[ced]

Wow. That's really fucking stupid. Why would they think that would work?

There is corruption involved, just like the "war on drugs".

[theBishop]

Yes, Executive Privilege is a creation of the last 12 years. Thank you.

It's not a new creation any more than signing statements or executive orders are new. But they're being used more frequently to hide serious crimes with quite a lot of evidence available to the public. But thanks for your pithy remarks.

[shuri]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ran a series of "gunwalking" sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011.[2][5] This was done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[6] "Gunwalking" or "letting guns walk" was a tactic whereby the ATF knowingly allowed thousands of guns to be bought by suspected arms traffickers ("gunrunners") working through straw purchasers on behalf of Mexican drug cartels.[7]

Fate of walked guns Since the end of Operation Fast and Furious, related firearms have continued to be discovered in criminal hands. As of October 2011, guns found at about 170 crime scenes in Mexico were linked to Fast and Furious.[7] U.S. Representative Darrell Issa has estimated that more than 200 Mexicans were killed as a result of the operation.[35] In June 2011, Carlos Canino, an ATF agent at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, testified before Congress that Fast and Furious guns showed up at nearly 200 crime scenes. [36] Reflecting on the operation, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the United States government is "...losing the battle to stop the flow of illegal guns to Mexico,"[37] and that the carnage linked to Operation Fast and Furious is most likely to continue for years, as more guns appear at Mexican crime scenes.[38]

kthx wikipedia!

[ToxicAdam]

I don't think this is going to be a big negative towards Obama because nobody seems to know what exactly this means.

I don't think it take a genius to figure out when someone is doing a favor for a friend/ally.

This action wasn't about protecting lives/missions, it was about protecting Holder from a possible perjury trial.

[ChiTownBuffalo]

That's my read on the situation as well. I think Holder deserves all the heat he's getting and SO much more. Diffusionx - I don't want him gone, I want him indited. Criminally negligent homicide. If not for Holder's gross negligence in continuing Fast and Furious Agent Terry would not have been killed by a Fast and Furious gun.

Holder can't be indicted. Because prosecutors generally have immunity from that for doing their daily job. Also, tracking the guns was not part of his specific role. Oversight, yes, direct control no. There is no mens reas or actus reas. It doesn't meet the standard

[Mgoblue201]

You can't be mad at people because you are too lazy to use wikipedia.

The issue isn't whether or not I should use Wikipedia. In other words, the intention of my post wasn't to ask, "I'm confused, what's going on?" If I was confused, I would've used Wikipedia (which I didn't have to because I read through the entire article), not posted about it. The issue is that I shouldn't have been confused in the first place. It's a writer's job to communicate effectively, which means including an explanation of Fast and Furious within the first four or five paragraphs - not at the end of the article. That's just poor journalism.

[Dude Abides]

That's my read on the situation as well. I think Holder deserves all the heat he's getting and SO much more. Diffusionx - I don't want him gone, I want him indited. Criminally negligent homicide. If not for Holder's gross negligence in continuing Fast and Furious Agent Terry would not have been killed by a Fast and Furious gun.

Negligent homicide? Give me a break.

Ask Agent Terry's family.

Waving the bloody shirt for partisan political reasons like this is in pretty poor taste.

[brucewaynegretzky]

Holder can't be indicted. Because prosecutors generally have immunity from that for doing their daily job. Also, tracking the guns was not part of his specific role. Oversight, yes, direct control no. There is no mens reas or actus reas. It doesn't meet the standard

There isn't really anyone in the situation who is criminally liable. The plan itself was executed poorly, but Gaborn's got real bleeding heart going here. Someone dying under unfortunate circumstances doesn't mean someone needs to go to jail....

[eznark]

Holder can't be indicted. Because prosecutors generally have immunity from that for doing their daily job. Also, tracking the guns was not part of his specific role. Oversight, yes, direct control no. There is no mens reas or actus reas. It doesn't meet the standard

He can be indicted for perjury.

