Some of my readers have evinced an interest in this Fast and Furious thing that is causing such a stir in Washington. Seeking to learn more about it, I started reading the results of a six-month investigation into the case by Fortune magazine. It left me more or less as confused as I was before.
As political pressure has mounted, ATF and Justice Department officials have reversed themselves. After initially supporting Group VII agents and denying the allegations, they have since agreed that the ATF purposefully chose not to interdict guns it lawfully could have seized. Holder testified in December that “the use of this misguided tactic is inexcusable, and it must never happen again.”
There’s the rub.
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.
Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. 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.
How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today. It’s a story that starts with a grudge, specifically Dodson’s anger at Voth. After the terrible murder of agent Terry, Dodson made complaints that were then amplified, first by right-wing bloggers, then by CBS. Rep. Issa and other politicians then seized those elements to score points against the Obama administration, which, for its part, has capitulated in an apparent effort to avoid a rhetorical battle over gun control in the run-up to the presidential election. (A Justice Department spokesperson denies this and asserts that the department is not drawing conclusions until the inspector general’s report is submitted.)
“Republican senators are whipping up the country into a psychotic frenzy with these reports that are patently false,” says Linda Wallace, a special agent with the Internal Revenue Service’s criminal investigation unit who was assigned to the Fast and Furious team (and recently retired from the IRS). A self-described gun-rights supporter, Wallace has not been criticized by Issa’s committee.
The ATF’s accusers seem untroubled by evidence that the policy they have pilloried didn’t actually exist. “It gets back to something basic for me,” says Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). “Terry was murdered, and guns from this operation were found at his murder site.” A spokesman for Issa denies that politics has played a role in the congressman’s actions and says “multiple individuals across the Justice Department’s component agencies share responsibility for the failure that occurred in Operation Fast and Furious.” Issa’s spokesman asserts that even if ATF agents followed prosecutors’ directives, “the practice is nonetheless gun walking.” Attorneys for Dodson declined to comment on the record…
A bit further down, I find a description of the thing that has confused me the most about this case, and all the GOP indignation over it:
Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal…
Related Posts
Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Democrats are fine with narcotic trafficking terrorists having firearms but don’t want law abiding citizens to have them….
OK, now I’m even more confused. Where do you get “Democrats are fine with narcotic trafficking terrorists having firearms”? I missed that part…
Isn’t the key dispute whether the guns walked from the straw buyers to the drug cartels in Mexico while the ATF stood by and did nothing?
Given that the article starts with a patent falsehood, you kind of know what you’re in for. From the second paragraph of that article:
“No federal statute outlaws firearms trafficking, so agents must build cases using a patchwork of often toothless laws.”
Wow. I’m sure that will come to the surprise of all the people sitting in prison for arms-trafficking. The act of buying guns for criminals is a 10 year federal felony. The act of smuggling guns across the border is as well. Conspiracy can be used to reach people who knowingly further these activities.
Also, if Dodson is such a rogue agent, why doesn’t the DOJ release the documents showing him to be so, throw him under the bus, and be done with it?
But that’s not what’s happening. You’re getting an eleventh hour (and very legally suspect) claim of executive privilege.
I still haven’t heard what the point of this operation was anyway. How was it SUPPOSED to work?
Silence is saying the Republicans are being straight up because they wanted both the narco-traffickers and any US citizen to have as many firearms as they can purchase without control.
But seriously; this “program” was flawed from the beginning. Entropy happens, especially with loose firearms.
We can do three things about drug trafficking: end the lucerative black-market demand for drugs, ruthlessly pursue (terminate with extreme prejudice) the trafficking organizational leadership without regard to borders, or dither. Whining about Fast and Furious is dithering. Both sides are just shadow boxing.
Democrats are fine with narcotic trafficking terrorists having firearms but don’t want law abiding citizens to have them….
