Talk:ATF gunwalking scandal/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Mukasey Hernadez Holder and Wide Receiver

Timeline related to Hernandez Briefing Paper, USAG Mukasey and USAG Holder

• early 2006 - late 2007 Operation Wide Receiver "gunwalking"

• 6 Oct 2007 similar Hernandez Case was ordered shut down by order of ATF Assistant Director William Hoover as "controlled delivery" was not working.

• 9 Nov 2007 Michael Mukasey becomes US Attorney General replacing Albert Gonzales

• 16 Nov 2007 Mukasey given a DOJ briefing paper on Hernandez Case before his meeting with MX AG

• 26 Nov 2007 Hernandez and associate arrested Nogales AZ

• 16 Mar 2012 DOJ sent a letter to Rep. Issa chairman of the House Committee detailing that in Nov 2007 USAG Mukasey had been briefed on the Hernandez case described as a "controlled delivery".

• 12 Jun 2012 testifying before the Senate Committee hearing, in response to Sen. Cronyn, Holder said:

"If you want to talk about Fast and Furious, I’m the Attorney General that put an end to the misguided tactics that were used in Fast and Furious. An Attorney General who I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them -- nothing. Three hundred guns, at least, walked in that instance."

• 14 Jun 2012 Sen. Grassley sent a letter to Holder asking clarification on that statement.

"Documents the Justice Department has produced have indicated that the gunwalking in Operation Wide Receiver was brought to the attention of Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer in April 2010 by his deputy, Jason Weinstein. ... If the Justice Department has documentation about Operation Wide Receiver which it has not yet produced and which indicate a higher level of awareness of gunwalking than has previously been indicated, such evidence should be produced immediately."

• 18 Jun 2012 the DOJ Office of Legislative Affairs responded to Sen. Grassley that Mukasey had been briefed on Hernandez:

"As we explained in a letter to Chairman Issa on March 16, 2012, and as you note, this briefing paper concerned the case of Fidel Hernandez, not Wide Receiver as the Attorney General inadvertently stated at the hearing."

--Naaman Brown (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Joint report

http://oversight.house.gov/release/congressional-investigators-release-first-part-of-final-joint-report-on-operation-fast-and-furious/

Report "Part I of III: Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation"

This treats ATF responsibility at the Phoenix ATF and USAO Field Office level. Part II and Part III examine responsibility further up the chain of command.

PDFs at:

http://1.usa.gov/OH2Vbm 7-31-12-FF-Part-I-FINAL-REPORT.pdf JOINT STAFF REPORT Prepared for Rep. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform & Senator Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 112th Congress, July 31, 2012

http://1.usa.gov/MwFiQr 7-31-12-FF-Part-I-FINAL-Appendix-I-1-of-31.pdf Appendix 1 Part 1/3 - Exhibits 1 - 100

http://1.usa.gov/OH4uX2 7-31-12-FF-Part-I-FINAL-Appendix-I-2-of-3.pdf Appendix 1 Part 2/3 - Exhibits 101 - 200

http://1.usa.gov/QafrBt 7-31-12-FF-Part-I-FINAL-Appendix-I-3-of-3.pdf Appendix 1 Part 3/3 - Exhibits 201 -266

http://1.usa.gov/QafL34 7-31-12-FF-Part-I-FINAL-Appendix-II-1-of-3.pdf Appendix 2 Part 1/3 - Correspondence Jan 2011 - Jun 2011

http://1.usa.gov/MwGfYU 7-31-12-FF-Part-I-FINAL-Appendix-II-2-of-3.pdf Appendix 2 Part 2/3 - Correspondence Jul 2011 - Dec 2011

http://1.usa.gov/MwGnaK 7-31-12-FF-Part-I-FINAL-Appendix-II-3-of-3.pdf Appendix 2 Part 3/3 - Correspondence Jan 2012 - Jul 2012

http://1.usa.gov/Pjav8p 7-31-12-FF-Part-I-FINAL-Appendix-III.pdf Appendix 3 - "The Whole Truth About the Fast and Furious Scandal". A point-by-point analysis of Katherine Eban, "The truth about the Fast and Furious Scandal" Fortune, 27 Jun 2012.

--Naaman Brown (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC) clarify breakdown. contents --Naaman Brown (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

El Chapo Guzmán – the objective of OF&F

Mexican sources like Milenio and Proceso indicate Joaquín Guzmán Loera ("El Chapo") was the main objective of Operation Fast and Furious. I'll be busy for the rest of the day but here are the links. [1] [2] ComputerJA (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

straw purchasing is not in itself illegal????

Quote the article: "A 2009 GAO report on efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico notes that straw purchasing is not in itself illegal...."

