U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by a Mexican narco-terrorist ‘rip crew’ on American territory. According to recent reports, the gang that shot Terry included an FBI informant who had been apprehended–and then released–by federal authorities. The DEA also “ran” a criminal informant who either participated in or (at least) knew about the rip crew’s whereabout and plans. Terry’s murderer and his associates were armed with rifles deliberately supplied to Mexican drug gangs by the ATF as part of Operation Fast and Furious. Their activities were funded, at least in part, by a DEA money laundering/smuggling scheme that processed tens of millions of dollars for the Mexican drug cartels. The FBI released three of the suspected murders on their own recognizance after Terry’s murder.

There are many other elements to Terry’s killing, and many examples of similar extra-legal, drug cartel-enabling operations by the U.S. government. The U.S. Attorney Office released a grenade maker headed for Mexico. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement allowed ATF-enabled weapons to cross the border without interception. And those are just illegal actions that we know about.

But let’s focus on the conspiracy that killed Agent Terry. The DEA was laundering money for Agent Terry’s murderers, the FBI caught one of them and released him, and the ATF literally put the murder weapons in their hands. All in violation of American statutes and international treaties.

What laws, you ask? Over at pjmedia.com, they asked the man who helped write them. Here’s the 411 from James K Stinebower, a former Navy Intelligence Officer, Professional Staff Member to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Naval Attache.

I refer to the apparent violation of at least one (probably two) major U.S. laws by the Holder Justice Department. A few years ago, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, the follow-on to the Trading with the Enemy Act) was expanded in order to criminalize any transactions between U.S. entities — to include departments and agencies of the U.S. government — and all foreign drug cartels.

I am familiar with these prohibitive statues because several years ago, while serving as the senior drug analyst for the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was tasked to initiate and became the principal drafter of legislation which became known as the Kingpin Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 1901-08). The Kingpin Act is an extension of the highly successful IEEPA [International Emergency Economic Powers Act] sanctioning program specifically targeting Colombian drug cartels. It expands sanctions authority against various drug cartel operations worldwide — including Mexico — which have been determined by the president to be threats to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.

A violation of any of the IEEPA sanctioning programs or the Kingpin Act carries stiff penalties, both criminal and civil, and potentially totaling decades in prison and tens of millions of dollars in fines. It is not necessary that an individual or governmental entity be shown to have “knowingly” violated any of these programs: it is illegal for any U.S. entity or individual to aid, abet, or materially assist — or in the case of Operation Fast and Furious, to facilitate others to aid, abet, or materially assist — designated drug traffickers. There are no exceptions within IEEPA programs for unlicensed U.S. law enforcement or intelligence agency operations.

If you or I or any other American citizen laundered money for narco-terrorists and then armed them with rifles they weren’t allowed to purchase, we’d go to prison for a long, long time. The people within the federal agencies who responsible for these extra-legal activities are subject to the same legal restrictions as any American citizen unless . . .

There is a provision in the Kingpin Act for “authorized” law enforcement and intelligence activities, however the only procedure by which an Operation Fast and Furious program could have been “authorized” under the Kingpin Act was by the U.S. attorney general requesting a waiver (known within the Treasury Department as a Specific License), prior to any such operation being undertaken . . .

As part of Congress’ ongoing investigation, as well as its constitutionally mandated oversight activities, it should be asked of Attorney General Holder if any such specific licenses were requested or granted by the Treasury Department. Additionally, Treasury Secretary Geithner should explain whether his Department has begun an investigation into these apparent violations of IEEPA and the Kingpin Act.

Memo to Attorney General Eric Holder: show us the waiver or go to prison. It’s that simple. Or at least it should be.

This isn’t a ‘Red’ or ‘Blue’ issue, or a matter of liberalism or conservatism; it is a question of justice and the rule of law. These agencies acted with complete disregard for the rule of law in pursuit (or so they claim) of Mexican narco-terrorists, none of whom have yet been apprehended.

If President Obama had foreknowledge of the FBI, ATF and DEA programs that lead up to the murder of Brian Terry, if the President knew about and/or authorized the coverup of his government’s participation in Terry’s murder and other “black bag jobs,” the President of the United States must be impeached and removed from office, and his subordinates prosecuted.

In the United States, no one is above the law, no matter what their rationale. Not even the President of the United States.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

19 COMMENTS

    • Yeah, but despite what a lot of people think, HE’S GOT HIS EYE ON THE BALL………………….

      (His ball (agenda) of course)

  2. You shouldnt have wasted that Obama pic on anything less than a “caption this” post….

    1. Empty suit president finally picks out his presidential golf clubs.

    2. That can only help his game.

    3. Can we do the same thing with his signing pen?

  3. Does Eric Holder have absolute immunity while carrying out his job, similar to a prosecutor or judge? Ralph?

    “These agencies acted with complete disregard for the rule of law in pursuit (or so they claim) of Mexican narco-terrorists, none of whom have yet been apprehended.”
    Would it really change things is suspects were apprehended? We lost the rule of law a long time ago, the US engages in extra-judicial executions of indicted persons, see Bin Laden, torture, see Gitmo/anywhere US forces go, indefinite detention of US citizens, see Jose Padila. How do you think things are going to go with the provisions in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act? A few thousand guns and one dead agent isnt that significant compared to what else has been going on.