-Silence
… No Democrat is pushing for any law restricting law abiding citizens to have firearms. Heck the centerpiece of Vince Sheheen’s campaign for governor showed him and his sons on a hunting trip. John Kerry’s campaign showed him in hunting fatigues. Let’s be crystal clear about one thing no one is entitled to change basic facts to make an argument. And the fact is Democrats have long ago accepted guns as legitimate devices to protect one’s home and hunt with.
NOTE:
I edited the above comment from Bud, to conform to my civility policy. I removed two sentences before the words, “No Democrat is pushing…”
Nothing of Bud’s argument is lost…
Now that I’ve cooled down let’s discuss F and F. Brad’s contention that this program is complicated is absolutely true. But what seems undeniably true is that the AG was not engaged in some neferious attempt to undermine gun rights for legitimate American citizens with a need to own one. There may be some distortions, half-truths or other deceptions by the AFT folks but come on folks how can the Isa committee be that aggressive over the choice of adjectives and adverbs in a few documents.
Now four (and counting) house Democrats are on the record saying they will vote to hold AG Holder in contempt.
Bi-partisanship. I’m always hearing calls for it. It looks like the Obama administration IS bringing both parties together.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/235053-second-house-dem-backs-placing-holder-in-contempt-
Good for those Democrats, if they think that’s the thing to do. And if everyone is voting his conscience instead of playing partisan games, I’m sure some Republicans will vote against contempt. Right?
The real tragedy, as usual, is lost amid all the partisan hubbub: this whole project (begun by Bush and continued or even amplified by Obama) is part of larger policy that has largely been embraced by both parties. Hooray, bipartisanship…bipartisan idiocy, that is…the continued counterproductive, misguided, and fruitless so-called War on Drugs.
Why would a Republican vote against something that is as cut and dry as this?
@Phillip
Absolutely. The drug war runs a close second to the war on terror in terms of effectiveness.
So much wasted energy on enforcing which specific items a person can ingest.
Unless a person harms someone else why should it be the government’s business as to what they do to their body?
And here comes Lindsey Graham tagging along behind, one of the greatest all-time “me-too” practitioners, with his letter to Holder demanding more info on F&F and security leaks. I love this quote: “It’s been like pulling teeth to get information about Fast and Furious – who knew what and when. And when you have programs on the national security front that seem to show the president as a strong leader, you can read about it in the paper.” Really, how dare Obama. They should have kept the OSL killing a secret. They should be more like George W. Bush was, who never tried to capitalize on national security competence as a campaign issue in 2004, never tried to portray his opponent as weaker on national security issues, never took advantage of any opportunity as a “wartime” President to try to look as though he was a “strong leader,” to use Sen. Graham’s phrase.
Sen. Graham, I realize you have contempt for the intelligence of most of your constituents; it’s hard to be a 21st-century Republican without possessing such contempt. But, really, you need to be at least a touch more artful in masking it.
@ bud – glad I can still help get your dander up.
“No Democrat is pushing for any law restricting law abiding citizens to have firearms.” – bud
Umm, bud, does District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) ring a bell? How about McDonald v. Chicago (2010)? In case they do not: let me refresh your memory. Both the District of Columbia (Democratic Party) and the City of Chicago (Democratic Party) tried to restrict the right of individuals to possess guns. The end result was that the SCOTUS decided to incorporate the 2nd Amendment under the 14th Amendment, and decided that the 2nd Amendment did in fact apply to individuals – not just organized militias and that states and municipalities couldn’t restrict a law abiding individual’s freedom to own guns, just like they aren’t supposed to restrict other individual rights.
Now given that both of these cases involved laws passed by elected big “D” Democrats, I wonder why anyone might think that the Democrats would like to take away people’s firearms. What could possibly lead one to believe that?
Seriously, bud, how stupid do you think I am? You think I would let a statement like that slide? So, how “long ago” was it that Democrats accepted guns as “legitimate devices to protect one’s home and hunt with”? Was it sometime back in ancient history, like 2011 or early 2012? Did they suddenly change their mind, post Heller & McDonald and see the error of their ways? Not bloody likely.
