I provided the differences between their programs.

Bren
10-02-2012, 13:00
Please no flames, this is an honest question that I am struggling to find an honest answer too.

Okay, so I know a little about the situation from a number of different sources. Im not really concerned about teh congressional investigation, but more about how the ATF agents attempted to conduct their investigation into the strawman purchases and what it would have taken to justify an arrest and subsequent seizure of the purchased firearms.

My understanding is that numerous stops were made of suspected strawmen during the early stages of F&F, but that upon seeking arrest warrants from AZ US attorneys, they were told to let the strawmen go as they were legal purchasers who passed their background checks and beyond looking suspicious and buying several guns with cash, they had nothing to hold them on nor to justify seizing the guns.

Is my understanding of the situation incorrect? Should they have been able to make an arrest on someone with no criminal record, who passed the background check, yet for whatever reason, just doesnt smell right to the gunstore clerk? If so, doesnt that mean that the next time I walk into a gunstore and buy four semiauto rifles with cash, that I could be arrested and my guns seized because I look suspicious?

Im asking cause all the uproar over F&F seems like a damned if you do, damned if you dont scenario. A tough situation with no easy answers for gun advocates. We dont want to be hassled for buying an AR and an AK in one trip to the gunstore, but we are panfrying ATF for not doing just that in this situation. And if ATF shouldnt be able to affect an arrest in the parking lot of the gunstore, then is it gunwalking to not arrest the guy and attempt to surveil for evidence to justify an arrest warrant, however poorly executed that attempt was?

You seem to be way, way, way off in your understanding if your position is "ATF was just doing their job, what could they really do?".

Somebody posted an excellent comparison of Wide Receiver and Fast & Furious recently, but I can't find it right now. It summed up the whole thing.

EDIT: here it is - posted by Zombie Surgeon in the "F&F was Bush's fault" thread:

Fast and Furious started under the Obama administration in 2009, two years after the Bush administration terminated operation Wide Receiver in 2007.

Differences between Bush's "Wide Receiver" and Obama's "Fast & Furious" explained for stupid liberals:

Wide Receiver - The number of guns used in the operation from the beginning until the end of the operation was 300
Fast & Furious - The number of guns used in the operation from the beginning until the end of the operation was 2,000

Wide Receiver - Guns were traced with miniature tracking devices and constant surveillance from ground and air.
Fast & Furious - No tracking devices were used, no surveillance was made whatsoever.

Wide Receiver - ATF agents were ordered to follow the gun smugglers every step of their trip from the gun store to the US/Mexico border.
Fast & Furious - ATF agents were ordered to stand down and not follow the gun smugglers after they left the gun store. The only surveillance was made through the gun store own video cameras; after gun smugglers left the store, the ATF agents were expressly ordered not to pursue.

Wide Receiver - Mexican army and police was in the loop about Wide Receiver. They took over the surveillance of the gun smugglers after they crossed with the guns in Mexico.
Fast & Furious - Mexican authorities were kept in the dark by the ATF and the US DOJ. They had no idea about Fast & Furious and the fact that guns provided to gun smugglers by the American authorities were "walked" in Mexico into the hands of drug cartel murderers.

Wide Receiver - When a small number of guns (30-40) were lost due to the malfunctioning tracking devices and / or because the gun smugglers figured out they were watched from a surveillance airplane flying overhead and learned how to take cover and evade, the operation Wide Receiver was immediately aborted and cancelled.
Fast and Furious - Operation continued even after ATF and DOJ lost track of all 2,000 guns sold to Mexican drug cartels

Wide Receiver - The operation was planned in such a way the gun smugglers and their cargo were kept under surveillance step by step, from the gun store to the US/Mexico border, across the border into Mexico and to their final destination: the hands of the drug cartel killers. This led to 1,400 arrests made in joint operations by the Mexican authorities and DEA and ATF agents. No lost Wide Receiver guns were recovered at crime scenes in Mexico or the US.
Fast & Furious - The operation was planned to let the guns go without any surveillance. Guns were supposed to be recovered at the murder scenes. One of the 150+ murder scenes where Fast & Furious guns were recovered was that of US border patrol agent Brian Terry; another one was the murder scene of ICE agent Jaime Zapata. So far DOJ and ATF didn't came with any explanation about how they were planning to make arrests of the drug cartel murderers BEFORE THEY KILLED PEOPLE with the Fast & Furious guns, and how they were supposed to do those arrest in Mexico without the Mexican authorities knowing anything about this operation.
Fast & Furious results: 300+Mexican citizens murdered; 2 US Federal agents murdered.


