• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

the wheels on the bus .....

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
go round and round, round and round.........

Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson has been reassigned to a lesser post in the Justice Department and the U.S. attorney for Arizona was also pushed out Tuesday as fallout from Operation Fast and Furious reached new heights.
Melson's step down from his role as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to the position of senior adviser on forensic science in the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Programs is effective by close of business Tuesday, administration officials announced. U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota B. Todd Jones will replace Melson.

.

The purge of those responsible for the firearms trafficking scandal continued as new documents reveal a deeper involvement of federal agencies beyond ATF. In Phoenix, Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley, who oversaw Fast and Furious on a day-to-day basis, was reassigned from the criminal to civil division. Also in Phoenix, three out of the four whistleblowers involved in the case have been reassigned to new positions outside Arizona. Two are headed to Florida, one to South Carolina.

Hurley's reassignment came after three ATF supervisors responsible for the operation were promoted. William G. McMahon, a former deputy director of operations, took over the Office of Professional Responsibility. Field supervisors William D. Newell and David Voth also moved up despite heavy criticism.

The moves follow a series of reports by Fox News detailing the face-off between Attorney General Eric Holder, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, whose investigators have recently broadened their probe. It now reportedly shows a deeper involvement of the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Homeland Security."While the reckless disregard for safety that took place in Operation Fast and Furious certainly merits changes within the Department of Justice, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will continue its investigation to ensure that blame isn't off-loaded on just a few individuals for a matter that involved much higher levels of the Justice Department," Issa, chairman of the House panel.

"There are still many questions to be answered about what happened in Operation Fast and Furious and who else bears responsibility, but these changes are warranted. ... I also remain very concerned by Acting Director Melson's statement that the Department of Justice is managing its response in a manner intended to protect its political appointees," Issa continued.

Operation Fast and Furious, a program designed to track illegal gun sales, turned into an embarrassing scandal after weapons linked to it were found at the scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent's murder last year. Thousands of guns ended up in the hands of Mexican cartel members.
www.foxnews.com

where are the defenders of their champion on this one?????
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
In fact, only four times in our history, has Congress held serious discussions of impeachment:

Andrew Johnson was actually impeached when Congress became unhappy with the way he was dealing with some post-Civil War matters, but Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by one vote and remained in office.
•Congress introduced a resolution to impeach John Tyler over state's rights issues, but the resolution failed.
•Congress was debating his impeachment over the Watergate break-in when President Richard Nixon resigned.
William J. Clinton was impeached by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in relationship to his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was eventually acquitted by the Senate.
The Impeachment Process

In the House of Representatives

•The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...
•The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
•Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.
•The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
•Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.
In the Senate

•The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.
•The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.
•A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.
•The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.
•The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.
•The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.
•The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.
Impeachable Offenses

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Well, that's up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to Constitutional Lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

•Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
•Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
•Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

that was interesting reading, 2 of ot's hero's were the only 2 actually impeached!
Does anybody think there are any grounds for impeachment proceeding to go forward for obama? I see three!
In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

•Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
•Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
•Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
In fact, only four times in our history, has Congress held serious discussions of impeachment:

Andrew Johnson was actually impeached when Congress became unhappy with the way he was dealing with some post-Civil War matters, but Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by one vote and remained in office.
•Congress introduced a resolution to impeach John Tyler over state's rights issues, but the resolution failed.
•Congress was debating his impeachment over the Watergate break-in when President Richard Nixon resigned.
William J. Clinton was impeached by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in relationship to his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was eventually acquitted by the Senate.
The Impeachment Process

In the House of Representatives

•The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...
•The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
•Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.
•The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
•Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.
In the Senate

•The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.
•The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.
•A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.
•The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.
•The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.
•The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.
•The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.
Impeachable Offenses

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Well, that's up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to Constitutional Lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

•Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
•Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
•Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

that was interesting reading, 2 of ot's hero's were the only 2 actually impeached!
Does anybody think there are any grounds for impeachment proceeding to go forward for obama? I see three!
In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

•Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
•Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
•Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

Wrong again Lonecowboy (which under Mikes definition makes you a LIAR).... :wink: I have no feeling for Johnson or Tyler (never knew either of the fellows)- and didn't like either Clinton or Nixon......

