Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Let the guns walk

Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 11:04:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.wimp.com...

A story explaining how the ATF helped supply Mexican drug cartels with weapons. I have always maintained that we are keeping the cartels in business - we have to. We have huge industries in the US that depend on the cartels to operate and we're not about to sit back and watch them fade out.

I've heard people defend laws, their morality, and their application quite a bit on this site. One interesting aspect of law is that the government has every right to refuse to enforce a law, as a tactic to achieve some end, if it sees fit.
kfc
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 11:14:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 11:04:03 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
http://www.wimp.com...

A story explaining how the ATF helped supply Mexican drug cartels with weapons. I have always maintained that we are keeping the cartels in business - we have to. We have huge industries in the US that depend on the cartels to operate and we're not about to sit back and watch them fade out.

I've heard people defend laws, their morality, and their application quite a bit on this site. One interesting aspect of law is that the government has every right to refuse to enforce a law, as a tactic to achieve some end, if it sees fit.



I don't know that this is true. I may be idealistic in my beliefs that there is a certain oath of office in which they are bound to uphold and defend the laws; that they sometimes don't, does not mean it is some caveat within the laws.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 11:23:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 11:14:55 AM, innomen wrote:
At 3/5/2011 11:04:03 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
http://www.wimp.com...

A story explaining how the ATF helped supply Mexican drug cartels with weapons. I have always maintained that we are keeping the cartels in business - we have to. We have huge industries in the US that depend on the cartels to operate and we're not about to sit back and watch them fade out.

I've heard people defend laws, their morality, and their application quite a bit on this site. One interesting aspect of law is that the government has every right to refuse to enforce a law, as a tactic to achieve some end, if it sees fit.



I don't know that this is true. I may be idealistic in my beliefs that there is a certain oath of office in which they are bound to uphold and defend the laws; that they sometimes don't, does not mean it is some caveat within the laws.

Sure it does. Law does not govern and implement itself. People need to do that and, the only way it can be done is through discretion (police), arbitration and interpretation (judges), legal games (lawyers), and finally bureaucratic tactics that include the ability to decide when and when not to enforce the law. You see, laws are broad, sweeping generalizations that are never going to work in all cases. If laws were set up like some computer program upon our society, in which they were always followed to the T in the best possible interpretation, then it would likely crash because there are too many exceptions.
kfc
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 11:41:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I frankly don't believe the story to the point where that agent is saying it extends to - though for certain, I can see ATF and the DEA doing things like that, with purposes that range from maintaining certain operations to even playing the cartels against each other. The FBI and local police have used the same tactics when they took down the mafia crime families and biker gangs - part of the reason a lot of biker gangs go down is because law enforcement has rigged their weapons for tracking and stuff.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 12:20:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 11:23:59 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/5/2011 11:14:55 AM, innomen wrote:
At 3/5/2011 11:04:03 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
http://www.wimp.com...

A story explaining how the ATF helped supply Mexican drug cartels with weapons. I have always maintained that we are keeping the cartels in business - we have to. We have huge industries in the US that depend on the cartels to operate and we're not about to sit back and watch them fade out.

I've heard people defend laws, their morality, and their application quite a bit on this site. One interesting aspect of law is that the government has every right to refuse to enforce a law, as a tactic to achieve some end, if it sees fit.



I don't know that this is true. I may be idealistic in my beliefs that there is a certain oath of office in which they are bound to uphold and defend the laws; that they sometimes don't, does not mean it is some caveat within the laws.

Sure it does. Law does not govern and implement itself. People need to do that and, the only way it can be done is through discretion (police), arbitration and interpretation (judges), legal games (lawyers), and finally bureaucratic tactics that include the ability to decide when and when not to enforce the law. You see, laws are broad, sweeping generalizations that are never going to work in all cases. If laws were set up like some computer program upon our society, in which they were always followed to the T in the best possible interpretation, then it would likely crash because there are too many exceptions.

It's one thing to have those who enforce the law bend them a bit for a greater gain as Volkov explains, but i have a hard time believing there is blatant fuel being thrown in the fire.

I was watching Spanish news where there were guns crossing the border. I find it really interesting that those same people that are blaming the Americans for the guns being brought over are also against a wall.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 12:30:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know that this is true. I may be idealistic in my beliefs that there is a certain oath of office in which they are bound to uphold and defend the laws; that they sometimes don't, does not mean it is some caveat within the laws.:

I think what he means is that federal agents let some things slide while they're gathering intelligence on a crime syndicate in order to catch an even bigger fish or more evidence for a more serious conviction.

The ATF also infiltrated the Hells Angels for over a year, in which time their embedded agents witnessed a lot of criminal activity. They allowed it to build a bigger indictment.