When reading that, think back to the early days fo the Obama administration when they looked to be setting the groundwork, or feeling out the voters, for some new gun control. What was the story they pushed? Directly from Obama and the Pres. of Mexico? It was all about how the Mexican cartels were being armed with guns smuggled across the border from the US - complete with pictures (many of which included guns and explosives they didn't legallly buy in a US gun store). Later, we learned that the ATF was actively smuggling thousands of guns across the border to bolster that claim.

JimP
10-02-2012, 13:03
KT - simplified: when gun shops/sales called the ATF on suspect sales they were told to let the guns walk as they were part of a criminal investigation. The purpose was to flood the border region with "illegal guns" in order to justify a new "assault" weapons ban (along with many other bans). If you think back, you saw and heard Hillary Clinton screaming about how "our lax gun laws were creating panic in Mexico and along the border states" and we needed to crack down on gun laws. The problem is that Agent Terry was killed by one of these guns and the lid was blown off by an ATF agent that actually had both a spine and a set of morals. The rest is history.

Atlas
10-02-2012, 13:08
... How hard is it to put lojack in the stock of a gun?
..


I know what Lojack is, don't know any details..

But what would you use to power a tracking device in the stock of a gun? A battery would have limited life.

jp3975
10-02-2012, 13:34
I know what Lojack is, don't know any details..

But what would you use to power a tracking device in the stock of a gun? A battery would have limited life.

That was just an example as it is a well known tracking device.

Scientists put tracking devices in animals and they last for months.

They did it in Wide Receiver.

Kingtubby
10-02-2012, 13:35
Thanks Bren. That helped clear up distinctions btw F&F and WR. I did browse thru the OIG report since last posting and it seems the quote is mostly in line with the operational failures of F&F. That report was HUGE!

AFter reading the report, I now know some strawmen could have been arrested and some couldnt, based on the info ATF had at the time of purchase. Previously, I heard that US Attorney whose directives were used as an excuse by the local atf guy in command, directed ATF to stand down for lack of probable cause in all cases. The OIG pretty much said that wasnt credible and that it was internal atf directives that lead to allowing strawmen who could have been arrested walk.

As far as motivational theories for F&F, I wont speculate,
but the OIG report indicated that the motivation behind the F&F's flawed tactics appeared to be dismantling the whole smuggling ring, not setting the country up for new gun laws. Although I can see how folks feel differently.

My particular interest is as a gun owner who uses the same ffl to buy numerous guns and the potential scrutiny and surveillance I might be subjecting myself to as a result and concerns about hasty actions ATF might take in response to the failures of F&F. Fortunately, I live nowhere near the border and can honestly answer the new question 10 in the negative. I wonder about folks who arent so lucky.

Acujeff
10-02-2012, 13:54
The Purpose of Fast and Furious:

In the early days of the Obama Administration, President Obama claimed that almost all the criminal guns in the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels came from the US. His goal was to stop the illegal trafficking of guns from the United States into Mexico. He claimed legitimate gun dealers in the United States were responsible for sending guns illegally to Mexico. All of his claims were lies.

In order to push his lies and policies built around them, with a goal of implementing harsher gun control laws and reinstating the assault weapons ban, President Obama packed his administration full of anti-Second Amendment zealots. Then the Obama administration did exactly what Democrats had been falsely accusing American gun sellers of doing: They put thousands of untrackable American guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

It has already caused the reported deaths of two US Agents (Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and I.C.E. Agent Jaime Zapata) and 300 Mexican citizens. As most of the guns are still out there, it is expected there will be more deaths as they become known. It has also directly lead to Obama issuing orders to register gun purchases in the four southern border states, promote the UN Gun Ban Treaty, and use the ATF to harass legitimate gun dealers. Obama and the Democrats are campaigning on re-instating the AWB, banning private gun transfers and sales, and regulating ammo purchases.

If Obama wins a 2nd term, the Attorney General office and DOJ are not going to investigate F&F, Holder, or Obama or prosecute the House contempt vote. It may be years before the civil contempt enforcement will find any resolution in the Federal courts.

Romney has officially made Fast and Furious a general election issue, directly pointing to the scandal as an example of how the Obama Administration used in its first term to “provide cover for potential efforts to restrict Second Amendment rights."

Romney is campaigning on appointing a new Attorney General, release all the Fast and Furious records to the House, and make sure it is successfully investigated and prosecuted, dismantle Obama's anti-gun actions in the UN and on the Southern border, and stop the abuses of the ATF.

Beware Owner
10-02-2012, 14:35
This is a perfect example of Order au Chao.

Kingtubby
10-02-2012, 15:05
Please elaborate. Im not sure what you mean.