But you conveniently forgot the last impeachment :

On June 10, 2008, when Congressman Dennis Kucinich, along with co-sponsor Robert Wexler, introduced 35 articles of impeachment against Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives. The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on July 25, where no further action was taken on it. Bush's presidency ended on January 20, 2009 with the completion of his second term in office, rendering impeachment efforts moot.

Bush only avoided it because Pelosi wouldn't allow it to move forward- arguing that it would further tear the country apart- and telling the country instead to handle it at the ballot box.... The did just that....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
OT wrote:
But you conveniently forgot the last impeachment :

Kucinich's "attempt" at impeaching Bush fell "wayyyyyyyy" short of what would be called an impeachment.

Within this link is a complete list of actual impeachments in Congress.

Looks like you might have lied again...................................

http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/impeach2.htm

Just for the record, being wrong is not necessarily a lie, telling something that YOU KNOW is wrong is a lie. :roll:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
In fact, only four times in our history, has Congress held serious discussions of impeachment:

Andrew Johnson was actually impeached when Congress became unhappy with the way he was dealing with some post-Civil War matters, but Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by one vote and remained in office.
•Congress introduced a resolution to impeach John Tyler over state's rights issues, but the resolution failed.
•Congress was debating his impeachment over the Watergate break-in when President Richard Nixon resigned.
William J. Clinton was impeached by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in relationship to his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was eventually acquitted by the Senate.
The Impeachment Process

In the House of Representatives

•The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...
•The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a Resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
•Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another Resolution to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why (the Articles of Impeachment), or that impeachment is not called for.
•The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
•Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted of a crime. There still has to be a trial, which is where the US Senate comes in.
In the Senate

•The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.
•The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.
•A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as "prosecutors." The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.
•The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.
•The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction.
•The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.
•The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.
Impeachable Offenses

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?" Well, that's up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to Constitutional Lawyers, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" are (1) real criminality -- breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) "violation of public trust" as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as "whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

•Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
•Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
•Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

that was interesting reading, 2 of ot's hero's were the only 2 actually impeached!
Does anybody think there are any grounds for impeachment proceeding to go forward for obama? I see three!
In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

•Exceeding the constitutional bounds of the powers of the office.
•Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
•Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

Wrong again Lonecowboy (which under Mikes definition makes you a LIAR).... :wink: I have no feeling for Johnson or Tyler (never knew either of the fellows)- and didn't like either Clinton or Nixon......

But you conveniently forgot the last impeachment :

On June 10, 2008, when Congressman Dennis Kucinich, along with co-sponsor Robert Wexler, introduced 35 articles of impeachment against Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives. The House voted 251 to 166 to refer the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee on July 25, where no further action was taken on it. Bush's presidency ended on January 20, 2009 with the completion of his second term in office, rendering impeachment efforts moot.

Bush only avoided it because Pelosi wouldn't allow it to move forward- arguing that it would further tear the country apart- and telling the country instead to handle it at the ballot box.... The did just that....


•[u]Andrew Johnson was actually impeached[/u] when Congress became unhappy with the way he was dealing with some post-Civil War matters, but Johnson was acquitted in the Senate by one vote and remained in office.
Congress introduced a resolution to impeach John Tyler over state's rights issues, but the resolution failed.
Congress was debating his impeachment over the Watergate break-in when President Richard Nixon resigned.
William J. Clinton was impeached by the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in relationship to his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was eventually acquitted by the Senate.
no I didn't forget Bush-
oldtimer wrote:
rendering impeachment efforts moot.
but if it makes you feel better to add him to the list have a ball.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Steve said:
three ATF supervisors responsible for the operation were promoted.

?

they report- you decide-


Hurley's reassignment came after three ATF supervisors responsible for the operation were promoted. William G. McMahon, a former deputy director of operations, took over the Office of Professional Responsibility. Field supervisors William D. Newell and David Voth also moved up despite heavy criticism
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/30/sources-atf-director-to-be-reassigned-amid-fast-and-furious-uproar/#ixzz1WadQUwea
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Just for the record, being wrong is not necessarily a lie, telling something that YOU KNOW is wrong is a lie.

