Wrong as in "bad judgement" or wrong as in "illegal?"

 

I thought I read today that they contend that the documents that have not been turned over are protected and not required.

 

At a minimum it was absolute pure stupidity and if Holder had any knowledge before hand of the operation, he has to go. Period. Which I understand is a purpose of the subpeona: to determine his knowledge before hand.

 

I don't have to worry about whether it was illegal to determine if he should go. Pure stupidity and p-poor judgment is enough to justify termination. I'm sure Holder thinks the unsupplied docs are protected the same way Nixon thought the tapes were protected: the CMA Doctrine (and I don't mean Country Music Awards).

 

 

If it is determined that Holder knew about the operation in advance, I will find it absolutely hilarious if the same people that worked hard to portray Bush Jr as some out of control, dangerous cowboy, attempt to defend Holder.

So this would be similar to, let's say, the NYPD providing meth to some supplier in the hopes of tracking it to a dealer in order to catch the dealer. Unfortunately before the dealer is caught, the supplied meth is used by a teenager who dies from an OD. You'd feel that the NYPD has no culpability in the teenager's death?

 

Don't read anything into my post where I copied the memo. I put it out there to show what their thinking was. I offered no support.

Don't read anything into my post where I copied the memo. I put it out there to show what their thinking was. I offered no support.

 

Understood. Now help me understand what YOUR thinking is on the matter by answering my question please.

The FBI - yes. They should follow the law since they enforce it.

 

The CIA? When did the CIA come into this? But the CIA used to be prohibited from operating inside the US borders. The CIA is the spooks where secret and yes, illegal activities occur. Hence why their domain was to be outside the US. This is why there was 'lack of sharing' that was identified after 9/11. It was by design. I have been concerned about the intermixing of the CIA and domestic law agencies since they announce 'better cooperation' after 9/11.

 

But the CIA is not who is in question here. DOJ/FBI/ATF ran a very bad 'sting' operation with tragic results and international consequences. They are trying to keep out of Holders office and out of the White House with 'plausible deniablity' that gets less plausible every day.

 

Your previous post made it seem like you were bothered that the US broke the law of another country. Do we not have a long history of that? We've always been a "the end justifies the means" country when it comes to actions in other countries.

 

This one appears to have been botched in a large scale. However, let's not get holier than thou and say we should be ashamed because we broke Mexico's laws.

Understood. Now help me understand what YOUR thinking is on the matter by answering my question please.

 

I'm consistent. There's always culpability in deaths. See my posts about the dad who killed his child's attacker. Questions always have to asked.

Your previous post made it seem like you were bothered that the US broke the law of another country. Do we not have a long history of that? We've always been a "the end justifies the means" country when it comes to actions in other countries.

 

This one appears to have been botched in a large scale. However, let's not get holier than thou and say we should be ashamed because we broke Mexico's laws.

 

We do, but not via the very agency that represents law enforcement locally.

 

Clandestine, international 'law breaking' needs to be kept in the relm of the CIA.

 

Had DOJ worked with the Mexican government and done a joint operation with far better oversight and review by both governments I would not be so adamant about their actions. For what ever reason they did not do this.

Last night there was woman on Hannity saying - 'this has been going on since the Bush days'. The implication this action of intentionally allowing firearms to 'walk' across the border with the encouragement of DOJ was happening then. This is just not the case. There were programs - one called 'Gunwalker' that would trace weapons back to their origin - after the fact. The DOJ under Bush or other administrations never ran an operation where they were intentionally letting firearms flow into Mexico.

 

This is why the issue of memos with the title 'Fast and Furious' not just 'Gunwalker' or 'gun walking' was a big deal in last week's testimony. This is where Holder was trying to say that a memo that clearly said 'Fast and Furious' was not referring to the operation 'Fast and Furious'.

Last night there was woman on Hannity saying - 'this has been going on since the Bush days'. The implication this action of intentionally allowing firearms to 'walk' across the border with the encouragement of DOJ was happening then. This is just not the case. There were programs - one called 'Gunwalker' that would trace weapons back to their origin - after the fact. The DOJ under Bush or other administrations never ran an operation where they were intentionally letting firearms flow into Mexico.

 

This is why the issue of memos with the title 'Fast and Furious' not just 'Gunwalker' or 'gun walking' was a big deal in last week's testimony. This is where Holder was trying to say that a memo that clearly said 'Fast and Furious' was not referring to the operation 'Fast and Furious'.

 

Poor attempt by Mr Holder. From what I've read 3 of the 4 were known to be coordinated with Mexico. There is one that no one has said definitively that it was coordinated but it would seem that it would have been since the other 3 were.

Poor attempt by Mr Holder. From what I've read 3 of the 4 were known to be coordinated with Mexico. There is one that no one has said definitively that it was coordinated but it would seem that it would have been since the other 3 were.

 

Help me out. Are you stating/implying that you'd be fine with the F&F operation if it had been fully coordinated with the Mexican govt?

Help me out. Are you stating/implying that you'd be fine with the F&F operation if it had been fully coordinated with the Mexican govt?

 

Hard to say. The intent of the operation seems good. However, I'd never trust anyone in the Mexican govt so I am torn.

 

You?

Your previous post made it seem like you were bothered that the US broke the law of another country. Do we not have a long history of that? We've always been a "the end justifies the means" country when it comes to actions in other countries.

 

This one appears to have been botched in a large scale. However, let's not get holier than thou and say we should be ashamed because we broke Mexico's laws.

 

Always? If true, then we've had a lot more Presidents and administrations deserving to be called dangerous cowboys than just Bush Jr. I'm beginning to think that this Administration has some high level cowboys in it which I find rather ironic given the criticism rendered towards Bush Jr.

Always? If true, then we've had a lot more Presidents and administrations deserving to be called dangerous cowboys than just Bush Jr. I'm beginning to think that this Administration has some high level cowboys in it which I find rather ironic given the criticism rendered towards Bush Jr.

 

Do you disagree with my thinking that we justify the actions by the results?

Hard to say. The intent of the operation seems good. However, I'd never trust anyone in the Mexican govt so I am torn.

 

You?

 

Wouldn't be fine with it at all even if the intent was good. It would still have been a stupid and dangerous operation. If Holder had knowledge before hand, he should be fired. Then again, he was okay with us violating Pakistan's sovereign rights, so I doubt he and I would see this issue the same as one another. If F&F violated US gun laws, are those that approved F&F any different than Colonel North?

Wouldn't be fine with it at all even if the intent was good. It would still have been a stupid and dangerous operation. If Holder had knowledge before hand, he should be fired. Then again, he was okay with us violating Pakistan's sovereign rights, so I doubt he and I would see this issue the same as one another. If F&F violated US gun laws, are those that approved F&F any different than Colonel North?

 

No.

 

By the way the Pakistan example supports my "end justifying the means" comment.

Do you disagree with my thinking that we justify the actions by the results?

 

Who is we? I do not justify actions by the results if our actions are illegal. Maybe it's the lawyer in me. If a CIA agent assassinated a really bad guy without legal authorization, I cannot exonerate the action by the CIA agent because the results were "good". Can you?