Bill to limit executive privlige introduced

[bigrebnc1775]

Just because they dealt with guns doesn't mean they used the same tactics.

First, there was a typo in my previous post. Gunrunner started in 2005 not 2007

second, gunwalking was used as a tactic in all three operations. Gunwalking is the tactic everyone is having a problem with.




Wide Reciever

In March 2006 he signed a contract making him a confidential informant, with the promise that he would be paid unspecified rewards for helping to shut down a weapons pipeline to Mexico. “I thought I was doing something good,” says Detty, 52, a tall man who favors a basic firing-range wardrobe: solid-colored shirt, khaki trousers, and tan, high-laced combat boots. Beyond any rewards, he would also make a profit—in the form of his take from the undercover sales.

Over the next 19 months, Detty sold a series of suspected traffickers some 450 rifles and handguns—AR-15s, knockoff AK-47s, Colt .38s—all under the aegis of the ATF investigation. Hundreds of hours of conversations were taped. The guns were tracked, court filings show, and U.S. agents had fleeting contacts with Mexican police. But the investigation did not achieve its ambitious goals. The vast majority of the guns were never recovered by U.S. authorities. No kingpins were apprehended, no cartel taken down. Mexico’s drug war raged on.

The Guns That Got Away - Businessweek

Same tactic.

That DOES NOT mean "Bush did it too!" Nor does it excuse the ATF and Holder from using the tactic, IN FACT, it makes it WORSE because they tried to use a tactic that had already been proven a failure.

Now there's a good argument against Holder. Doesn't seem like Issa and co. are using it, though. Instead, they seem to prefer to use a half-baked conspiracy theory to rile up the paranoid wingnut base.

There are no conspiracy theory in this cover up.

 

[Vidi]

First, there was a typo in my previous post. Gunrunner started in 2005 not 2007

second, gunwalking was used as a tactic in all three operations. Gunwalking is the tactic everyone is having a problem with.




Wide Reciever



Same tactic.

That DOES NOT mean "Bush did it too!" Nor does it excuse the ATF and Holder from using the tactic, IN FACT, it makes it WORSE because they tried to use a tactic that had already been proven a failure.

Now there's a good argument against Holder. Doesn't seem like Issa and co. are using it, though. Instead, they seem to prefer to use a half-baked conspiracy theory to rile up the paranoid wingnut base.

There are no conspiracy theory in this cover up.

The theory that the entire purpose of Fast and Furious was to attack 2nd amendment rights is most definitely a conspiracy theory.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I know because Ive read all the links.

The first "gunwalking" operation was Operation:Wide reciever. It began in early 2006. Another probe, Project Gunrunner, to the best of my knowledge, began in 2007 ran for several months before being shut down on Oct 6, 2007. Several guns were lost in both operations. In the second the mexican government had no involvement BUt were informed once the guns crossed the border, but they lost the suspects.

Then on Oct 26, 2009 Fast and Furious began using the same gunwalking tactic that had already been tried, failed and then rejected.

But weve been over this already. Those are the FACTS. Only the blind partisans are denying them. Those on the left who falsely claim that the operation was inherited from the bush administration and those that falsely claim that its a pure invention of the Obama administration.

Just because they dealt with guns doesn't mean they used the same tactics.

First, there was a typo in my previous post. Gunrunner started in 2005 not 2007

second, gunwalking was used as a tactic in all three operations. Gunwalking is the tactic everyone is having a problem with.

Gun trafficking to Mexico is a nationwide problem with consequences on both sides of the border. In response, ATF implemented Project Gunrunner in 2006 as a comprehensive strategy to reduce firearms and explosives related violent crime associated with Mexican criminal organizations operating in the U.S. and Mexico by preventing these organizations from unlawfully acquiring and trafficking firearms and explosives.

ATF Online - Firearms - Programs - Project Gunrunner

Wide Reciever

In March 2006 he signed a contract making him a confidential informant, with the promise that he would be paid unspecified rewards for helping to shut down a weapons pipeline to Mexico. “I thought I was doing something good,” says Detty, 52, a tall man who favors a basic firing-range wardrobe: solid-colored shirt, khaki trousers, and tan, high-laced combat boots. Beyond any rewards, he would also make a profit—in the form of his take from the undercover sales.

Over the next 19 months, Detty sold a series of suspected traffickers some 450 rifles and handguns—AR-15s, knockoff AK-47s, Colt .38s—all under the aegis of the ATF investigation. Hundreds of hours of conversations were taped. The guns were tracked, court filings show, and U.S. agents had fleeting contacts with Mexican police. But the investigation did not achieve its ambitious goals. The vast majority of the guns were never recovered by U.S. authorities. No kingpins were apprehended, no cartel taken down. Mexico’s drug war raged on.

