How the ATF and DOJ violated federal law.
 

This little piece is from the very man who drafted some of this legislation that was passed into law:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-ju...inglepage=true

Aiding the enemy? Was that really their intent? I doubt it, somone just really screwed up and heads should roll.

These kinds of operations are done all the time, it's nothing new. Neither is watching one snowball into a big Charlie Foxtrot. But trading with the enemy? That is a bit far fetched

It is Pajamas so it is to be expected.

Yes and no. The gentleman who drafted the bill is the person who is doing the op-ed. Just because it is on a conservative website does not mean it is any less credible.

Nothing in Op suggested it violated the Trading with the Enemy act.

It clearly states the actions violated the International Emergency Economic Powers Act which, in 1995 was ammended to make dealing with persons involved in international narcotics traffic a criminal offence.

Nothing far fetched whatsoever.

For IEEPA the case is not as strong, but Kingpin was made to combat the cartels. The POTUS is the person who designates said targets, which are threats to either national security, foreign policy or to the economy.

The gentleman who drafted some parts of the bill is stating what he thinks was intended and how he thinks some actions go against the bill as he thinks it was intended to work.

Facilitate for what purpose do some really think it was to aid and abet a drug cartel under the cover of a legitimate operation? I wave the B.S. flag on that. It was investigation into this drug cartel's network . It was certainly botched up, I have no doubt about that but nobody in ATF or DEA or DOJ was trying to supply this cartel with weapons for the purpose of aiding them or personal gain.

Narcotics are offloaded at U.S. ports and sometimes allowed to be distributed throughout the U.S. The purpose is not to aid drug kingpins, cartels and street gangs. It is an attempt to see how many are involved in crimminal activing of distributing it and track them down.

Operation Kingpin dealt with weapons. Weapons which got out on the street and turned right around and bit them in the arse. Yes, heads should roll I just don't think this has anything to do with aiding an abetting the enemy/cartels.

The entire partisan Republican outrage over "Fast and Furious" is already way over the top. Yes, ATF and DOJ screwed up, but to argue they are criminals who willingly broke the law is ridiculous.

Drug enforcement agents routinely engage in drug trades to nab Drug traffickers, either as "Buyers" offering to buy drugs or as "Sellers" offering to sell drugs, in the latter case, they actually bring drugs to the deal. Technically, both these actions could be considered Drug Trafficking under Federal Laws. Will Republicans now argue that all these types of stings should be stopped?

"Fast&Furious": good idea+bad implementation=heads will roll, but criminal prosecution? give me a break.

The DOJ are accomplices to over 200 murders. Of course they should be prosecuted. Preferably extradited.

And don't compare this to a "sting." In a sting operation, there is a plan in place to catch someone breaking the law and to arrest them. There was absolutely no plan in place in Gunwalker to catch anyone but the straw purchasers themselves, and there was never any need to let the guns walk to make those arrests. The line that they wanted to get some kind of head honcho shouldn't be accepted until they can tell us how they planned to do that, especially since they deliberately kept the Mexican government in the dark.

Also, the US government has no authority to conduct a sting operation inside another sovereign country.



As for the specific laws being violated, I can't find the the actual text of TWTE or IEEPA that brings cartels under the umbrella, so I am sceptical that these laws actually apply in this case. But, even if they do apply, it makes zero sense to talk about intent/purpose with respect to those laws without knowing what the precise elements of the crime are. It could well turn out that the only intent required is intent to trade with the prohibited entity.

That definition of yours needs expansion as a sting operation can also be an information gathering operation where the plan may not be to arrest them.

so, by the same token, you would support the extradition of former President Bush to face accusations of torture?

Torture is a far cry from murder, and as far as holding any of these folks accountable will be a stretch, Little miss Nancy didn't drain the swamp, she deepened it, no good, inside trading, whack job, hussy.

Why bother with torture, you could pin plenty on Bush through narcotics and terrorists just like you could his dad or Clinton. But hey they can all have the option of playing the Reagan card and claiming to be an ignorant prick who simply don't know nothing that goes on.

The key difference with that scenario and this one is they maintain custody of those drugs throughout the sting. They do not allow the traffickers to take and sell them on the street to the users. The Feds allowed these weapons to get into the hands of the cartels in a foreign country. That is not maintaining custody.

Now there might not have been any criminal intent in Fast and Furious but it sure seems like there was criminal negligence and at the top of the responsibility list is Eric Holder by definition as well as circumstance.

No way could an operation of this scope and seriousness be run by underlings without the boss overseeing it. If he didn't know about the operation like he claims then he is negligent. An American citizen was murdered because of that negligence. A couple hundred people at last estimate have died because of that negligence. How can that negligence not be criminal?