This is the ATF guide line on straw purchasing:

---

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/index.htm

Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF P 5300.4 - Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2005 (Revised - 9/05)] Page 165

15. STRAW PURCHASES

Questions have arisen concerning the lawfulness of firearms purchases from licensees by persons who use a "straw purchaser" (another person) to acquire the firearms. Specifically, the actual buyer uses the straw purchaser to execute the Form 4473 purporting to show that the straw purchaser is the actual purchaser of the firearm. In some instances, a straw purchaser is used because the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm. That is to say, the actual purchaser is a felon or is within one of the other prohibited categories of persons who may not lawfully acquire firearms or is a resident of a State other than that in which the licensee's business premises is located. Because of his or her disability, the person uses a straw purchaser who is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm from the licensee. In other instances, neither the straw purchaser nor the actual purchaser is prohibited from acquiring the firearm.

In both instances, the straw purchaser violates Federal law by making false statements on Form 4473 to the licensee with respect to the identity of the actual purchaser of the firearm, as well as the actual purchaser's residence address and date of birth. The actual purchaser who utilized the straw purchaser to acquire a firearm has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of the false statements. The licensee selling the firearm under these circumstances also violates Federal law if the licensee is aware of the false statements on the form. It is immaterial that the actual purchaser and the straw purchaser are residents of the State in which the licensee's business premises is located, are not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms, and could have lawfully purchased firearms from the licensee.

An example of an illegal straw purchase is as follows: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. If Mr. Jones fills out Form 4473, he violates the law by falsely stating that he is the actual buyer of the firearm. Mr. Smith also violates the law because he has unlawfully aided and abetted or caused the making of false statements on the form.

Where a person purchases a firearm with the intent of making a gift of the firearm to another person, the person making the purchase is indeed the true purchaser. There is no straw purchaser in these instances. In the above example, if Mr. Jones had bought a firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Smith as a birthday present, Mr. Jones could lawfully have completed Form 4473. The use of gift certificates would also not fall within the category of straw purchases. The person redeeming the gift certificate would be the actual purchaser of the firearm and would be properly reflected as such in the dealer's records.

---

Straw purchasing is illegal. Notice the bona fide gift exception: this did not apply in Fast & Furious. The cartel buyers supplied the funds to the straw purchasers, or reimbursed the straw purchasers, plus the cartel buyers paid a premium to the straw purchasers for the guns. The straw purchasers transferred the guns to the actual buyers almost immediately. In no way shape or form does this meet the bona fide gift exemption.

To say that the transactions allowed by the Phoenix AZ USAO in Fast & Furious were not illegal and could not be prosecuted is BS: the Texas USAO has not had problems prosecutiong straw purchasers and cartel buyers under Project Gunrunner standard operating procedure. This is like the Phoenix AZ USAO refusing to prosecute marijuana cases involving less than 500 lbs. It is not that it is not illegal or impossible to prosecute: the Phoenix USAO simply did not want to prosecute cases that other USAOs would prosecute.

--Naaman Brown (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I don't think anyone has claimed that the straw purchases in OFF were legal. I have seen claims that straw purchasing can be legal under some circumstances. I have also seen claims that the AG in these cases either felt that enough evidence of illegality didn't exist, or that they didn't yet have enough of it, to make arrests immediately. I'm not saying that they behaved rationally, of course, but irrational behavior has been the hallmark of this whole situation from the beginning. This particular irrational behavior, sadly, seems about as plausible as all the rest. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 04:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This WP article paraphrased the GAO report on straw purchasing being not illegal: the actual note in the GAO reads: "39. While straw purchasing is not in itself illegal, it is illegal to intentionally provide false information in connection with the acquisition of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)." The definition of straw purchasing 'is' supplying false information in regards to the actual buyer of the gun. The GAO quote is as irrational as writing barn burning is not a crime but it is illegal to commit arson of a building.

Under Wikipedia: Project Gunrunner:

"By early 2009, Project Gunrunner had resulted in approximately 650 cases by ATF, in which more than 1,400 defendants were referred for prosecution in federal and state courts and more than 12,000 firearms were involved."

citing: "FBI Fact Sheet: Department of Justice efforts to combat Mexican Drug Cartels". Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). April 2, 2009. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fact-sheet-department-of-justice-efforts-to-combat-mexican-drug-cartels