The Guns That Got Away - Businessweek

Same tactic.

That DOES NOT mean "Bush did it too!" Nor does it excuse the ATF and Holder from using the tactic, IN FACT, it makes it WORSE because they tried to use a tactic that had already been proven a failure.

Is several new and aggressive steps the same as new tactics?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Now there's a good argument against Holder. Doesn't seem like Issa and co. are using it, though. Instead, they seem to prefer to use a half-baked conspiracy theory to rile up the paranoid wingnut base.

There are no conspiracy theory in this cover up.

The theory that the entire purpose of Fast and Furious was to attack 2nd amendment rights is most definitely a conspiracy theory.

There's no need for the EP then is there?

 

[Vidi]

There are no conspiracy theory in this cover up.

The theory that the entire purpose of Fast and Furious was to attack 2nd amendment rights is most definitely a conspiracy theory.

There's no need for the EP then is there?

Depends on how you look at it.

If you see it as a cover up, then theres no need.

If you see it as government officials need to be able to communicate with one another without the fear that they will have to explain their words and word choices several years from now in a very public hearing, then yes.

If you see it as, some names were named in thses documents that would place agents and their families at risk or jeapordize future operations unrelated to this operation, then yes again.

 

[Vidi]

Just because they dealt with guns doesn't mean they used the same tactics.

First, there was a typo in my previous post. Gunrunner started in 2005 not 2007

second, gunwalking was used as a tactic in all three operations. Gunwalking is the tactic everyone is having a problem with.





Wide Reciever

In March 2006 he signed a contract making him a confidential informant, with the promise that he would be paid unspecified rewards for helping to shut down a weapons pipeline to Mexico. “I thought I was doing something good,” says Detty, 52, a tall man who favors a basic firing-range wardrobe: solid-colored shirt, khaki trousers, and tan, high-laced combat boots. Beyond any rewards, he would also make a profit—in the form of his take from the undercover sales.

Over the next 19 months, Detty sold a series of suspected traffickers some 450 rifles and handguns—AR-15s, knockoff AK-47s, Colt .38s—all under the aegis of the ATF investigation. Hundreds of hours of conversations were taped. The guns were tracked, court filings show, and U.S. agents had fleeting contacts with Mexican police. But the investigation did not achieve its ambitious goals. The vast majority of the guns were never recovered by U.S. authorities. No kingpins were apprehended, no cartel taken down. Mexico’s drug war raged on.

The Guns That Got Away - Businessweek

Same tactic.

That DOES NOT mean "Bush did it too!" Nor does it excuse the ATF and Holder from using the tactic, IN FACT, it makes it WORSE because they tried to use a tactic that had already been proven a failure.

Is several new and aggressive steps the same as new tactics?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC6m_euNakM]WATCH- Obama Ordered Operation Gun Runner! - YouTube[/ame]

No where in that video does it say what those new and aggressive steps are specifically "gunwalking". In fact, every tactic mentioned is hiring or redeploying personel. Obviously as the ATF has admitted to using gunwalking at least twice in the past in operations Gunrunner and Wide reciever both conducted during the Bush years, those must not be the "new" steps...though I suppose they could fall under the heading "aggressive"

EDIT: Also the title of the video claims that Operation gunrunner was ordered by Obama. Which would have been a damned crazy thing for him to do seeing as it started in 2005 and ended in 2007. Holding him accoutnable for Fast and Furious is acceptable. But How can we hold him accoutnable for things that were done PRIOR to his taking the office of President? Oh wait thats right...we blame HIM for the economy dont we?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And why on earth would Congress think they could limit Executive privilege if it's used correctly?

Any bill would be deemed unconstitutional, not that the President would sign it to begin with. So unless 2/3s of the House and Senate approved it wouldnt be an issue anyway.

And even if it somehow became law, a president could simply ignore it, as Congress indeed has no authority to limit the Constitutional powers of another Branch of government. Congress would still need compelling evidence to provide a Federal judge to have the claim of privilege invalidated.

Partisan idiocy, on both sides of the aisle.

 

[rdean]

Bush used it 6 times to cover up "real" crimes. Obama uses it once to fight against a witchhunt from, get this, a "Bush" program. Republicans will never pass it in case they get the White House.

It was NOT a Bush program. It was a tactic used during the Bush era twice, it failed miserably ( they lost 200 guns ) then it was CANCELED on OCt 6, 2007.

THEN, Fast and Furious was created on Oct 26, 2009. TWO full years later.