Something oldtimer does with perfection and then repeats it enough that he actually believes it

EH
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If you think this is the first sting operation to go awry you're greatly mistaken...
Over the years since the courts ruled you don't have to make an immediate arrest of the little guy when he commits a crime in order to get bigger fish--- and the rulings saying stings were not entrapment- there have been illegal items of all types allowed to be trafficked in order to go higher up the criminal ladder during undercover operations.... And often they don't go the way you want them to...

What I find interesting, ironic, and also sad- is that the party that used to be the Law and Order party (R's) and tough on crime- are the ones complaining because an honest attempt was made to stop high level gun runners... Could it be because it touchs upon that subject that some radical rightwingers think is sacred-and should have no oversight of--- guns :???:


And is a criminal investigation that is attempting to get arms smuggling kingpins that sadly goes astray really as bad as purposely and knowingly breaking international agreements to ship arms to Iran and a unanimously passed Congressional US law (Boland Amendment) by funneling funds to the Nicaraguan Contras :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
OK. Now we have the old "everybody else has done it" defense.

The only thing left is to "shoot the messenger" and discredit the writer of the numerous articles.............................

We're waiting.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
8,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Az.
Not likely to happen,,,, oldtimer has come in spouted his down with everyone except my party, rant, using the old he done it too routine like all good liberal thinkers use to defend themselves.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
If you think this is the first sting operation to go awry you're greatly mistaken...
Over the years since the courts ruled you don't have to make an immediate arrest of the little guy when he commits a crime in order to get bigger fish--- and the rulings saying stings were not entrapment- there have been illegal items of all types allowed to be trafficked in order to go higher up the criminal ladder during undercover operations.... And often they don't go the way you want them to...

What I find interesting, ironic, and also sad- is that the party that used to be the Law and Order party (R's) and tough on crime- are the ones complaining because an honest attempt was made to stop high level gun runners... Could it be because it touchs upon that subject that some radical rightwingers think is sacred-and should have no oversight of--- guns :???:


And is a criminal investigation that is attempting to get arms smuggling kingpins that sadly goes astray really as bad as purposely and knowingly breaking international agreements to ship arms to Iran and a unanimously passed Congressional US law (Boland Amendment) by funneling funds to the Nicaraguan Contras :???:



If it is all legit, as you contend, then why not co-operate with the House Oversight Committee? Why is the WH and DOJ ignoring legal subpoenas?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Rep. Darrell Issa told Greta Van Susteren last night that the House Oversight Committee is being gamed by the Obama Administration. He also said he knew that most all of the weapons in the Fast and Furious program were in the hands of the Mexican cartels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnXANaE27o&feature=player_embedded#!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
If you think this is the first sting operation to go awry you're greatly mistaken...
Over the years since the courts ruled you don't have to make an immediate arrest of the little guy when he commits a crime in order to get bigger fish--- and the rulings saying stings were not entrapment- there have been illegal items of all types allowed to be trafficked in order to go higher up the criminal ladder during undercover operations.... And often they don't go the way you want them to...

What I find interesting, ironic, and also sad- is that the party that used to be the Law and Order party (R's) and tough on crime- are the ones complaining because an honest attempt was made to stop high level gun runners... Could it be because it touchs upon that subject that some radical rightwingers think is sacred-and should have no oversight of--- guns :???:


And is a criminal investigation that is attempting to get arms smuggling kingpins that sadly goes astray really as bad as purposely and knowingly breaking international agreements to ship arms to Iran and a unanimously passed Congressional US law (Boland Amendment) by funneling funds to the Nicaraguan Contras :???:



If it is all legit, as you contend, then why not co-operate with the House Oversight Committee?

From what I understand they have been co-operating with Congress--just not in a public forum (that some Repubs want to use to create a dog and pony show for partisan purposes :roll: ) but behind closed doors in order to protect the identity of informants, undercover agents, and public knowledge of intelligence info they have obtained...

It will all shake out in the end-and it would not surprise me that authorization for it came from the highest levels -but I'd rather have an administration that makes an honest attempt at stopping illegal activities and has an investigation turn sour on them-- than one that does nothing to stop the activities or prosecute the illegal participants because it steps on a sacred cow of the right wing-- guns...