It is hard to accept the argument that under Operation Fast and Furious (Jan 2010 thru 25 Jan 2011) it somehow became impossible to bring cases, prosecute straw purchasers/buyers or sieze guns intended for illegal trafficking to Mexico. Also note that while gun trafficking is not a (specific, defined) crime, straw purchasing and dealing in firearms without a FFL are illegal and can be prosecuted under existing law if there is a will to do so. --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem knowledgeable on this topic but I think you are getting ahead of yourself. Straw buying is not illegal by definition. You can straw buy as a gift, and indicate your plans on the required forms. It's lying in order to straw buy that is illegal, along with giving the gun to criminals, etc. Fortune seems to be claiming that the attorneys didn't feel comfortable arresting buyers immediately, because they didn't yet have evidence of the lie, which allowed all this to happen as a result. We may think this is less likely than a bunch of people agreeing as a tactic to allow this to happen, but what we think isn't very important. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 19:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"You can straw buy as a gift." According to ATF, if I buy a gun with my own money to give as a bona fide Xmas gift to my son, it is not a "straw buy": (a)my money, (b)I am buyer of record on the 4473, (c)no money received in return, (d)the gun gifted to a non-prohibited person (he has passed BG checks for his own gun purchases & for handgun carry permit). ATF has informed me, that if I took money from my daughter-in-law and bought a gun for her to give as a gift to my son, that would be an illegal straw buy: (a)not my money, (b)the buyer of record is falsified (to ATF the actual buyer would be the DIL), (c) and (d) irrelevant. On appeal to federal district court, you might get a straw buy overturned if all parties involved are non-prohibited persons but do check attorny fees involved in pleading a case to that level. Please re-read the ATF explanation of "straw purchase" I posted above. Most USAOs in the USA (including CA, NM and TX) have had few qualms prosecuting single gun straw buyers. Don't tell people they can straw buy as a gift. --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that buyers are likely reluctant to state that "These guns are going to Mexico!" and few of them wear signs around their neck stating "I intend to use these weapons in a crime". Crystal balls seem wholly ineffective in determining the intent of otherwise legal buyers. I'd like to ask the question: In Arizona, would I be within the law if I purchased a rifle, with what I'll claim to be my own money, and then drove down the street and sold it to someone whom I'd claim I had no preknowledge would be buying the gun? 24.106.8.146 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Paul

"In Arizona, would I be within the law if I purchased a rifle, with what I'll claim to be my own money, and then drove down the street and sold it to someone whom I'd claim I had no preknowledge would be buying the gun?" Short answer, NO.

But wait a minute, I am not known for short answers.

Laws on "straw purchase" and "dealing in firearms without a license" are federal laws enforced by federal agencies. They are the same in Arizona as anywhere else in the USA. Buying a rifle claiming its your money, driving down the street, selling it to someone claiming you didn't know them, could easily be seen as seen as either "lying for the other guy" as in the ATF campaign against straw purchase "Don't Lie for the Other Guy" or as dealing in firearms without a license, another federal felony.

May be if you stayed "under the radar" and did not attract attention, you might get away with it. However, if you did that enough to get a "street rep" as a source of weapons and some criminal ratted you out in a plea deal, better bet your ass would be grass and the ATF would be a weedeater. Katherine Eban is a piss-poor source for information on federal gun laws and their enforcement: a much better source is Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF P 5300.4 - Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide. The idea that it would be legal under Arizona state law to buy a gun (or 20) and turn around and sell it (or them) does not change the fact it would be a violation of federal law, which supercedes any state law or lack of state law on a federal subject.

In fact if I took my daughter-in-law's money, went to a gun shop, bought a gun for her to give to my son for Christmas, that would not be a violation of any law of my home state, BUT I have been advised that would be illegal under federal law as a straw purchase (the purchaser of record (me) is not the good faith buyer (d-i-l)). If my d-i-l bought the gun with her money as a gift to my son, that would be legal (the purchaser of record is the good faith buyer (d-i-l) of a bone fide gift). Purchasing as a personal gift to a non-prohibited person is legal. Buying as a stand-in for another person is illegal even though none of us (me, my d-i-l and my son) are "prohibited persons" under the Gun Control Act (GCA). A local gun shop with a reputation for laxity in such areas (straw purchase for prohibited buyer, sell to suspected reseller) is no longer in business. --Naaman Brown (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@IP24.106.8.146: Your question, "In Arizona, would I be within the law if...", could be answered either 'yes' or 'no', based solely on intent -- and establishing that intent to the degree required by law in order to successfully prosecute is the very hurdle before the ATF. Or, as the Fortune article explained, "[The ATF's] greatest difficulty by far, however, was convincing prosecutors that they had sufficient grounds to seize guns and arrest straw purchasers." Katherine Eban, the primary author of the Fortune article, isn't a "source for information on federal gun laws and their enforcement", nor does she ever pretend to be -- be cautious of such misrepresentations. Applicable federal laws can be viewed at a variety of sources, but the more nuanced application and prosecution of these laws in real-life situations is a separate matter entirely, and the Fortune article cites what actually happened when cases were brought forth for prosecution. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@Naaman Brown: You may want to check your ATF Firearms Regulations link noted above; it looks like the ATF has done a bit of shuffling. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanx for doing the check I should have done. Apparently ATF website did a major rearrangement but a search of atf.gov "(document title)" brought up the new link. I download docs I use. I need to check saved links before posting (web 101). --Naaman Brown (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC) BTW the link was updt'd.

Who are Fidel Hernandez and Alejandro Medrano?