[ToxicAdam]

The issue isn't whether or not I should use Wikipedia. In other words, the intention of my post wasn't to ask, "I'm confused, what's going on?" If I was confused, I would've used Wikipedia (which I didn't have to because I read through the entire article), not posted about it. The issue is that I shouldn't have been confused in the first place. It's a writer's job to communicate effectively, which means including an explanation of Fast and Furious within the first four or five paragraphs - not at the end of the article. That's just poor journalism.

Maybe you are right. But it's been a fairly prominent story for over a year now.

If someone wrote a story on the BP oil spill, I don't think they need to write a paragraph rehashing what happened.

[ChiTownBuffalo]

He can be indicted for perjury.

But that isn't what Gabron wants him indicted for.

[Dave Inc.]

Wow. That's really fucking stupid. Why would they think that would work?

It's actually a really good idea they just dropped the ball on execution. If they had actually tracked the guns properly they would have been able to develop a pretty solid list of locations where they were being stored/shipped, which would have been a huge asset for fighting the cartels.

The guns getting into those hands is also not as big an issue as a lot of people think, as they obviously had plenty of fucking sources for weapons before F&F ever began, i.e. if F&F hadn't been going the agent who died probably would have been shot anyway.

[elrechazado]

Negligent homicide? Give me a break. Waving the bloody shirt for partisan political reasons like this is in pretty poor taste.

Pointing out someone died is off limits then? Not to mention the hundreds of dead Mexicans.

[Gaborn]

Negligent homicide? Give me a break. Waving the bloody shirt for partisan political reasons like this is in pretty poor taste.

I didn't say that for partisan reason I used it to make the point that it's ridiculous to say something even MIGHT be trumped up. Brian Terry is dead and Fast and Furious was directly responsible. SOMEONE should be held accountable and right now Holder is standing in the way of finding out who.

elrechazo - And just to clarify, the reason I'm focusing on Agent Terry is that given the number of Mexicans that have been killed in the drug war already I'm assuming a good portion of them would be killed by the cartels regardless.

[eznark]

Waving the bloody shirt for partisan political reasons like this is in pretty poor taste.

Holder Lied, People Died

[666]

Actually, they can, but only the president can watch them.

Actually, they must be re-enacted live for the President. And he must be Vin Diesel.

[brucewaynegretzky]

He can be indicted for perjury.

So this just brought up an interesting question for lawyer-gaf in my head. In order to prove perjury they'd need to prove Holder lied under oath, but in order to do that they'd likely need the documents Obama is claiming under executive privilege. Nixon's case pretty much said you can't claim privilege in criminal trials (more or less). Do you think Issa could get to the document by bringing criminal perjury charges against Holder?

I'm ignoring the political reality that it probably just isn't worth the resources to go after Holder like that, but it is interesting to me.

[Edag Plata]

Transparency right?

HEY NOW!!!

[eznark]

So this just brought up an interesting question for lawyer-gaf in my head. In order to prove perjury they'd need to prove Holder lied under oath, but in order to do that they'd likely need the documents Obama is claiming under executive privilege. Nixon's case pretty much said you can't claim privilege in criminal trials (more or less). Do you think Issa could get to the document by bringing criminal perjury charges against Holder? I'm ignoring the political reality that it probably just isn't worth the resources to go after Holder like that, but it is interesting to me.

That's the sole reason he pulled privilege. The Holder contempt hearings are this week. Obama covered his ass by using a tool meant for extraordinary national security purposes.

It's Bush-esque levels of disgusting.

[ChiTownBuffalo]

I didn't say that for partisan reason I used it to make the point that it's ridiculous to say something even MIGHT be trumped up. Brian Terry is dead and Fast and Furious was directly responsible. SOMEONE should be held accountable and right now Holder is standing in the way of finding out who. elrechazo - And just to clarify, the reason I'm focusing on Agent Terry is that given the number of Mexicans that have been killed in the drug war already I'm assuming a good portion of them would be killed by the cartels regardless.