Atlas
10-02-2012, 15:07
That was just an example as it is a well known tracking device.

Scientists put tracking devices in animals and they last for months.

They did it in Wide Receiver.

Good point.

Beware Owner
10-02-2012, 15:12
Please elaborate. Im not sure what you mean.

Order out of Chaos. It's a way government uses to institute societal change without having to force it upon them. It's also called Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. To make a long story short, they create a problem and then present a solution that agrees with their agenda in the first place, it's preferable when society itself begs for the solution, this way they can say that this is what YOU wanted. Main reason why I don't believe anything I see that they push in the media. If the media's pushing it, it MUST be bad!

devildog2067
10-02-2012, 15:17
How hard is it to put lojack in the stock of a gun?

Uhh... is that a joke? It's pretty damn hard.

Kingtubby
10-02-2012, 15:17
By "media" do you mean all media? Or just cnn, fox, nbc, etc? Do you think this of all the advertising that supports media in all its forms? Im curious as to what point your distrust subsides. I ask cause I find myself thinking the same thing, but it goes way beyond just the news channels.

devildog2067
10-02-2012, 15:19
Scientists put tracking devices in animals and they last for months.


Different deal entirely. Those are tracking devices with very limited range, and the equipment used to pick up the signals is large, bulky, and not intended to be hidden.

For a gun, you need something with a long battery life, which is capable of self-reporting its own position using something like GPS, and capable of transmitting that position as well. It's easier now than it's ever been, thanks to miniaturized GPS chips and antennas, but it's still not "easy" by any means.

fnfalman
10-02-2012, 16:18
In Fast and Furious, Noz is used to make the flames come out of the exhaust cans so that your rice burners can outrun a Ferrari.

unit1069
10-02-2012, 16:44
Univision has recently led the way in providing professional journalism, aside from Fox News, on the Obama-Holder Fast and Furious Scandal.

CBS's Cheryl Atkisson originally broke the story and delivered a number of follow-up segments until CBS silenced her, no doubt on orders from Obama-Holder.

Univision will provide a remarkable service to both Mexico and the United States if it presses outgoing Mexican President Felipe Calderone on his possible participation in the Obama-Holder conspiracy to blame the US Constitution's Second Amendment for the mass murders the Obama-Holder BATF/DOJ deliberately set into motion.

Calderone is either a co-conspirator with Obama-Holder or he was duped into becoming a mouthpiece for them. The fact that Calderone has shown no outrage whatever since the truth of Fast and Furious has come to light speaks for itself, in my opinion.

I'd just like to know how much money Calderone took to buy his involvement in the murders of hundreds of his countrymen/women and children.

series1811
10-04-2012, 08:19
I know what Lojack is, don't know any details..

But what would you use to power a tracking device in the stock of a gun? A battery would have limited life.

There are plent of ways to do it. The British were doing it 20 years ago in Northern Ireland and and invented the term for it: "jarking".

The imagination is the only limit in wires and trackers.

captcurly
10-04-2012, 16:02
In June I read the book, Fast and Furious, Obama's Bloodiest Scandal by Katie Pavlich. I downloaded it on my Kindle and could not stop reading. This was a very easy read and the author did a great investigative job. You can understand how the cover up was planned and executed. A true case of corruption and I would recommend this read to everyone.

fnfalman
10-04-2012, 17:25
In June I read the book, Fast and Furious, Obama's Bloodiest Scandal by Katie Pavlich. I downloaded it on my Kindle and could not stop reading. This was a very easy read and the author did a great investigative job. You can understand how the cover up was planned and executed. A true case of corruption and I would recommend this read to everyone.

You gotta ask yourself why the GOP doesn't capitalize on that debacle.

Beware Owner
10-05-2012, 12:01
By "media" do you mean all media? Or just cnn, fox, nbc, etc? Do you think this of all the advertising that supports media in all its forms? Im curious as to what point your distrust subsides. I ask cause I find myself thinking the same thing, but it goes way beyond just the news channels.

I mean the bigger news corporations. My distrust goes way beyond the news channels as well.

CAcop
10-05-2012, 13:58
Different deal entirely. Those are tracking devices with very limited range, and the equipment used to pick up the signals is large, bulky, and not intended to be hidden.

For a gun, you need something with a long battery life, which is capable of self-reporting its own position using something like GPS, and capable of transmitting that position as well. It's easier now than it's ever been, thanks to miniaturized GPS chips and antennas, but it's still not "easy" by any means.

I don't know if you saw the post a few above yours but they did it in Wide Reciever.

tarpleyg
10-05-2012, 17:59
Please no flames, this is an honest question that I am struggling to find an honest answer too.