The article has headings referring to the Hernandez & Medrano cases, but it doesn't say who they are. Straw purchasers? Dealers? Other? Medrano was sentenced, so I guess he's a bad guy of some sort, but what was his role? Was he the ultimate buyer or the straw purchaser? Dcs002 (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is kept concise. The details are in the sources linked in the footnotes, such as "Fatally Flawed: Five Years of Gunwalking in Arizona" (Report of the Minority (Democrat) Staff, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, January 2012). --Naaman Brown (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This article is not concise. Keeping things concise is a good thing, but it's not concise to add undefined information to an article (in this case, names & a criminal sentence). If merely saying who these two individuals are is extraneous information, then their names are also extraneous to this article. (I don't think either is the case.) The article says Medrano was sentenced, but it doesn't say what for. If his crime is extraneous, then so is his sentence for that crime. Articles need to stand on their own, without having to read reference material to be understood. Concise doesn't mean simply leaving out information for the sake of brevity. Concise means conveying necessary information with minimal wording. It means using words efficiently. Dcs002 (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

What was done by law enforcement is more important to the subject of the article than what was done by straw buyers/gunrunners, but your criticism is valid. I encourage you to add some details from the sources. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 21:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale rewrite?

Given the revelations of the Fortune magazine article, namely that there was no policy of walking guns and that only one ATF agent, the purported whistleblower himself, ever actually walked any guns, doesn't this article need a wholesale rewrite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LetMeLogIn (talk • contribs) 02:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. At this point I don't think we can assume that the Fortune account is any more valid than the rest. In fact, since there are currently far more sources claiming a different chain of events from Fortune, it might be best to stick with that as the main narrative of the article. I do think there need to be changes to reflect both points of view, though. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 03:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I also do not think a "wholesale rewrite" is warranted, but I do think the article, at present, glosses over the politics aspect of the issue. Politicos from both sides of the border have taken poorly run gun-trafficking operations and through hyper-inflated rhetoric tried to score political points by intentionally turning it into a circus. Does anyone know when we can expect the "inspector general" investigation report? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think an entry at CBS in the last couple of months actually said that there was no public timetable for the release of the report...but you'd think it would be any day now. I feel like getting too much into the political aspect could be asking for trouble. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 22:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot resolve the Fortune version--there were only five or six guns walked, all by ATF whistleblower Dodson in 2010--with Fatally Flawed: Five Years of Gunwalking in Arizona (Report of the Minority Staff, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, January 2012) that there was Gunwalking under Operation Wide Receiver 2006 (~450 guns), Hernandez case 2007 (~200 guns walked), Medrano case 2008 (~100 guns), Operation Fast & Furious 2009 (~2,000 guns). The overview from both majority and minority is that interdiction of straw purchasers, buyers and guns was SOP under Project Gunrunner and "gunwalking" without close surveillance and eventual interdiction was an abberration largely confined to Phoenix ATF and USAO. The fortune article stands alone in denying that gunwalking happened.--Naaman Brown (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody should clarify that "USAO" refers to the U.S.Attorney's Office. Dick Kimball (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There are elements of both narratives that I find difficult to believe. However, I'm skeptical of any argument (though they are very common on many issues) that says that there are two mainstream points of view, Democratic and Republican, and any others are less valid. There are more than two sides to every issue, but if there were 2 in this case, they would be Voth etc. (Fortune) and Dodson etc (most of the rest), since those were the people directly involved. In any case, Fortune should be taken into account but also given due weight. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 12:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

out I see a lot in common between the defense lawyer briefs for Voth and Newell and the Eban article:

14 Mar 2012 Stein, Mitchell & Muse LLP on behalf of David Voth to Rep. Darrell E. Issa

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86130067/Voth-Lawyer-Letter

14 Mar 2012 Mintz Levin on behalf of William Newell to Rep. Darrell E. Issa and Sen. Charles Grassley

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86129965/Newell-Lawyer-Letter

Also, the emails between Weinstein and Breuer at DOJ acknowleged ATF gunwalking.

From:     Weinstein, Jason
To:       Breuer, Lanny A.; Raman, Mythili; Fagell, Steven
Sent:     Wed Apr 28 18:59:27 2010
Subject:  Operation Wide Receiver 

Jim T and I met with Billy Hoover and with Laura and Alisa to talk about this gun trafficking case and with the issues about 
the guns being allowed to walk for investigative purposes. Can fill you in tomorrow in more detail but we all think the
best move is to indict both Wide Receiver I and Wide Receiver II under seal and then unseal as part of Project
Deliverance, where focus will be on aggregate seizures and not on particulars of any one indictment.


From:     Breuer, Lanny A.
To:       Weinstein, Jason
Sent:     Fri Apr 30 18:39:45 2010
Subject:  Re: Operation Wide Receiver

Anything I should know about thos?


From:     Weinstein, Jason
Sent:     Friday, April 30, 2010 7:03 PM
To:       Breuer, Lanny A.
Subject:  Re: Operation Wide Receiver 

As you'll recall from Jim's briefing, ATF let a bunch of guns walk in an effort to get upstream conspirators but only got
straws, and didn't recover many guns. Some were recovered in MX after being used in crimes. Billy, Jim, Laura, Alisa
and I all think the best way to announce the case without highlighting the negative part of the story and risking
embarassing ATF is as part of Deliverance. 