A very good show being shown on the history channel right now entitled Cocaine History Between the Lines that shows much of the violence on the border and in both the US and Mexico...I advise everyone to try and watch it when its run again...
I was especially shocked by the drug cartels use of their video taped beheadings of their enemies or government/law enforcement officials that oppose them (Christians acting like Muslims :???: )-- and had a hard time comprehending when they showed the cemeteries of some of these drug kingpins that had been killed either by law enforcement or the other competing cartels...Buried in huge Crypts and mausoleums that cost over $250,000 to build and look more like mansions than burial spots... :shock:
If they have that kind of money just to bury there dead with- its going to be a tough nut to crack...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
And is a criminal investigation that is attempting to get arms smuggling kingpins that sadly goes astray really as bad as purposely and knowingly breaking international agreements to ship arms to Iran and a unanimously passed Congressional US law (Boland Amendment) by funneling funds to the Nicaraguan Contras :???:


International Law?

The president of the Board of the Chamber of Deputies, Jorge Carlos Ramirez Marin labeled the recent actions of the United States of America as a “grave violation of international law” the recent actions being the introduction of weapons into Mexico in order to trace them and arrest drug and weapon cartel leaders.


Laws founded in programs such as the U.S. Gun Control Act, the National Firearms Act, the Arms Export Control Act, and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have been established to specifically prevent and criminally prosecute those in violation. Leaders of the ATF and Eric Holder have broken numerous U.S. laws along with international laws which could jeopardize Barrack Obama’s Presidency—these international laws can be found in the United Nations institute for Disarmament for Small Arms Proliferation.

http://bigpeace.com/kpatton/2011/07/12/keep-your-eyes-on-operation-fast-and-furious/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hypocrit-- its done every day in L.E... When undercover officers are involved in sales of drugs- but make no immediate arrest to get to a higher person on the ladder...

When undercover officers buy, possess, transport, sell, and deliver drugs in their "acting" as drug pushers to gain confidence in illegals to take them higher up- or in stings where they buyer is arrested months later at conclusion of the investigation...

When officers allow illegal drug packages to go across international borders- in order to find where/who is the final recipient....

Its a Gimme- thats been long recognized by the courts- that recognizes that officers often have to be in violation of the law in order to carry out an investigation- and allows them a pass as a long as they are acting under the color of an authorized law enforcement investigation...

It happens everyday in L.E....I'm positive it is happening right now- both in the US and Canada with undercover Law Enforcement officers putting their butts on the line- and lives in danger just to keep you safer ...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
Hypocrit-- its done every day in L.E... When undercover officers are involved in sales of drugs- but make no immediate arrest to get to a higher person on the ladder...

When undercover officers buy, possess, transport, sell, and deliver drugs in their "acting" as drug pushers to gain confidence in illegals to take them higher up- or in stings where they buyer is arrested months later at conclusion of the investigation...

When officers allow illegal drug packages to go across international borders- in order to find where/who is the final recipient....

Its a Gimme- thats been long recognized by the courts- that recognizes that officers often have to be in violation of the law in order to carry out an investigation- and allows them a pass as a long as they are acting under the color of an authorized law enforcement investigation...

It happens everyday in L.E....I'm positive it is happening right now- both in the US and Canada with undercover Law Enforcement officers putting their butts on the line- and lives in danger just to keep you safer ...


What are the laws regarding breaking international law, across borders, while operating a "sting"?

Drug dealing is considered a "victimless crime" is it not?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Hypocrit-- its done every day in L.E... When undercover officers are involved in sales of drugs- but make no immediate arrest to get to a higher person on the ladder...

When undercover officers buy, possess, transport, sell, and deliver drugs in their "acting" as drug pushers to gain confidence in illegals to take them higher up- or in stings where they buyer is arrested months later at conclusion of the investigation...

When officers allow illegal drug packages to go across international borders- in order to find where/who is the final recipient....

Its a Gimme- thats been long recognized by the courts- that recognizes that officers often have to be in violation of the law in order to carry out an investigation- and allows them a pass as a long as they are acting under the color of an authorized law enforcement investigation...

It happens everyday in L.E....I'm positive it is happening right now- both in the US and Canada with undercover Law Enforcement officers putting their butts on the line- and lives in danger just to keep you safer ...


What are the laws regarding breaking international law, across borders, while operating a "sting"?

Drug dealing is considered a "victimless crime" is it not?

Drugs kill just the same as guns...