Okay, so I know a little about the situation from a number of different sources. Im not really concerned about teh congressional investigation, but more about how the ATF agents attempted to conduct their investigation into the strawman purchases and what it would have taken to justify an arrest and subsequent seizure of the purchased firearms.

My understanding is that numerous stops were made of suspected strawmen during the early stages of F&F, but that upon seeking arrest warrants from AZ US attorneys, they were told to let the strawmen go as they were legal purchasers who passed their background checks and beyond looking suspicious and buying several guns with cash, they had nothing to hold them on nor to justify seizing the guns.

Is my understanding of the situation incorrect? Should they have been able to make an arrest on someone with no criminal record, who passed the background check, yet for whatever reason, just doesnt smell right to the gunstore clerk? If so, doesnt that mean that the next time I walk into a gunstore and buy four semiauto rifles with cash, that I could be arrested and my guns seized because I look suspicious?

Im asking cause all the uproar over F&F seems like a damned if you do, damned if you dont scenario. A tough situation with no easy answers for gun advocates. We dont want to be hassled for buying an AR and an AK in one trip to the gunstore, but we are panfrying ATF for not doing just that in this situation. And if ATF shouldnt be able to affect an arrest in the parking lot of the gunstore, then is it gunwalking to not arrest the guy and attempt to surveil for evidence to justify an arrest warrant, however poorly executed that attempt was?

If you want the real story on allthis mess, go to davidcodrea.com and be prepared to get very angry. He was one of the first to break the story and has been all over it since.

stevelyn
10-05-2012, 18:07
Okay, so I know a little about the situation from a number of different sources. Im not really concerned about teh congressional investigation, but more about how the ATF agents attempted to conduct their investigation into the strawman purchases and what it would have taken to justify an arrest and subsequent seizure of the purchased firearms.


There was no real investigation. They didn't intend to investigate. The waffen BATFEces were willing participants in a contrived crisis. Obama and company pulled numbers out of their collective asses which claimed a 70% US source rate for gun recovered in Mexican crime scenes. F&F was an attempt to create "evidence" as a pretext to justify a US gun control push by the Obama adminstration.

IOW, the waffen BATFEces and Gruppenfuhrer Holder ran a scam which seeded Mexico with easily traceable US sourced guns.

The incompetence and botched investigation labels are the enemy's attempt to take lesser responsibility for clearly criminal intentions.

You also may want to visit sipseystreetirregulars.com and read what Mike Vanderboegh uncovered. He and David Codrea have come to the same conclusions as to the real purpose of Fast & Furious aka Gunwalker aka Gunrunner.

boozer
10-05-2012, 18:35
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/s1209.pdf

Just in case anybody wants to read the report.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765605528/Issa-IG-report-step-toward-restoring-faith.html

The fact that Rep. Issa has given up on the Fast and Furious investigation and moved on infers to the veracity of the report.

Summary.

Misguided, overzealous, self-aggrandizing ATF agents try to take out an unknown "Mr. Big" to win a big publicity score, then let the operation get out of control, while a clueless Federal Prosecuter tells them they don't have enough evidence to stop the participants.

certifiedfunds
10-05-2012, 18:58
Order out of Chaos. It's a way government uses to institute societal change without having to force it upon them. It's also called Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. To make a long story short, they create a problem and then present a solution that agrees with their agenda in the first place, it's preferable when society itself begs for the solution, this way they can say that this is what YOU wanted. Main reason why I don't believe anything I see that they push in the media. If the media's pushing it, it MUST be bad!

You are correct. However you will be called a loon by most here.

Acujeff
10-05-2012, 19:12
The fact that Rep. Issa has given up on the Fast and Furious investigation and moved on infers to the veracity of the report.


How can Issa proceed if the Obama administration has covered up and blocked the evidence?

If Obama wins a 2nd term, the Attorney General office, or the DOJ, will not investigate F&F, Holder, or Obama any further or prosecute the House contempt vote and it may be years before the House's civil contempt enforcement will find any resolution in the Federal courts.

Romney has officially made Fast and Furious a general election issue, directly pointing to the scandal as an example of how the Obama Administration used in its first term to “provide cover for potential efforts to restrict Second Amendment rights."

Romney will appoint a new Attorney General, get all the Fast and Furious records released and make sure it is successfully investigated and prosecuted.

If voters want Issa to finish the investigation, we have to fire Obama and elect Romney.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-set-to-ok-most-pro-gun-platform-ever/article/2506043

Beware Owner
10-08-2012, 12:35
You are correct. However you will be called a loon by most here.

Oh, I already have, and by those who seem suspect themvselves...