Will they get away with it?

Imagine that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) infiltrated a large drug distribution ring based in Mexico. Imagine that when this drug cartel needed more drugs, the head of DEA decided that, in order to track the cartels distribution network, they would supply the cartel with a drug that kills many of those who use it. Imagine that the DEA tells no one about this operation.

Imagine that an under cover FBI agent, in order to maintain his cover, is forced to use some of these drugs. As a result, the agent dies. In addition, many other people – on both sides of the boarder also die. The DEA tracks the deaths, and keeps sending the drugs to the cartel. DEA executives are “giddy” with the number of deaths caused by their drugs.

Even though these drugs are being smuggled into Mexico, and the leadership of the cartel is there, Mexico is never informed of the “program”. Line DEA agents protest the program from the beginning. When several agents go to the press and the program is exposed, DEA arrests a few low level dealers and declares success. No high level cartel members are busted because there is no evidence against them and DEA has no arrest powers in Mexico. It becomes evident that the “program” never had any chance of building a case against the cartel leaders.

In light of this, many people begin to think that the program had another purpose: To make drugs look more dangerous in order to pass more anti-drug laws that DEA could then enforce.

Congressional hearings are held and it becomes apparent that the head of DEA was fully aware of the program. There is evidence that high ranking DOJ and administration officials also knew of the program and did nothing to stop it. Families of drug users killed in the program, as well as the family of the FBI agent testify before Congress. Political pressure rises for the person responsible to be held accountable. The head of DEA is pressured to resign, but he refuses – saying that he will not “take the fall” for the scandal. It is widely expected that when he testifies, he will name higher ups in the administration.

Two to three weeks before the DEA head is to testify, members of the Administration’s party hold their own hearings. They argue that the real problem is not DEA’s conduct – it is weak drug laws. DEA cannot enforce the current laws because they are too weak. They advocate the same new drug laws that the DEA program was possibly designed to justify. Having created the crisis, they now seek to benefit from it.

Could this ever happen? Would a Federal law enforcement agency ever behave this way?

Sadly, it already has happened. Change put ATF in place of DEA, Boarder Patrol in place of FBI and guns in place of drugs and you have the “Gunwalker” ATF scandal. Right down to Democrats attempting to use it to pass more gun control laws.

The only question is: Will the American people let them get away with it?