I don't know all the international law- but I know over the years we worked with the mounties on numerous cases of drugs/contraband going back and forth...

The biggest amount of marijuana every seized in MT was when the mounties contacted us they had a pickup and topper with 3 hay bale sized packages of marijuana they had tailed across the border...We (mounties and US law enforcement) surveilled it to Billings and took down the recipients when they went to retreive it from a storage unit in Billings...
During the investigation/surveillance we lost track of one bale of marijuana that we believe ended up in Big Muddy's area on one side of the border or the other...We spent days on both sides of the border looking for it- but never found it.... Apparently it had been dropped to someone in that area...
A screw up- Yes-- but well worth it for the upper ladder we were able to take down.. Both the transporters and the recipients were convicted....

With Mexico- there is little allowance of giving them intelligence info or working with the police since so much of the government and law enforcement down there have been bought out by the big money of drugs...

Incidentally that night in order to get thru the border the mounties drove thru the closed gate at the Port of Opheim/West Poplar in order to continue surveillance of the suspects who had went around the border...

Do you think these mounties should have been charged with border jumping/immigration violations???
They then contacted our Sheriffs Office as soon as they got a chance to get to a phone here in town- where the suspects spent the night- and we joined them in the investigation and surveillance..

And NO the mounties were not charged by US authorities...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Hypocrit-- its done every day in L.E... When undercover officers are involved in sales of drugs- but make no immediate arrest to get to a higher person on the ladder...

When undercover officers buy, possess, transport, sell, and deliver drugs in their "acting" as drug pushers to gain confidence in illegals to take them higher up- or in stings where they buyer is arrested months later at conclusion of the investigation...

When officers allow illegal drug packages to go across international borders- in order to find where/who is the final recipient....

Its a Gimme- thats been long recognized by the courts- that recognizes that officers often have to be in violation of the law in order to carry out an investigation- and allows them a pass as a long as they are acting under the color of an authorized law enforcement investigation...

It happens everyday in L.E....I'm positive it is happening right now- both in the US and Canada with undercover Law Enforcement officers putting their butts on the line- and lives in danger just to keep you safer ...


What are the laws regarding breaking international law, across borders, while operating a "sting"?

Drug dealing is considered a "victimless crime" is it not?

Drugs kill just the same as guns...

I don't know all the international law- but I know over the years we worked with the mounties on numerous cases of drugs/contraband going back and forth...

The biggest amount of marijuana every seized in MT was when the mounties contacted us they had a pickup and topper with 3 hay bale sized packages of marijuana they had tailed across the border...We (mounties and US law enforcement) surveilled it to Billings and took down the recipients when they went to retreive it from a storage unit in Billings...
During the investigation/surveillance we lost track of one bale of marijuana that we believe ended up in Big Muddy's area on one side of the border or the other...We spent days on both sides of the border looking for it- but never found it.... Apparently it had been dropped to someone in that area...
A screw up- Yes-- but well worth it for the upper ladder we were able to take down.. Both the transporters and the recipients were convicted....

With Mexico- there is little allowance of giving them intelligence info or working with the police since so much of the government and law enforcement down there have been bought out by the big money of drugs...

Incidentally that night in order to get thru the border the mounties drove thru the closed gate at the Port of Opheim/West Poplar in order to continue surveillance of the suspects who had went around the border...

Do you think these mounties should have been charged with border jumping/immigration violations???
They then contacted our Sheriffs Office as soon as they got a chance to get to a phone here in town- where the suspects spent the night- and we joined them in the investigation and surveillance..

And NO the mounties were not charged by US authorities...

"Drugs kill......"

So does assisted suicide, if a person makes that choice. Being murdered is not a choice.......


So you worked with the local authorities on a DRUG "sting", instead of doing it independently?


Was the Mexican Government made aware of the "sting"? Did they approve it or take part? doubtful, when they are making comments like this:

The president of the Board of the Chamber of Deputies, Jorge Carlos Ramirez Marin labeled the recent actions of the United States of America as a “grave violation of international law” the recent actions being the introduction of weapons into Mexico in order to trace them and arrest drug and weapon cartel leaders.

You keep bringing up drugs, without taking into account that thre are special and specific laws regarding guns and weapons.
 
Top