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/-3-DOJ-s-press-focus-in-Wide-Receiver.pdf

--Naaman Brown (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The 211 page 31 Jul 2012 report on Operation Fast and Furious mentions the previous Operation Wide Receiver in six pages as "an outrage", noting internal DOJ memos indicated that, after DOJ HQ informed ATF HQ about the Phoenix ATF Operation Wide Receiver in April 2010, Deputy Assitant Attorney General Jason M. Weinstein suggested to Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer that the operations be announced together under Operation Deliverance "to announce the case without highlighting the negative part of the story and risking embarrassing ATF". The initial response of the Obama DOJ was to minimize gunwalking under BOTH Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious (Wide Receiver II) to avoid embarrassing ATF. Today pointing fingers at Wide Receiver to somehow justify Fast and Furious is ???? Still, the Obama DOJ in press releases admits gunwalking under Wide Receiver 2006-2007 and Fast and Furious 2009-2011 (mostly 2010), which makes the Eban claim gunwalking was not an OF&F tactic questionable. --Naaman Brown (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Mexican Reaction

Chihuahua state prosecutor Patricia Gonzalez

Were either of the AK-47's that were traced back to Operation Fast and Furious directly linked to Ms. Gonzlez's brother's murder? Dick Kimball (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Guns don't murder people, people do. That being said, the answer to your question is 'no'. He was tortured, killed and buried by his captors. There is no indication in the news report that he even died from a gun-inflicted wound, and if he had, it's unlikely the cartel would use an AK-47 to dispatch a tortured captive. Many guns were found in the cartel's arsenal, including some that had been initially monitored through the OF&F. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Justice Department Inspector General Report

Apologies if this is poorly formatted (new Wiki user), but new information's come out that might be relevant. The New York Times just released an article talking about a Justice Department internal investigation which recommended disciplinary action against 14 federal officials, ranging from ATF agents on up to federal prosecutors. The story is likely to evolve over the next few days as more details come out, but apparently was more comprehensive than Darrel Issa's committee, because it had access to witnesses and evidence that were blocked by the Obama administration. Among the things mentioned are ATF's frustration over restrictive straw-buying laws, and an apparent admission that federal prosecutors shared some of the responsibility for the failure to interdict more guns.

If anyone's interested, you can read the NYT article about the Inspector General's report here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/us/report-places-blame-in-operation-fast-and-furious.html. dkamouflage (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fortunes Conclusion that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels

Is she serious? Holder admitted they did exactly that when he withdrew the letter from his DOJ to Congress which had previously stated that this didn’t happen, and he then admitted that the information was incorrect. Rescarpment (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to relax and stop edit warring. You clearly have a strong opinion on the topic, but as I mentioned on your talk page, most of your edits are either using unreliable sources or misquoting/misinterpreting sources. The sources you are using for information about Wide Receiver guns are not NPOV. One of your most recent edits, regarding ATF policy/practice, uses a source that doesn't say that gunwalking was against policy. It quotes one person saying that in testimony. Since this issue is already covered more reliably in our article, this is also a completely unnecessary addition. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This article gives undo weight to early sources, such as Mr. Serrano, who were reporting in 2011 during the "sensational" phase of this issue. At that time, sparse information was available regarding F&F, and what was available was presented to the media from partisan sources. This article then downplays later (non-partisan) information revealed in 2012, after the DOJ release of thousands of documents, and lengthy investigations, such as the one done by Fortune. Statements implying "illegal purchases were allowed" rely upon early information and are contradicted by later information indicating that the purchases were in fact legal under the law, rarely directly witnessed by a government officer, and that the ATF often had neither the opportunity or authority to prohibit the sale, nor the ability or resources to track and interdict the weapons while in transit. Mr. Serrano's "take" on the issue dominates the introduction of this article. Fortune's "take" on the issue is tacked on as a final after-thought, if the reader bothers to read that far.[Special:Contributions/24.106.8.146|24.106.8.146]] (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Paul

It would be giving undue weight to Katherine Eban's article published by CNN/Fortune to dismiss all prior sources--not just Serrano (LAT), but Attkisson (CBS), the Democrat minority report and many others including Mexican government and media. Eban's main sources ("laterally transferred" David Voth and Bill Newell of ATF and their lawyers) are scarcely nonpartisan. --Naaman Brown (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Eban/CNN/Fortune article lionizes David Voth and scapegoats John Dodson. Two sections in the current WP article put the onus on Dodson citing Eban/CNN/Fortune. The 19 Sep 2012 DOJ OIG Report faults Phoenix ATF SAC William Newell, GS David Voth and Hope MacAllister and 11 others for the OF&F mess, and mentions Dodson as a whistleblower, witness and critic of their policies. --Naaman Brown (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC) BTW according to CBS News their sources were Eleven ATF field agents and supervisors, who spoke to them anonymously. That Dodson was one who went public and became a target should not distract from the fact there are multiple ATF, ICE, DEA agents who have complained about gunwalking by Phoenix ATF.--Naaman Brown (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