Why do you think that Democrats go out of their way to portray themselves as hunters and outdoorsmen? In Sheheen’s case, he probably does hunt occasionally, since he’s from Camden, I wouldn’t doubt it. Kerry probably doesn’t unless there’s a photographer there. Kerry was an effete Northeastern snob who needed to try to connect with blue-collar voters – sort of the same problem Romney’s in now. All Washington insiders are probably more at home at the yacht club then they are in a deer stand. Which is fine. I’ll bet that even Lamar! doesn’t drive his red pickup all the time. I don’t blame the elected pols, I’d rather be cruising on a yacht drinking scotch instead of sitting in the cold woods getting ticks (right Brad?), but I don’t need to trick people into believing that I’m pro-gun. Seems like a lot of Dems do.
It’s like Mike Dukakis riding in a tank…sheesh.
Hear, hear (to scotch on the yacht rather than getting ticks in the woods).
But it wasn’t Lamar with the pickup. That was Fred Thompson. Lamar was the “walk-across-Tennessee-in-a-black-and-red-checked-shirt.” I was covering him at the time, and here’s a picture — although it’s in black and white, which was my oeuvre at the time. Or perhaps I should say, my idiom.
The thing is, there are Dems who are really into guns and hunting, and there are Republicans who probably couldn’t handle a cap pistol without hurting themselves. The great lie is that Dems are all alike and Repubs are all alike. They’re not. They’re human.
Yes, Fred did have a pickup truck, but Lamar! had one too.
The worst part about ticks is the potential meat allergy. It’s enough to keep me out at sea and out of the woods until I run out of booze, cheeseburgers and sunshine.
Republicans are indeed human. They just have insect overlords.
Seriously, bud, how stupid do you think I am?
-Silence
Very if you think a couple of extremely minor efforts to bring a bit of common sense to the gun insanity in this country is a big risk to the second ammendment. This is one of those settled issues that conservatives keep throwing up in an attempt to shore up their base. Gun ownership in this country is as safe as any right we have. Let’s move on and talk about issues that aren’t settled.
Would it be possible for a non partisan person/entity to investigate this in order to determine what actually happened? Right now the “facts” are so colored by partisanship on both sides that it’s impossible to tell for certain what happened, much less determine how to fix it so that it doesn’t happen again, or whom, if anyone to hold responsible.
@ bud – wrong again! The city of Chicago attempted to ban handguns. How does that equate with gun ownership being a “safe right?” Same with DC.
Just like there are people (on the right) who are trying to restrict womens’ rights to have abortions, there are people (on the left) who are trying to restrict individuals’ rights to own firearms. That’s a fact, and it’s not up for dispute.
The city of Chicago attempted to ban handguns.
-Silence
Seriously? Are you really going to stick with this line and seriously suggest there is even one iota of a change anyone will be banned from owning a handgun? It just is not going to happen. The courts have pretty well ended that argument a long time ago and only fringe groups even try to make it an issue any more. Obama certainly hasn’t done anything to try and ban handguns.
The far bigger danger is the other extreme, as espoused by the NRA, will prevail. The law banning restricting magazine clips to 10 rounds in automatic guns was overturned a few years back. The result? A madman was able to fire 30 rounds into a crowd in Tuscon, AZ killing 6 and wounding many more before anyone could subdue him. Where is the outrage over all attempts to bring a sliver of common sense to the gun argument.
@ bud – from the Supreme Court verbatim: “Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related actions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals.”
What am I missing here?
I agree – Obama, as far as I know, has not done anything to ban handguns, yet. I never said he had. I said that many Democrats would like to.
Also, your facts aren’t correct in paragraph 2: The law banned high capacity (over 10 round) magazines for all guns, not just “automatic” ones. Very few people own automatic weapons these days, even though it is legal and possible to do. It’s just very expensive.
Also, the mag ban wasn’t repealed, I believe it had a sunset provision, so it ended in 2004 when Congress did not renew it.
I love debating with you, but please try to get your facts straight, or stick with things you have some idea about, ok?
