Senator tells Holder to resign.

[therealUT]

Straight question; do you consider it reasonable that Holder et al and their tactics with F&F meet YOUR criteria for "foreseeable misuse" of weapons under their oversight?

No. The drug cartels in Mexico are going to get assault rifles whether or not we provide them in an effort to track the cartels. One can purchase AK-47s in Mexico for as little as $500; ATF evidence, from 2006, has shown that at least on one occasion 20 AK-47s were purchased in Houston and taken across the border. Further, one individual can legally purchase 9 semi-automatic AR-15s from UCAM in Mexico City; private sales are not regulated at all in Mexico, so it is easy for someone with a "clean" record to purchase 9 AR-15s and then sell them to those who have either already bought up their allotment or who have "dirty" records. The attempts by the ATF, dating back to at least 2007, to sell arms and track them, in an effort to take down the cartels from the top, provides only a marginal increase in firearms and firepower to these cartels.

If not, please explain. If so, setting aside whatever legal crap would have to be involved, why would you be so nonplussed about F&F?

Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Not all of the individuals in the firefight in which Terry was killed were armed with weapons acquired through F&F; some of the weapons fired were not F&F weapons. It just so happens that the bullet that killed Terry came from the former; however, to think that these individuals would not have been armed had they not acquired weapons through F&F is sheer naivety.

 

[hndog609]

No. The drug cartels in Mexico are going to get assault rifles whether or not we provide them in an effort to track the cartels. One can purchase AK-47s in Mexico for as little as $500; ATF evidence, from 2006, has shown that at least on one occasion 20 AK-47s were purchased in Houston and taken across the border. Further, one individual can legally purchase 9 semi-automatic AR-15s from UCAM in Mexico City; private sales are not regulated at all in Mexico, so it is easy for someone with a "clean" record to purchase 9 AR-15s and then sell them to those who have either already bought up their allotment or who have "dirty" records. The attempts by the ATF, dating back to at least 2007, to sell arms and track them, in an effort to take down the cartels from the top, provides only a marginal increase in firearms and firepower to these cartels.



Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Not all of the individuals in the firefight in which Terry was killed were armed with weapons acquired through F&F; some of the weapons fired were not F&F weapons. It just so happens that the bullet that killed Terry came from the former; however, to think that these individuals would not have been armed had they not acquired weapons through F&F is sheer naivety.

TRUT, your observations really aren't applicable to the questions I asked as they were directed specifically at LG due to his stance on civilian accountability for weapons. Succinctly, LG would be happy to place liability on civilians for the use of guns that were actually stolen from a locked home or vehicle. He's being called out for what some (myself included) have seen as a somewhat inconsistent view of accountability considering the government's actions in F&F, which of course were intentional.

 

[bamawriter]

I can't agree that allowing the weapons to continue on their path to Mexico so that they can be tracked and the sources of the guns here in the US held accountable criminally equates to the scenarios we have discussed earlier. I see some fundamental differences there.

Except that the guns weren't tracked. And even if they had been, it turns out that the FBI already had the names that the DOJ was looking for. Holder didn't need to let any weapons walk; he could have simply walked down the hall.

F&F was about being able to say that Mexicans are being killed with American guns. Turns out that the majority of those weapons aren't coming from the US, so the DOJ had to try and stack the deck a bit.

 

[lawgator1]

Except that the guns weren't tracked. And even if they had been, it turns out that the FBI already had the names that the DOJ was looking for. Holder didn't need to let any weapons walk; he could have simply walked down the hall.

F&F was about being able to say that Mexicans are being killed with American guns. Turns out that the majority of those weapons aren't coming from the US, so the DOJ had to try and stack the deck a bit.

The argument you are making is that the program was ineffective and not worth the risk.

Everyone agrees with you.

Including Holder.

 

[hndog609]

I can't agree that allowing the weapons to continue on their path to Mexico so that they can be tracked and the sources of the guns here in the US held accountable criminally equates to the scenarios we have discussed earlier. I see some fundamental differences there.

I'm not trying to make a 1-1 comparison here but if someone can be held accountable for the actions of another person with a weapon they obtained by theft (which you apparently support) it still strikes me as pretty damn reasonable to think you wouldn't have some pretty strong reservations about what went down in F&F.

I mean, you can argue that its bad policy because it creates the opportunity for the guns to be used to harm someone, that the effort to identify the sources of the illegal guns here in the US is not worth the risk. Holder has agreed with that.

Holder et al have seem to be doing a lot of ducking and dodging for something that could/should be dismissed as easily as you present it here, IMO.

 

[utvolpj]

The argument you are making is that the program was ineffective and not worth the risk.

Everyone agrees with you.

Including Holder.

the guy sitting in the drunk tank also now believes that getting behind the wheel wasn't worth it. Hindsight

 

[bamawriter]

The argument you are making is that the program was ineffective and not worth the risk.

Everyone agrees with you.

Including Holder.

No, my argument was that it was never about tracking weapons. It was playing politics with the lives of Mexican civilians.

 

[lawgator1]

Holder et al have seem to be doing a lot of ducking and dodging for something that could/should be dismissed as easily as you present it here, IMO.

the guy sitting in the drunk tank also now believes that getting behind the wheel wasn't worth it. Hindsight

No, my argument was that it was never about tracking weapons. It was playing politics with the lives of Mexican civilians.

I don't see a compromise short of court intervention because the DOJ could let Issa and the committee see the remaining documents on the condition that they not be revealed. But, Issa & Co. are looking for something to embarrass Holder with and they would never agree to that condition.

So, they need to cite him and then let it go to court where the judge will do a direct review and decide whether the privilege applies.

That will take many months, if not more than a year. The GOP is in no hurry. They won't act on the citation until probably September or October, so as to get maximum political effect out of it.

 

[gsvol]

I don't see a compromise short of court intervention because the DOJ could let Issa and the committee see the remaining documents on the condition that they not be revealed. But, Issa & Co. are looking for something to embarrass Holder with and they would never agree to that condition.

So, they need to cite him and then let it go to court where the judge will do a direct review and decide whether the privilege applies.

That will take many months, if not more than a year. The GOP is in no hurry. They won't act on the citation until probably September or October, so as to get maximum political effect out of it.

Invoking executive priviledge changes the equation entirely.

Executive priviledge doesn't apply to documents that involve Holder's perjury to congress.

Not surprising though, everyone knows that Obama holds an equal disdain for the law, court orders, congress and ultimately the American people that Holder exibits.

Question LG, do you still believe in the Easter bunny?