Thursday, June 30, 2011

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?

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Questions for the Obama DOJ and ATF

I have a few questions for the Obama DOJ and ATF:

1) Why did you send guns into Mexico over the objections of both gun dealers and field ATF agents?

2) If you wanted to track the guns to the "big fish" in Mexico, why in two years of the program did you never notify your Mexican counterpar­ts so they could arrest the 'big fish"? What was your plan to catch the "big fish"?

3) Why should we not believe the obvious and logical conclusion­, that you pumped guns into Mexico to justify more gun control here? (The first whistle blowing agent said that this was the point of the program.)

4) Why do we need more gun control (which may very well be unconstitu­tional) when under the current system dealers are stopping tons of illegal sales? Why does the DOJ almost never prosecute people who attempt to buy guns illegally? (To buy a gun from a dealer you have to sign a form that states you are not prohibited from owning a gun, you also have to leave your thumb print - so these cases are easily won.)

No new laws are needed. Stop the ATF from sending guns south and enforce the laws we have now.