I guarantee I hated Bush more than you and would LOVE to be able to blame this on him, but the facts are the facts.

Yea, I've already heard the "reason". It's to so Obama can take away American gun rights. Gawd how dumb.

 

[Vidi]

Bush used it 6 times to cover up "real" crimes. Obama uses it once to fight against a witchhunt from, get this, a "Bush" program. Republicans will never pass it in case they get the White House.

It was NOT a Bush program. It was a tactic used during the Bush era twice, it failed miserably ( they lost 200 guns ) then it was CANCELED on OCt 6, 2007.

THEN, Fast and Furious was created on Oct 26, 2009. TWO full years later.

I guarantee I hated Bush more than you and would LOVE to be able to blame this on him, but the facts are the facts.

Yea, I've already heard the "reason". It's to so Obama can take away American gun rights. Gawd how dumb.

Its the same old "The Democrats are going to take away your guns!" ploy we see every single election cycle.

Chicken Little ALWAYS starts screaming like this.


The problem they have with us saying that this tactic was used during the Bush years is it discredits their silly conspiracy theory.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

First, there was a typo in my previous post. Gunrunner started in 2005 not 2007

second, gunwalking was used as a tactic in all three operations. Gunwalking is the tactic everyone is having a problem with.





Wide Reciever



Same tactic.

That DOES NOT mean "Bush did it too!" Nor does it excuse the ATF and Holder from using the tactic, IN FACT, it makes it WORSE because they tried to use a tactic that had already been proven a failure.

Is several new and aggressive steps the same as new tactics?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC6m_euNakM]WATCH- Obama Ordered Operation Gun Runner! - YouTube[/ame]

No where in that video does it say what those new and aggressive steps are specifically "gunwalking". In fact, every tactic mentioned is hiring or redeploying personel. Obviously as the ATF has admitted to using gunwalking at least twice in the past in operations Gunrunner and Wide reciever both conducted during the Bush years, those must not be the "new" steps...though I suppose they could fall under the heading "aggressive"

EDIT: Also the title of the video claims that Operation gunrunner was ordered by Obama. Which would have been a damned crazy thing for him to do seeing as it started in 2005 and ended in 2007. Holding him accoutnable for Fast and Furious is acceptable. But How can we hold him accoutnable for things that were done PRIOR to his taking the office of President? Oh wait thats right...we blame HIM for the economy dont we?

Your edit is a false correction. the very first thing mention is the president

 

[Vidi]

Is several new and aggressive steps the same as new tactics?
WATCH- Obama Ordered Operation Gun Runner! - YouTube

No where in that video does it say what those new and aggressive steps are specifically "gunwalking". In fact, every tactic mentioned is hiring or redeploying personel. Obviously as the ATF has admitted to using gunwalking at least twice in the past in operations Gunrunner and Wide reciever both conducted during the Bush years, those must not be the "new" steps...though I suppose they could fall under the heading "aggressive"

EDIT: Also the title of the video claims that Operation gunrunner was ordered by Obama. Which would have been a damned crazy thing for him to do seeing as it started in 2005 and ended in 2007. Holding him accoutnable for Fast and Furious is acceptable. But How can we hold him accoutnable for things that were done PRIOR to his taking the office of President? Oh wait thats right...we blame HIM for the economy dont we?

Your edit is a false correction. the very first thing mention is the president

My previous links show that gunrunner began in 2005 as a pilot program in Loredo Texas, then as a national program in 2006.

ATF Online - Firearms - Programs - Project Gunrunner

The above link is to the ATF website which clearly states that they began operations in 2006.

Are you REALLY asserting that Obama ordered these operations 2 years before he was elected president?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No where in that video does it say what those new and aggressive steps are specifically "gunwalking". In fact, every tactic mentioned is hiring or redeploying personel. Obviously as the ATF has admitted to using gunwalking at least twice in the past in operations Gunrunner and Wide reciever both conducted during the Bush years, those must not be the "new" steps...though I suppose they could fall under the heading "aggressive"

EDIT: Also the title of the video claims that Operation gunrunner was ordered by Obama. Which would have been a damned crazy thing for him to do seeing as it started in 2005 and ended in 2007. Holding him accoutnable for Fast and Furious is acceptable. But How can we hold him accoutnable for things that were done PRIOR to his taking the office of President? Oh wait thats right...we blame HIM for the economy dont we?

Your edit is a false correction. the very first thing mention is the president

My previous links show that gunrunner began in 2005 as a pilot program in Loredo Texas, then as a national program in 2006.

ATF Online - Firearms - Programs - Project Gunrunner

The above link is to the ATF website which clearly states that they began operations in 2006.