This clip comes to mind on how it works.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 3:18:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 11:41:35 AM, Volkov wrote:
I frankly don't believe the story to the point where that agent is saying it extends to - though for certain, I can see ATF and the DEA doing things like that, with purposes that range from maintaining certain operations to even playing the cartels against each other. The FBI and local police have used the same tactics when they took down the mafia crime families and biker gangs - part of the reason a lot of biker gangs go down is because law enforcement has rigged their weapons for tracking and s

Well we cant' really have a full debate on it because the very nature of these agencies defies transparency. But the DEA makes $1b a week off our tax dollars, through the very dubious war on drugs. I don't know what the atf pulls, but that money is going to have to be protected. The war on drugs must continue for these people to survive. This type of thing (letting weapons through the border) is completely expected, given the situation, because it keeps the drug lords in power, which in turn keeps the dea legitimate.

As far as letting them through to be tracked, that is a great technique to catch criminals, but it is ideologically troublesome that our laws are absolute for citizens and optional for officials. Our officials are above the law. The ends which justify this are of no concern.
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 3:42:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 12:20:51 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/5/2011 11:23:59 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/5/2011 11:14:55 AM, innomen wrote:
At 3/5/2011 11:04:03 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
http://www.wimp.com...

A story explaining how the ATF helped supply Mexican drug cartels with weapons. I have always maintained that we are keeping the cartels in business - we have to. We have huge industries in the US that depend on the cartels to operate and we're not about to sit back and watch them fade out.

I've heard people defend laws, their morality, and their application quite a bit on this site. One interesting aspect of law is that the government has every right to refuse to enforce a law, as a tactic to achieve some end, if it sees fit.



I don't know that this is true. I may be idealistic in my beliefs that there is a certain oath of office in which they are bound to uphold and defend the laws; that they sometimes don't, does not mean it is some caveat within the laws.

Sure it does. Law does not govern and implement itself. People need to do that and, the only way it can be done is through discretion (police), arbitration and interpretation (judges), legal games (lawyers), and finally bureaucratic tactics that include the ability to decide when and when not to enforce the law. You see, laws are broad, sweeping generalizations that are never going to work in all cases. If laws were set up like some computer program upon our society, in which they were always followed to the T in the best possible interpretation, then it would likely crash because there are too many exceptions.

It's one thing to have those who enforce the law bend them a bit for a greater gain as Volkov explains, but i have a hard time believing there is blatant fuel being thrown in the fire.

You have a hard time believing that $1B a week, being funneled into an agency that does absolutely nothing for the populace, wouldn't be protected somehow? This is the perfect way to justify it. If guns fall into drug cartels' hands, then the perceived need for the DEA will be secured.

I was watching Spanish news where there were guns crossing the border. I find it really interesting that those same people that are blaming the Americans for the guns being brought over are also against a wall.

You mean that they are against a wall because their citizens are being terrorized and murdered by cartels that we keep in power, no doubt.
kfc
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 3:44:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 3:42:10 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
You have a hard time believing that $1B a week, being funneled into an agency that does absolutely nothing for the populace, wouldn't be protected somehow? This is the perfect way to justify it. If guns fall into drug cartels' hands, then the perceived need for the DEA will be secured.

That's kind of paranoid, Rob. And to be honest, $1B isn't a lot of money to the US government.

You mean that they are against a wall because their citizens are being terrorized and murdered by cartels that we keep in power, no doubt.

The only way Americans keep them in power is because Americans are the ones buying up all these drugs.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 3:48:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 12:30:02 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I don't know that this is true. I may be idealistic in my beliefs that there is a certain oath of office in which they are bound to uphold and defend the laws; that they sometimes don't, does not mean it is some caveat within the laws.:

I think what he means is that federal agents let some things slide while they're gathering intelligence on a crime syndicate in order to catch an even bigger fish or more evidence for a more serious convictions.

The ATF also infiltrated the Hells Angels for over a year, in which time their embedded agents witnessed a lot of criminal activity. They allowed it to build a bigger indictment.

It's one thing to be undercover and not be in the position to make an arrest; it's another entirely to be letting our weapons across the border to be used to terrorize and kill Mexicans.
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 3:57:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 3:44:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/5/2011 3:42:10 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
You have a hard time believing that $1B a week, being funneled into an agency that does absolutely nothing for the populace, wouldn't be protected somehow? This is the perfect way to justify it. If guns fall into drug cartels' hands, then the perceived need for the DEA will be secured.

That's kind of paranoid, Rob. And to be honest, $1B isn't a lot of money to the US government.

I disagree on both counts. Just like Mike Gravel said, all you have to do is follow the money. $50B a year isn't too shabby... the epa may get a lot more but that's still enough dough to make it self-justifying.