Oh, NOW you care about all the Mexicans.

Ask Jorge Reyes' family.

[brucewaynegretzky]

That's the sole reason he pulled privilege. The Holder contempt hearings are this week. Obama covered his ass by using a tool meant for extraordinary national security purposes. It's Bush-esque levels of disgusting.

Congressional hearings aren't criminal proceedings. Completely different legal scenario.

[Ghost_Protocol]

Good, now this B.S. witchhunt may actually come to an end. This is some Breitbart.com Derrick Bell level nonsense, and no one cares about it. No one on that oversight committee gives a damn about that border patrol agent, or his family.

[eznark]

Congressional hearings aren't criminal proceedings. Completely different legal scenario.

Right, but to cover him from contempt he gets the bonus of covering him for perjury.

[Dude Abides]

Pointing out someone died is off limits then? Not to mention the hundreds of dead Mexicans.

"Ask Agent Terry's family" is a little more than pointing out someone died. It's cheap emotionalism for transparent political reasons.

Holder Lied, People Died

Impeach the ObamaCo regime!

[Dice]

See below.

[Gaborn]

"Ask Agent Terry's family" is a little more than pointing out someone died. It's cheap emotionalism for transparent political reasons. Impeach the ObamaCo regime!

And what do you call referring to the death of a federal agent as "trumped up"?

[brucewaynegretzky]

Right, but to cover him from contempt he gets the bonus of covering him for perjury.

I'm not so sure of that. That's my point. The problem is that an ACTUAL criminal proceeding brings a shitton more baggage and pisses off a lot more people. It's virtually politically impossible. Congress wouldn't act on something like that on such unclear legal grounds.

[rhfb]

Fox News is going to looooooooove this.

[Sirpopopop]

It's not a new creation any more than signing statements or executive orders are new. But they're being used more frequently to hide serious crimes with quite a lot of evidence available to the public. But thanks for your pithy remarks.

Got an article showing this increase?

This article seems to dispute your claim:

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...e-1461247.html

[MIMIC]

Maybe you are right. But it's been a fairly prominent story for over a year now. If someone wrote a story on the BP oil spill, I don't think they need to write a paragraph rehashing what happened.

That's why I went straight to Wiki after reading the first couple of sentences of the article :) I was aware of the term "Fast & Furious" and Eric Holder, but had no freaking idea what it was about.

I'm glad I know what is going on now. I've been coming across the story far too often to not know what was going on.

[PhoenixPause]

That's my read on the situation as well. I think Holder deserves all the heat he's getting and SO much more. Diffusionx - I don't want him gone, I want him indited. Criminally negligent homicide. If not for Holder's gross negligence in continuing Fast and Furious Agent Terry would not have been killed by a Fast and Furious gun.

Yes, because this is Holder's policy. Come the fuck on.

1. As Toxic Adam said, there is a chance a lot of these documents contain informant, undercover agent, and other intelligence information on Mexico. It's highly unlikely releasing said documents would be a good idea given the threat of leaks (something which the administration is already dealing with)

2. That being said, I'm baffled by Obama's order today. Why not invite Issa and one other republican to view the documents at the DOJ, if this is a case of wanting to protect agents?

3. This is a program that started under the Bush administration as a means to track drug cartels. Let's not forget that.

4. While I may disagree with Obama's executive reach here, let's not pretend this is some unprecedented event. Bush did this more than once. But there's the problem: at what point does the next administration decide to stop taking advantage of precedences that give them more power, or allow them to justify dumb shit? It's a never ending cycle of bullshit

5. Politically this makes no sense. This story was irrelevant until today in fact, and I don't understand the logic. Regardless of intent, this move makes it look like a cover up to many people. Why give the House what they want?