Are you REALLY asserting that Obama ordered these operations 2 years before he was elected president?

My video is a white house press release. I think we are arguing for the same thing just something minor.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

so a president would have to turn over anything that was requested?

even national secrets?

I guess you didn't read the link.

Reading the link juxtaposed to reading, understanding AND placing the link in the proper context are two very unrelated concepts...at least a reasonable person would think such.

Conflating an issue of Executive abuse in your citation that had its genesis during the previous administration in 2002 with warrantless "wiretaps" with the sham House Judiciary committee "hearings" is a prime example of tribal behavior from one of the echo chambers. Have you even taken the time to READ H.R. 5956? Perhaps you should and realize it has absolutely no connection to the McCarthyesque hearings regarding "Fast and Furious". Edify thyself!

Gosh, my first post on this board, and perhaps my first enemy. Such is life!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

so a president would have to turn over anything that was requested?

even national secrets?

I guess you didn't read the link.

Reading the link juxtaposed to reading, understanding AND placing the link in the proper context are two very unrelated concepts...at least a reasonable person would think such.

Conflating an issue of Executive abuse in your citation that started in the previous administration in 2002 with warrantless "wiretaps" with the sham House Judiciary committee "hearings" is a prime example of tribal behavior from one of the echo chambers. Have you even taken the time to READ H.R. 5956? Perhaps you should and realize it has absolutely no connection to the McCarthyesque hearings regarding "Fast and Furious". Edify thyself!

Gosh, my first post on this board, and perhaps my first enemy. Such is life!

Not another one. Holder lied under oath obama used executive privilege when he should not have. Equals cover up.

 

[Vidi]

Your edit is a false correction. the very first thing mention is the president

My previous links show that gunrunner began in 2005 as a pilot program in Loredo Texas, then as a national program in 2006.

ATF Online - Firearms - Programs - Project Gunrunner

The above link is to the ATF website which clearly states that they began operations in 2006.

Are you REALLY asserting that Obama ordered these operations 2 years before he was elected president?

My video is a white house press release. I think we are arguing for the same thing just something minor.

The text title of your video claims that its Operation gunrunner the press release is about. It couldnt be. Gunrunner was over before Obama took office. If obama ordered ANYTHING it would have been fast and Furious...a completely seperate operation that used the same gunwalking tactic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so a president would have to turn over anything that was requested?

even national secrets?

I guess you didn't read the link.

Reading the link juxtaposed to reading, understanding AND placing the link in the proper context are two very unrelated concepts...at least a reasonable person would think such.

Conflating an issue of Executive abuse in your citation that started in the previous administration in 2002 with warrantless "wiretaps" with the sham House Judiciary committee "hearings" is a prime example of tribal behavior from one of the echo chambers. Have you even taken the time to READ H.R. 5956? Perhaps you should and realize it has absolutely no connection to the McCarthyesque hearings regarding "Fast and Furious". Edify thyself!

Gosh, my first post on this board, and perhaps my first enemy. Such is life!

I don't do enemies.

There is actually a link between claiming national security and executive privilege, just because you don't see it right away does not mean it isn't there. The various administrations have used national security to justify not responding to lawsuits. Obama has actually used it to hide things that were done under Bush, and there is a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT ACT that cannot be challenged in court because everyone refuses to discuss it. In theory, executive privilege only covers national security and direct communications involving the president. Since everyone denies that Obama was involved in Fast and Furious the only possible justification for withholding the information is national security. Limiting national security claims in court by giving judges options other than dismissing the case will actually limit executive privilege.

 

[Vidi]

I guess you didn't read the link.

Reading the link juxtaposed to reading, understanding AND placing the link in the proper context are two very unrelated concepts...at least a reasonable person would think such.

Conflating an issue of Executive abuse in your citation that started in the previous administration in 2002 with warrantless "wiretaps" with the sham House Judiciary committee "hearings" is a prime example of tribal behavior from one of the echo chambers. Have you even taken the time to READ H.R. 5956? Perhaps you should and realize it has absolutely no connection to the McCarthyesque hearings regarding "Fast and Furious". Edify thyself!

Gosh, my first post on this board, and perhaps my first enemy. Such is life!

I don't do enemies.

There is actually a link between claiming national security and executive privilege, just because you don't see it right away does not mean it isn't there. The various administrations have used national security to justify not responding to lawsuits. Obama has actually used it to hide things that were done under Bush, and there is a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT ACT that cannot be challenged in court because everyone refuses to discuss it. In theory, executive privilege only covers national security and direct communications involving the president. Since everyone denies that Obama was involved in Fast and Furious the only possible justification for withholding the information is national security. Limiting national security claims in court by giving judges options other than dismissing the case will actually limit executive privilege.

