The Agent, “The Official Publication of the National Association of Federal Agents,” has added its voice to those of Congressional investigators in deconstructing a Fortune Magazine report critical of Oversight Committee efforts to determine the truth about Operation Fast and Furious “gunwalking.” Earlier this week, Gun Rights Examiner was forwarded a copy of NAFA’s “Summer 2012” issue, challenging allegations made by Fortune in a rebuttal article titled “Who’s on First? What’s on Second? The Ongoing Story of Fast & Furious.”
Regular readers of this column will recall an appendix to a joint congressional staff report released Tuesday characterized the Fortune report as “a hit piece full of errors and omissions,” and stated the writer of the story, Katherine Eban, “was inquiring about the circumstances of [ATF whistleblower John] Dodson’s divorce, apparently based on information in Agent Dodson’s ATF personnel file.”
“Eban may also have been provided information from John Dodson's personal ATF jacket -- a felony,” citizen journalist Mike Vanderboegh noted Wednesday on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog, linking to a Main Justice analysis that included a response from a Fortune spokesman, not surprisingly expressing full support for their reporter.
NAFA ‘s editorial staff does not share in that support. Addressing key claims in the Eban piece, they provide point-by-point rebuttals based on their law enforcement experience and professional knowledge of procedures.
“This assertion is patently untrue,” NAFA notes, responding to Eban’s declaration that “no federal statute outlaws firearms trafficking.”
“Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 922(a)(1)(A) makes it a felony ‘to engage in the business of dealing in firearms without a license,’ which is exactly what was going on here,” NAFA replies. “The statute has been on the books for almost 45 years with numerous cases having been made pursuant to it.”
“NAFA would be very interested in learning just how ATF supervisors thought they were going to be able to ‘track’ thousands of firearms once they went south of the border,” the article continues, in response to Eban’s recounting of why weapons were not seized. “Amusing!”
Countering Eban’s assertion that “It was nearly impossible in Arizona to bring a case against a straw purchaser,” NAFA replied “This assertion is patent nonsense. ATF has a long history of successfully investigating and making criminal cases against so-called ‘straw purchasers.’”
“The federal prosecutors there did not consider the purchase of a huge volume of guns, or their handoff to a third party, sufficient evidence to seize them,” Eban parroted the administration line. “A buyer who certified that the guns were for himself, then handed them off minutes later, hadn't necessarily lied and was free to change his mind. Even if a suspect bought 10 guns that were recovered days later at a Mexican crime scene, this didn't mean the initial purchase had been illegal. To these prosecutors, the pattern proved little. Instead, agents needed to link specific evidence of intent to commit a crime to each gun they wanted to seize.”
“This is sophistry of the worst kind!” NAFA replied. “Absent a federal Firearms License (FFL), repeated purchases (re-stocking) of multiples of the same non-sporting firearms by an unlicensed person are prima facie evidence of engaging in the business without a license, a felony pursuant to Title 18.”
“[A]gents could not seize guns or arrest suspects after being directed not to do so by a prosecutor,” Eban maintained.
“Special agents have always had the authority to arrest someone committing a crime in their presence,” NAFA countered. “They need not wait for a prosecutor’s authorization…Since when does some local U.S. Attorney run ATF?”
Responding to Eban’s dismissal of the CleanUpATF website, where allegations of gunwalking to Mexico and a tie-in to murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry were first made, and particularly to her characterization of whistleblower Vince Cefalu as “disgruntled,” NAFA was equally dismissive of her motive.
“’Disgruntled’ and ‘malcontent’ are words self-serving ATF bureaucrats have historically used when describing dedicated ATF special agents who value the Constitution and the mission more than their careers…concepts foreign to many management and management wannabe employees.”
No comments:
Post a Comment