[Dude Abides]

That's the sole reason he pulled privilege. The Holder contempt hearings are this week. Obama covered his ass by using a tool meant for extraordinary national security purposes. It's Bush-esque levels of disgusting.

That's not what executive privilege is for. You're confusing it with state secrets.

[brucewaynegretzky]

And what do you call referring to the death of a federal agent as "trumped up"?

Federal agents die sometimes. Hard truth. Most of the time people don't go screaming about mismanagement of the entire agency just because one person died.

I'm really not trying to be completely insensitive. F&F was pretty clearly a poorly run program, but really not much else.

[DoctorWho]

I still don't know what's going on.

[Chumly]

That's my read on the situation as well. I think Holder deserves all the heat he's getting and SO much more. Diffusionx - I don't want him gone, I want him indited. Criminally negligent homicide. If not for Holder's gross negligence in continuing Fast and Furious Agent Terry would not have been killed by a Fast and Furious gun.

Wow your one of the people that want bush/Cheney indited for war crimes?

[eznark]

That's not what executive privilege is for. You're confusing it with state secrets.

Well, the idea of "executive privilege" is essentially nebulous. It can be used essentially for everything and anything a president wants to hide from elected officials.

[diffusionx]

2. That being said, I'm baffled by Obama's order today. Why not invite Issa and one other republican to view the documents at the DOJ, if this is a case of wanting to protect agents?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77433.html

Again, I emphasize, this is about scoring points.

It sucks that Terry died in part due to an incompetently run program (though I would guess that the cartels would've used their normal gun runners to get the needed arsenal anyway). But thousands of innocent Mexicans have died thanks to the drug war and nobody gives a shit about them.

[Gaborn]

Yes, because this is Holder's policy. Come the fuck on. 1. As Toxic Adam said, there is a chance a lot of these documents contain informant, undercover agent, and other intelligence information on Mexico. It's highly unlikely releasing said documents would be a good idea given the threat of leaks (something which the administration is already dealing with)

Then perhaps the white house shouldn't leak. I'm sure congress can be discreet, otherwise they could never have access to confidential documents.

2. That being said, I'm baffled by Obama's order today. Why not invite Issa and one other republican to view the documents at the DOJ, if this is a case of wanting to protect agents?

I think the logical answer is "because in reality it is not."

3. This is a program that started under the Bush administration as a means to track drug cartels. Let's not forget that.

Absolutely. That's why I think Mukasey should be getting more heat too.

4. While I may disagree with Obama's executive reach here, let's not pretend this is some unprecedented event. Bush did this more than once. But there's the problem: at what point does the next administration decide to stop taking advantage of precedences that give them more power, or allow them to justify dumb shit? It's a never ending cycle of bullshit

Yes, it is a never ending cycle of bullshit. And NONE of my responses should be taken as giving Bush a pass for some of the BULLSHIT he pulled in his administration. I just don't like that some liberals give Obama a pass when they were side by side with me calling Bush out. I think issues like this should have absolutely NOTHING to do with your political preference and EVERYTHING to do with the principle involved.

5. Politically this makes no sense. This story was irrelevant until today in fact, and I don't understand the logic. Regardless of intent, this move makes it look like a cover up to many people. Why give the House what they want?

Isn't the logical inference that it IS a cover up in fact? If it LOOKS like a cover up...

Chumly - War crimes is a bit of a different question. For the torture they authorized, yeah, I could see that. But under international law? No. I do think Bush/Cheney should have been prosecuted (or at least INVESTIGATED) for many of their actions and decisions in the "war on terror' though.

[Dice]

I still don't know what's going on.

Made it better.