If Obama was not directly involved in Fast and Furious AND this invocation of EP stands, it will set an interesting and possibly dangerous precedent. Exectutive priviledge would no longer apply to just the President but the entire Executive branch.

I dont like it at all.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reading the link juxtaposed to reading, understanding AND placing the link in the proper context are two very unrelated concepts...at least a reasonable person would think such.

Conflating an issue of Executive abuse in your citation that started in the previous administration in 2002 with warrantless "wiretaps" with the sham House Judiciary committee "hearings" is a prime example of tribal behavior from one of the echo chambers. Have you even taken the time to READ H.R. 5956? Perhaps you should and realize it has absolutely no connection to the McCarthyesque hearings regarding "Fast and Furious". Edify thyself!

Gosh, my first post on this board, and perhaps my first enemy. Such is life!

I don't do enemies.

There is actually a link between claiming national security and executive privilege, just because you don't see it right away does not mean it isn't there. The various administrations have used national security to justify not responding to lawsuits. Obama has actually used it to hide things that were done under Bush, and there is a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT ACT that cannot be challenged in court because everyone refuses to discuss it. In theory, executive privilege only covers national security and direct communications involving the president. Since everyone denies that Obama was involved in Fast and Furious the only possible justification for withholding the information is national security. Limiting national security claims in court by giving judges options other than dismissing the case will actually limit executive privilege.

If Obama was not directly involved in Fast and Furious AND this invocation of EP stands, it will set an interesting and possibly dangerous precedent. Exectutive priviledge would no longer apply to just the President but the entire Executive branch.

I dont like it at all.

That's something both you and I can agree on. Every American regardless of politics should agree with it. It's a very dangerous precedent that will allow the government too do as it pleases

 

[Vidi]

I don't do enemies.

There is actually a link between claiming national security and executive privilege, just because you don't see it right away does not mean it isn't there. The various administrations have used national security to justify not responding to lawsuits. Obama has actually used it to hide things that were done under Bush, and there is a secret interpretation of the PATRIOT ACT that cannot be challenged in court because everyone refuses to discuss it. In theory, executive privilege only covers national security and direct communications involving the president. Since everyone denies that Obama was involved in Fast and Furious the only possible justification for withholding the information is national security. Limiting national security claims in court by giving judges options other than dismissing the case will actually limit executive privilege.

If Obama was not directly involved in Fast and Furious AND this invocation of EP stands, it will set an interesting and possibly dangerous precedent. Exectutive priviledge would no longer apply to just the President but the entire Executive branch.

I dont like it at all.

That's something both you and I can agree on. Every American regardless of politics should agree with it. It's a very dangerous precedent that will allow the government too do as it pleases

I think we agree on a lot actually hehehe

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I guess you didn't read the link.

Reading the link juxtaposed to reading, understanding AND placing the link in the proper context are two very unrelated concepts...at least a reasonable person would think such.

Conflating an issue of Executive abuse in your citation that started in the previous administration in 2002 with warrantless "wiretaps" with the sham House Judiciary committee "hearings" is a prime example of tribal behavior from one of the echo chambers. Have you even taken the time to READ H.R. 5956? Perhaps you should and realize it has absolutely no connection to the McCarthyesque hearings regarding "Fast and Furious". Edify thyself!

Gosh, my first post on this board, and perhaps my first enemy. Such is life!

Not another one. Holder lied under oath obama used executive privilege when he should not have. Equals cover up.

As a self proclaimed "Constitutional Watchdog", you should Know and Understand there is no validity to your claim that "equals cover up". But then that is beside the point, which is precisely that the op failed to do due diligence before posting a fallacious connection between two disparate subjects being egged on by a piece from a questionable and less than objective source. If Holder lied, he should be put in the public pillory, but that is yet to be adjudicated, is it not?

Being a "Constitutional Watchdog", perhaps you could cite the Article, Section and Clause, from our Constitution, as amended, that would allow a sitting President along with the power of the Executive to order "warrantless wiretaps" on US citizens or otherwise, either Bush AND/OR Obama who continues the practice, OR allow a Congressional committee to hold an AG in contempt for doing his duty OR that gives that same committee leave to violate the separation of powers implicit in that same Contract With the People. Can you make those citations?

I look forward to reading your rationale to support your argument, or to your admission of making an error given the late hour with a lapse of reasoned concentration. However, I suspect nothing less than obfuscation, deflection and perhaps a little ad hominem directed my way. But hey, surprise me and stand on principle rather than resorting to dogma.

BTW, I'm nothing like any of "those".