DOJ OIG 19 Sep 2012

We now have two seperate sections dealing with the 19 Sep 2012 DOJ OIG Report. This needs consolidation from editors who have read the report with a background on issues, and not repeating ideological talking points. --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You should try to be careful also. Your most recent addition, "What became known as Operation Fast and Furious began on October 31, 2009..." comes two paragraphs after "The effort, beginning in November, would come to be called Operation Fast and Furious for the successful film franchise..." I've noticed some other instances in the article where editors have added repetitive/slightly conflicting information, which is unfortunate because I am currently much too lazy to improve them. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 21:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Villas de Salvárcar massacre

Let's wait to see how big these news get, but several weapons from the F&F were reportedly used in the Villas de Salvárcar massacre, one of the most notorious massacres in Ciudad Juárez. [3] [4] ComputerJA (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Investigations and Fallout

This tenuous assertion is undermined because documents that refer to changing gun regulations come far after the inception
of Fast and Furious.[96][97][98][99]

If I may be permitted, this doesn't sound quite NPOV to me. Besides, the conception of the idea behind any document perforce precedes the writing of it. Furthermore we know neither the dates nor the content of the documents withheld under Executive Privilege. Dick Kimball (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Dick Kimball (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk of changing gun regulations came during the Apr 2009 meeting of Calderon and Obama, when Calderon asserted the death rate accelerated in Mexico after the expiration of the US Assault Weapons Ban in 2004 and called for re-inactment, followed by Rose Garden news events and address to a joint session of US Congress on the same theme. (US diplomats and MX newspaper El Universal tied the increased death toll to Calderon's militarization of the drug war starting Dec 2006; during the Bush Admin, Calderon viewed the increased deaths 2007, 2008 as a sign the drug war was working since most deaths were cartel members.) Then the June 2009 US GAO publication of the claim that 87% of guns recovered in the drug war were US origin, which was questioned June 2009 by DHS and shortly later by private Strategic Forecasting. Then gunwalking was restarted in Fast and Furious Nov 2009 in Phoenix by ATF SAC William Newell whose prior use of gunwalking in Wide Receiver had been ordered stopped 6 Oct 2007 by ATF HQ. Talk of changing gun regulations in news events and government publications came before the inception of OF&F. --Naaman Brown (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It is natural that gun laws would be discussed all over the place because it is a political issue. The point made by the source for that sentence is that there is zero evidence of a direct causal link between the alleged desire for different gun regulations and the inception of OFF. For documents relating the two to be written months or years later would seem to indicate that an actual link is unlikely. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 03:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Name Change Needed

We now know that there was, with a single exception involving a half dozen or so guns, no gun walking involved in Fast and Furious. The name needs to be changed to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.166.119 (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Only if the sole source is the CNN/Fortune article which depends heavily on the narrative of Voth and his lawyers. The narrative of facts and the conclusions drawn in the Department of Justice Inspector General "Review of ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious", the Congressional Joint Staff Report "Fast and Furious: The Anatomy of a Failed Operation" and the Report of the Minority Staff "Fatally Flawed: Five Years of Gun walking in Arizona" contradict the presentations in the CNN/Fortune article. --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: No Operation Fast and Furious page?

I find the link to the ATF gunwalking scandal page from a search of Operation Fast and Furious to be disingenuous. While there are some similarities between Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious, I would argue there are key differences that get lost when everything is grouped together on one page. This is related to the difinition of "gunwalking" itself. Having paid as much attention as I can to bureaucratic minutiae, it is my understanding that "gunwalking" refers to the strategy of willingly allowing criminal targets to walk away from gun purchases without tracking them. This is a key difference between Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. In Wide Receiver, the stated goal was to always have eyes on the guns and to include Mexican officials in the tracking across the border. The strategy in Fast and Furious included directions for ATF officials to not track suspects after gun purchases and to not include Mexican officials in the tracking. These differences are key, and therefore I argue Operation Fast and Furious deserves its own page.

128.252.174.108 (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Mr. Black

Many sources over time have stated that the intention in both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious was to track the weapons, but for one reason or another this did not happen. In both cases the apparent goal was to allow weapons to fall into criminal hands (that's gunwalking, a term derived from gunrunning), follow them up the chain, arrest high-level figures, damage the cartels and interdict the weapons. The operations are much more similar than not, and it's the overall tactic that was the primary scandal, rather than how well the weapons were tracked. The articles were separate once upon a time, but they were repetitive, confusing, and overall of pretty bad quality.