[brucewaynegretzky]

Presidents are given authority to withhold documents that are requested (or subpoenaed) if they are documents that are reasonably related to his duties as President. Basically he can't withhold stuff that's related to criminal trials or things completely unrelated to his work as President, but that's really it. The rationale is we want the President and his subordinates to be able to discuss courses of action freely without the fear of what they say being revealed to the public because if EVERYTHING they said was subject to compulsory disclosure it would significantly prevent people from taking bold actions (even if they were arguably correct) because they fear public backlash. Basically, the public gets in the way of government doing it's job, so sometimes it's better to just keep them out of it. The decision to use executive privilege is very politically sensitive because it leaves a bad taste in the public's mouth, but this is hardly groundbreaking territory. Nothing really all that new.

Well, the idea of "executive privilege" is essentially nebulous. It can be used essentially for everything and anything a president wants to hide from elected officials.

See above. It's meant to insulate the executive from public scrutiny because we realize we want our high level government employees to be able to function in their jobs without the fear of witch hunts for everything they do....

[eznark]

See above. It's meant to insulate the executive from public scrutiny because we realize we want our high level government employees to be able to function in their jobs without the fear of witch hunts for everything they do....

Yeah, that's what I said. It allows the executive branch to operate in the shadows when it so chooses.

[Sirpopopop]

Yeah, that's what I said. It allows the executive branch to operate in the shadows when it so chooses.

I assume you'll lay out this criticism for excessive use of executive privilege for every President from George Washington onwards, as well.

[LegendofJoe]

As payback the Mexican government should sell several tons of tagged narcotics to American dealers in college towns and then mysteriously lose it. They could call it Operation White Thunder.

[Gaborn]

See above. It's meant to insulate the executive from public scrutiny because we realize we want our high level government employees to be able to function in their jobs without the fear of witch hunts for everything they do....

And it has the side effect of giving cover when questionably legal and moral decisions blow up in your face. Oliver North 2.0.

[eznark]

I assume you'll lay out this criticism for every President from George Washington onwards, as well.

//executive privilege//

[PhoenixPause]

I don't think it's a cover up. Given Issa's behavior since 2010, it's seems more like a fishing expedition that hit a brick wall today. I want to know what was said at his meeting with Holder yesterday, as well as how long the meeting was.

If Holder ok'd this particular mission, I don't see that as being a big deal. This was a long standing DOJ investigation into cartels that happened to go wrong. It doesn't strike me as illegal or wrong, and I'd imagine both the Bush and Obama administrations knew something like this could happen; they were handing out guns after all.

[Sirpopopop]

100% (you should know that already)

Yep, I just wanted to get it on the record.

[brucewaynegretzky]

And it has the side effect of giving cover when questionably legal and moral decisions blow up in your face. Oliver North 2.0.

What's questionably legal about F and F? Questionably moral seems EXACTLY what it's meant for.

[Gaborn]

I don't think it's a cover up. Given Issa's behavior since 2010, it's seems more like a fishing expedition that hit a brick wall today. I want to know what was said at his meeting with Holder yesterday, as well as how long the meeting was. If Holder ok'd this particular mission, I don't see that as being a big deal. This was a long standing DOJ investigation into cartels that happened to go wrong. It doesn't strike me as illegal or wrong, and I'd imagine both the Bush and Obama administrations knew something like this could happen; they were handing out guns after all.

Bartenders can be found criminally and civilly negligent in some states if one of their patrons is too drunk and hits and kills someone. It strikes me this is the same principle. It was an irresponsible program from the get go and it backfired and worse than that, it's resulted in multiple deaths. It seems entirely appropriate that someone pay for that.

Brucewaynegretzky - Gun running in a foreign country without that country's knowledge and you're wondering what's illegal about that?

[diffusionx]

Bartenders can be found criminally and civilly negligent in some states if one of their patrons is too drunk and hits and kills someone. It strikes me this is the same principle. It was an irresponsible program from the get go and it backfired and worse than that, it's resulted in multiple deaths. It seems entirely appropriate that someone pay for that.

Yea, because serving drinks at the local watering hole is exactly like working as the Attorney General of the United States.

You're reaching here.