Since we’ve already waded way into the weeds let’s lay out ALL the facts, facts would completely refute the notion that gun ownership is in danger. The court has completely eliminated that possibily and all Chicago and other jurisdictions are trying to do is make some sensible restrictions that will at least limit handgun ownership for law abiding citizens. Outside of these few areas gun laws have pretty much gone away completely. Here are the applicable Wiki references. And please note the dates. 2008 pretty much marked the end of handgun bans in the US:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.[2]
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are “arms” for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia’s regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” “Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.”[5]
By the late 1980s, several Illinois municipalities had banned the possession of handguns. Chicago required the registration of all firearms but did not allow handguns to be registered, which had the effect of outlawing their possession, unless they were grandfathered in by being registered before April 16, 1982.[23][24] Additionally, several Chicago suburbs had enacted outright prohibitions on handgun possession.
On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.[25] Chicago and the other municipalities came under legal pressure to change their laws.[26][27] In the months following the Heller decision, handgun bans were repealed in the suburbs of Wilmette,[28] Morton Grove,[29] Evanston,[30] and Winnetka,[31] but Chicago and Oak Park kept their laws in effect.[32][30]
On June 28, 2010, in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the handgun bans of Chicago and Oak Park to be unconstitutional.[33]
On July 12, 2010 a new Chicago city ordinance took effect that allows limited handgun possession after passing a firearms training course and obtaining a permit from the police. Chicago’s gun registration requirement is still in effect.[18][19]
On July 19, 2010 Oak Park amended its town ordinance to allow handgun possession in one’s home, leaving no remaining town in Illinois that completely bans handguns.[34]
So bud- was it Republicans or Democrats, generally speaking, who were the ones passing the now defunct gun control laws?
Also just checking in with my old friends at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, it looks like they’ve been pretty busy filing lawsuits and trying to block law abiding citizens from legally carrying concealed weapons.
There’s one thing about lefties that is certainly to be respected, they are in it for the long haul, and don’t mind getting what they want through an incremental approach – whether it’s gun control, socialized medicine, labor union empowerment, confiscatory taxes on the productive class or whatever – they are willing to work at it slowly and steadily. It’s like trench warfare to them.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. It’s crystal clear to me that this issue is settled and “lefties” have abandoned efforts to ban handguns for law abiding citizens. That’s especially true at the national level. They merely try to pass some very, very minimal, common sense limits. And generally fail thanks to the NRA. And sadly we all pay with the highest murder rate in the developed world.
I don’t know about y’all, but my mind is still reeling over the juxtaposition of the name of Reagan Press Secretary James Brady with the word “lefties…”
I’ve heard in the past that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. Maybe in the gun control arena, a “leftie” is a conservative who’s been shot in the head by a Jody Foster-lovin’ nut case with a Saturday Night Special.
@Silence: While I appreciate your respect for the “in it for the long haul” approach of “lefties,” I would say that surely you would have to agree that, on most of the issues you cited, all the steady movement has been in the opposite direction. Gun laws by and large in the US remain fairly lax by comparison to other liberal democracies, and the court cases you cited will help to keep them so. Labor union empowerment? You’re joking, right? That’s been going in one direction, certainly in the last 30 years. Confiscatory taxes? Again, you’re kidding, right? Taxes on the highest brackets have steadily gone down since Reagan, and the idea of even restoring them to Clinton-era levels is a non-starter politically.
As for “socialized medicine,” again most of the liberal democracies of the world would laugh at the notion that even should “Obamacare” endure, that that would constitute “socialism.” Only to a radical Anarcho-Capitalist could it seem that way.
So if it’s the steady “incrementalism” of progressives you admire, I would suggest that it’s really just a digging in of the heels to try to slow down just a little bit the inexorable march towards whatever it is we seem to be heading towards since 1980, whatever you want to call it…a less democratic, more oligarchic society.
<3 what Phillip said, as usual, and would add that what SCOTUS upheld was the opposite of socialized–a mandate to purchase from the capitalist running dogs of health insurance companies.
Socialism means the government owns the means of production. Authoritarian is not the same thing. requiring someone to buy something is authoritarian, not socialism.