In a different issue, I want to point out that op-eds are not reliable sources and shouldn't be used. I've tried to change the stuff you added to keep only information in the news articles. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 22:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

With respect, how the guns are tracked is central to the overall tactic. Based on the actions of the ATF in Fast and Furious, it is not apparent that they planned to follow the guns up the chain and interdict the weapons. While they wanted to hook high level cartel members, it appears that they were willing to let guns go with no chance of interdiction. In Operation Fast and Furious, it is well established that on multiple occasions ATF agents were told to stand down when they felt it necessary to track guns, which did not occur in Wide Receiver. Further, in Wide Receiver, guns were also traced with miniature GPS devices, which did not occur in Fast and Furious. When these GPS devices malfunctioned and 30-40 guns were lost, the operation was immediately aborted. Fast and Furious continued unabated while guns continued to be sold to cartel associates, even when it was known that at least 1300 guns were unaccounted for. These, in addition to not informing Mexican officials, are reasons why Fast and Furious was a scandal compared to Wide Receiver. It is no surprise these guns were then used by cartel members and associates to murder Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans (so far). The scandal revolves around Fast and Furious. To be fair, there are certainly connections between Wide Receiver, Gunrunner, and Fast and Furious. However, only in Fast and Furious were ATF agents forced to stand down and not track guns by overseeing officials, only in Fast and Furious were Mexican officials not informed, and only in Fast and Furious was a walked gun directly linked to the murder of a US Border Patrol agent. Operation Fast and Furious deserves its own page.

I propose giving independent pages for Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious, which can be linked in another article titled Project Gunrunner. Putting them all in the scandal page is disingenuous. The scandal revolves around Operation Fast and Furious and not Operation Wide Receiver. 128.252.212.105 (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Mr. Black

Some of that sounds like misinformation. I've never seen a reliable source state that Wide Receiver guns were outfitted with GPS devices, and at least one says they weren't (I doubt GPS trackers small enough to be hidden inside a gun were available anyway, but that's just me). Several reliable sources (as cited) state that over 400 guns were sold and most of them were lost, not 30-40. The operations are deeply intertwined, including their locations, the people involved, and the tactics used. They had similar goals and were both mismanaged, allowing guns to fall into criminal hands. They came to light at about the same time, and investigations into gunwalking have covered both operations at the same time. There's no compelling reason to separate them. Also, Gunrunner is a much broader program that includes entirely reasonable and effective operations that don't involve gunwalking. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 17:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think partisan claims and counter-claims have clouded the picture of what happened in OWR and OF&F: "Obama did it!", "Bush did it first!", or "Bush started it and Obama ended it!" when most extant evidence points at ambitious agents in the Phoenix ATF Field Office and neither President being informed until the ops were over.

The overall Project Gunrunner had a simple goal of interdicting straw purchasers to block cross-border traffickers; according to FBI by 2008, 650 cases, 1400 defendants, 12,000 guns. Operation Wide Receiver OWR Mar2006-Oct2007 and Operation Fast and Furious OF&F Nov2009-Jan2011 were abberations, two operations that were not typical of Project Gunrunner.

The DOJ IG concluded: "Both investigations sought to identify the higher reaches of firearms trafficking networks by deferring any overt law enforcement action against the individual straw purchasers -- such as making arrests or seizing firearms -- even when there was sufficient evidence to do so." One big difference between OWR and OF&F is OWR was recognized as a failed experiment and ended 6 Oct 2007 but OF&F was re-started Nov 2009 anyway.

OWR involved 474 guns but only 64 were directly interdicted. The ATF Mexico City Office was notified, some effort was made to coordinate with Mexican police, and an apparent effort to get GPS devices that would fit a gun. These efforts were not consistent and not effective.

OF&F involved 1,961 guns but only 105 were directly interdicted by ATF Phoenix, 605 turned up at other agencies' crime scenes in U.S. and Mexico (those were claimed by ATF Phoenix in their "seizure" tallies to the chagrin of the other agencies). The ATF Mexico City Office was not notified, no effort was made to coordinate with Mexican police. Tracking devices were used in guns in three instances in OF&F and not successfully.

The similarities and the differences unite the two operations. I don't think you could seperate them. --Naaman Brown (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hazydan, Sorry for the 30-40 guns claim. That seems to not be corroborated. However, it appears there is only one source that gives gun numbers, the DOJ IG report. I wish I could take them at their word. However I still stand by this statement I made emphasizing the reasons Operation Fast and Furious is a scandal: "only in Fast and Furious were ATF agents forced to stand down and not track guns by overseeing officials, only in Fast and Furious were Mexican officials not informed, and only in Fast and Furious was a walked gun directly linked to the murder of a US Border Patrol agent." The last point is how the story got picked up and why ATF agents became whistleblowers. The fact that the targets of Fast and Furious were FBI/DEA informants that were unindictable is a factor that should have gotten more play as well.

