Fast and Furious

Last Friday, I spoke on a panel at the regional Conservative Political Action Conference (better known as CPAC) in Chicago. The subject was the Fast and Furious scandal and its implications for the rule of law. My co-panelists were David Kopel of the Independence Institute and University of Denver College of Law and Maureen Martin of the Heartland Institute.

I had not known much about Fast and Furious before the invitation to speak. It deserves more attention than it has gotten.

Put briefly, the story goes like this. Guns sold to straw purchasers in the southwest, particularly Arizona, sometimes find their way into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. The Obama administration, seeking to justify stronger regulation, has exaggerated the extent of the problem, but it is a problem. During the Bush Bush administration, federal authorities - in an effort called Operation Wide Receiver -  tried to work with the Mexican government to follow guns across the border in an effort to take down the gun smuggling network. Mexican authorities lost track of many of the guns and the operation was shut down.

After President Obama was elected and the administration called out the gun smuggling problem, the ATF adopted a variation of the old operation dubbed Operation Fast and Furious. It was so breathtakingly stupid as to call into question whether it was a law enforcement operation at all.
Like the previous program, wiretaps would alert federal authorities to when straw purchases were to be made. Like the previous program, federal authorities would ask - indeed, often pressure - gun shops to sell to these straw purchasers when, in the normal course of business, the shops would never have done so. Like the previous program, the guns were allowed to "walk" across the border.
Unlike the previous program, there appears to have been no plan - or way - to follow them once they crossed the border. The guns would be "found" only when they turned up at a crime scene. Mexican authorities did not know what was going on. US agents based in Mexico to assist that country's government did not know what was going on.

When the guns did turn up at a crime scene - that is, when they were used to kill someone - it would confirm what we already know. Mexican drug cartels sometimes buy guns in Arizona. It might tell you which ones are doing it because of the geographic location of the crime. It could provide talking points for more stringent US regulation.

What it would not do is help prosecute anyone but the straw buyer - who could have been prosecuted without allowing the guns to walk across the border. The operation violated a number of federal laws.

Fast and Furious was finally exposed when one of the guns allowed to walk into the hands of Mexican drug lords was used to kill an ATF agent in the Arizona desert. Other Fast and Furious guns have been used to kill Mexican citizens.

The Mexican government has called for the extradition of those who were involved.

What has followed is an investigation in which Attorney General Holder and the DOJ have had to backtrack about what his people knew and when they knew it. He has had to claim that he did not read e-mails and other documents directed to him concerning the operation. He has asserted that no one told him about it and that, if they did, he didn't listen. He has jousted with Republicans at congressional hearings about the extent of his department's cooperation with the investigation - most recently last Thursday. Some of the exchanges are Clintonian. At one point, Holder argued that a letter claiming that DOJ in  Washington did not know of gunwalking  - which was retracted when it turned out that Holder's deputies did know about it - was not "false" but "inaccurate."
It would be wrong to claim that Attorney General Holder authorized the program or knew of what it entailed. That remains to be seen. It would be wrong to say that the program was designed to create crimes that could be used to justify more stringent regulation. I can't believe that anyone would be that monstrous.

But it does raise serious questions about the dangers of law enforcement that seems to have been tailored to appease - or at least to impress - political appointees. As David Kopel has written, you should be furious about this.

What has followed is an investigation in which Attorney General Holder and the DOJ have had to backtrack about what his people knew and when they knew it. He has had to claim that he did not read e-mails and other documents directed to him concerning the operation. He has asserted that no one told him about it and that, if they did, he didn't listen. He has jousted with Republicans at congressional hearings about the extent of his department's cooperation with the investigation - most recently last Thursday. Some of the exchanges are Clintonian. At one point, Holder argued that a letter claiming that DOJ in  Washington did not know of gunwalking  - which was retracted when it turned out that Holder's deputies did know about it - was not "false" but "inaccurate."

It would be wrong to claim that Attorney General Holder authorized the program or knew of what it entailed. That remains to be seen. It would be wrong to say that the program was designed to create crimes that could be used to justify more stringent regulation. I can't believe that anyone would be that monstrous.

But it does raise serious questions about the dangers of law enforcement that seems to have been tailored to appease - or at least to impress - political appointees. As David Kopel has written, you should be furious about this.

Cross posted at Purple Wisconsin.