You mean that they are against a wall because their citizens are being terrorized and murdered by cartels that we keep in power, no doubt.

The only way Americans keep them in power is because Americans are the ones buying up all these drugs.

If they were illegal, we'd be producing them locally, not trying to find shipments from Mexico. Are you implying that if water were illegal, and we needed to get it from mexico to use it (creating illegal cartels), that you would blame the purchasers of the waterfor the problem and that's that? Wipe off your hands, problem is figured out!
kfc
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 4:01:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 3:57:18 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I disagree on both counts. Just like Mike Gravel said, all you have to do is follow the money. $50B a year isn't too shabby... the epa may get a lot more but that's still enough dough to make it self-justifying.

1. Never quote Mike Gravel.
2. It's self-justifying but you have no proof of it. That's the simple fact; the DEA was created as part of a policy on the war on drugs, which continues to be supported by the administration and the majority of Americans. The most self-justification these days is the fact that people want to continue it, and not just the folks in DC.

If they were illegal, we'd be producing them locally, not trying to find shipments from Mexico. Are you implying that if water were illegal, and we needed to get it from mexico to use it (creating illegal cartels), that you would blame the purchasers of the waterfor the problem and that's that? Wipe off your hands, problem is figured out!

So your essential solution is to start selling American-made crack cocaine. Good luck with that. Gotta find the climate first...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 4:02:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 4:01:19 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/5/2011 3:57:18 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
I disagree on both counts. Just like Mike Gravel said, all you have to do is follow the money. $50B a year isn't too shabby... the epa may get a lot more but that's still enough dough to make it self-justifying.

1. Never quote Mike Gravel.
2. It's self-justifying but you have no proof of it. That's the simple fact; the DEA was created as part of a policy on the war on drugs, which continues to be supported by the administration and the majority of Americans. The most self-justification these days is the fact that people want to continue it, and not just the folks in DC.

If they were illegal, we'd be producing them locally, not trying to find shipments from Mexico. Are you implying that if water were illegal, and we needed to get it from mexico to use it (creating illegal cartels), that you would blame the purchasers of the waterfor the problem and that's that? Wipe off your hands, problem is figured out!

So your essential solution is to start selling American-made crack cocaine. Good luck with that. Gotta find the climate first...

Like old times with you two.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2011 5:49:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
just like old times with you two.

It's interesting you should say that, actually. Back in'08 when I was a liberal, Volkov was probably the safest bet for agreement with me across the board. Facing off against the right wingers like mongo bros and ragnar, I could always count on support from Volkov. Then things changed. I became unsatisfied with the status quo and continued left into radicalism. I didn't see myself as leaving the liberal atmosphere at the time; I just figured I was travelling down the natural path that any liberal would take once they realized that the status quo is saturated with ignorance. So when Volkov start becoming increasingly diagreeable I became frustrated with him because I couldn't understand why he couldn't see things from my leftist POV.

Now I see the common person on the street and realize I have nothing in common with them. Those who stay close to the status quo are aliens to me... I can no longer remember how I could ever have bought into everything normal people believe. I am now an outsider in both rightist and leftist circles and I know that if I say very much of anything in the real world I will be chastized quickly with emotionalist illogic. It's still difficult, leaving behind my leftist compatriots, but that's a price I am willing to pay.
kfc
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 12:19:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's one thing to be undercover and not be in the position to make an arrest; it's another entirely to be letting our weapons across the border to be used to terrorize and kill Mexicans.:

If what that one agent says is accurate, then sure. But I'd like to hear both sides of the story before I jump to any conclusions. Media has a tendency to sensationalize these kind of things to boost ratings.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 12:22:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
in the real world I will be chastized quickly with emotionalist illogic.:

*nods*
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 8:28:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/5/2011 5:49:31 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
just like old times with you two.

It's interesting you should say that, actually. Back in'08 when I was a liberal, Volkov was probably the safest bet for agreement with me across the board. Facing off against the right wingers like mongo bros and ragnar, I could always count on support from Volkov. Then things changed. I became unsatisfied with the status quo and continued left into radicalism. I didn't see myself as leaving the liberal atmosphere at the time; I just figured I was travelling down the natural path that any liberal would take once they realized that the status quo is saturated with ignorance. So when Volkov start becoming increasingly diagreeable I became frustrated with him because I couldn't understand why he couldn't see things from my leftist POV.

Now I see the common person on the street and realize I have nothing in common with them. Those who stay close to the status quo are aliens to me... I can no longer remember how I could ever have bought into everything normal people believe. I am now an outsider in both rightist and leftist circles and I know that if I say very much of anything in the real world I will be chastized quickly with emotionalist illogic. It's still difficult, leaving behind my leftist compatriots, but that's a price I am willing to pay.

You're a total martyr, Rob. xD