Naaman Brown, I agree with most of your points, particularly your point that the problems of Wide Receiver were known and yet Fast and Furious was pursued. However, I do disagree with your claim that it was all the cause of some ATF agents in Phoenix. This was an OCDETF case, which includes cooperation with DOJ, DEA, ATF, ICE, DHS. At best, the oversight by DOJ and the heads of all those agencies was abysmal. At worst, some of those did know, lied about it, and are now being protected by a claim of executive privilege. Unfortunately, we may never know which one. Myster Black (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several citations right there that give the estimate of OWR guns at 450, including some quoting the private seller who actually sold them. Where are you getting this stuff? There are plenty of large and small differences between the operations (only one is named after a movie!), but that doesn't mean that the reader is served by having the articles divided, if that is what you are still arguing. Can you specify what you think dividing them would accomplish, and why it would accomplish it? I removed your recent edit to the article because some of what you added is repetitive, and the focus on O'Reilly seems unwarranted because he had no notable involvement in OFF, beyond receiving a few vague emails with no important information. As a new editor you might also be served by reviewing wikipedia policies (and how to format citations!). – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 02:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hazydan, apparently we've reached snark time. The 450 number appears to be the number of guns sold, not lost. I concede the Bloomberg article does say most of them were lost but it does not give a number. As for the differences, my main point is all of this blew up as a scandal when Brian Terry was killed with an Operation Fast and Furious weapon. That's a tad more important than a movie title. I hate to repeat myself, but only in Fast and Furious were agents forced to stand down and not track guns and Mexico was not informed, meaning there was no way from the beginning to track the guns (which became the main crux of the scandal). It also is the case where for the first time Obama used executive privilege. The fact that the cartel higher ups targeted were FBI/DEA informants all along and could never be prosecuted is another noteworthy difference. For all of these reasons, if someone searches Operation Fast and Furious, they should reach a page titled Operation Fast and Furious. It is a self-contained story where Wide Receiver can be linked.

Further, both Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious were OCDETF cases, meaning they were much larger than ATF. Having ATF in the title is misleading. This is related to the importance of Mr. O'Reilly, a person in a position to help coordinate between DEA, ATF, FBI, etc. While I concede there was no smoking gun about walked guns in the released emails between Newell and O'Reilly, it does show interest from the White House National Security Council and it is still unclear what was not released. Further, the inability of the investigators to interview him is a fact worth mentioning, particularly with the timing of his move to Iraq coinciding with the release of the emails. The nature of an OCDETF case is that it runs through DC DOJ and there's lots of money for lots of agencies and its important to all of them. This is at least part of what is being shielded by the executive privilege claim.

On a more technical note, formatting citations, I think I am embedding correctly, but I need to edit the references at the bottom of the page. Is that what you mean? You also recommend reviewing wiki policies. Are there specifics that you had in mind when you wrote that? Thanks. Myster Black (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding citations, I meant that they should include info like title, author, etc, and if you have the same source for multiple pieces of information you can have them link to one instance of the reference rather than repeating it each time (it might help to take a look at how some of the others are formatted). Not really any policies in particular, just in general.

As far as I know, the fact that they got funding for this through OCDETF does not mean that this was in any way managed from DC, and there are no reliable sources indicating that it was. In fact, I think it was technically first managed by ATF and then the USAO in Phoenix as a strike force, and involvement by the other departments was relatively low-level cooperation. Just because someone was in a position to do something or didn't want to be interviewed, that doesn't mean anything happened or they should be included. The article would get very long (and there's probably already a lot of unnecessary detail). If you think the whole article should be renamed, by all means I'd like to hear suggestions. But again, I'm not hearing how separating the subjects would help to better understand the subject matter. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 01:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

At a minimum, refs should be (ref)[weblink Author, "Title"], publisher, date.(/ref) where () are less-than greater-than angled brackets. I have had problems with ATF.gov and US Army War College rearranging their archives, but was able to find the new links by searching for title. If a ref is weblink only, it may not stay at that address forever. Sometimes the name.html stays the same and can be searched that way but sometimes the html name changes but the title does not.

A difference between OWR and OF&F is that the cooperating FFL in OWR had a contract with ATF and kept a 500 page diary on his involvement; later ATF Phoenix SAC Newell did not allow contracts with OF&F FFL1 and FFL2 and even refused to give one FFL a "letter of understanding" to officially reflect his cooperation with ATF Phoenix. One thing in common between both is Newell and the tactic of foregoing interdiction of straw purchasers/unlicensed dealers in order to track guns to cartel leaders.

The DOJ OIG Review shows that other agencies in the OCDETF operation were frustrated by the way Phoenix ATF field office (Newell-MacAllister-Voth) were conducting OF&F, which apparently they found out about in bits and pieces. The Review does not give the impression that the specific OF&F tactics were originated from the top down. ATF Phoenix apparently lobbied for inclusion in the task force in thier interpretation of a "cartel based startegy".

http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/s1209.htm 512 pages, 4,127,675 bytes, U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, "A Review of ATF's Operation Fast and Furious and Related Matters" September 2012