    • Holder has immunity in carrying out his job. He does not have any immunity when he acts outside the scope of his employment. The difference is not subtle. If he undertook illegal activities that were prohibited by law (for example, if he embezzled DOJ funds), he would not have immunity. If he was working as an agent of the Cartels, he would not have immunity.

      Those are the easy cases. The hard case is when an officer oversteps his bounds. Keep in mind that the baby-killer-Fed Lon Horiuchi could not be prosecuted because of immunity, even though the shootings were unjustified and otherwise criminal. IMO, based on what has been revealed so far, Holder has an insurmountable defense.

      As far as your other points, I have to agree. “The Law” is supposed to be the handmaiden of justice. Unfortunately, in thirty years of practice as an attorney I never saw it as such. Your statement that “one dead agent isn’t that significant compared to what else has been going on,” while seemingly harsh, is all too true.

      • Is there any book/website you could recommend which would give me a better idea of how exactly immunity applies to officials, or would I need to go to law school?

        • Good question. There are different kinds of immunity, and each has an evolving body of law attached to it. Some examples: tort claim (civil law suits) immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Immunity Act; immunity from criminal charges; federal immunity under the Supremacy Clause from state charges, and the list goes on. It’s more complicated than it seems. I don’t think that there’s a single source of information about immunity law.

          Check out this article for flavor: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/112-8/WaxmanFINAL.pdf

          It’s kinda obtuse, but it covers a lot of ground, especially about the conflict between the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment.

          I’d encourage anyone to go to law school because the training is beyond compare, but I wouldn’t encourage anybody to become a lawyer. I’ve heard it said that nobody who likes sex or sausages should watch either one being made. The same goes for law. Doubled.

          • Thanks alot Ralph! I’d love to go to law school but dont have the funds and dont want to get in to a ton of debt, although with my luck in the long run it could pay for it self. I recently had to defend my self in a CA wrongful death suit involving 3 dead neighbors, whos family was asking for 1.5+ million.

  4. As part of my job I have to be careful what I do, who I associate with and above all be beyond reproach. Apparently these rules do not apply if political needs, policy, or other agendas need attention. Merely the suggestion of any of these actions could trigger an inquiry and probably termination without cause. This is the reality some live with, I’m waiting for Holder to face the music

    That pic looks like he’s taking a leak, very fitting.

  5. If being stupid was an impeachable offense, we should have impeached almost every President after Jefferson.

    I wrote “almost every President” because I wanted to make it clear that I didn’t mean to impugn the metal abilities of your favorite President. Whoever he is.

    • Being stupid is one thing, being so ideologically driven and/or narcissistic as to hold onesself above the law is quite another thing altogether.

      Never in my 68 years have I known a President et al in his administration to be so ideologically driven AND narcissistic as to hold themselves above so many laws as usurper Obama, Holder et al in his administration.

  6. The problem with this case is that the people doing the investigating are the guilty ones. I seriously doubt Holder did all this on his own initiative so let us for a moment assume Obama called the shots and planned these series of operations. Why would he do so? By making friends in a Mexican Cartel he can ask for a tit for tat deal. I ,Obama, sell you civilian guns and launder your money and in exchange you shoot people with traced firearms to help gun control laws and the Cartel voluntarily reduces drug transactions stateside.

    Next, he drafts a presidential pardon for Eric Holder and sticks it in a file drawer marked “Just in Case” , runs down the ol’ Blackberry contact list and calls in some friends in the media for some new headlines, and voila….” MEXICAN DRUG VIOLENCE” ” AMERICAN GUNS TO BLAME” . I remember this summer all the media could talk about was Mexican drug war violence and how the American gun market was responsible.Then one day CLICK….no more news about Mexico,almost as if one flipped a switch.

    Obummer had a nice plan. Of course, no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy…and the enemy of the plan, this time, was a government employee who upheld his oath to the last breath.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath for a hearing about this . Folks in the Justice Department are too busy playing CYA to care about investigating the President.Knowing how government culture works its probably illegal to even say the word “gunrunner” in the federal building today.

  7. Photoshop in the Constitution on the ground in front of him and a yellow stream coming from his hands and that about sums up Obama.

  8. Let get real. Obama will never be impeached for this. Do you think he really had that much insight into one particular ATF operation? Maybe if this was Homeland Security or CIA. Even if he did know or played a part in planning/covering something up, think back 20+ years to the Iran-Contra affair. There were people who wanted to impeach Reagan, but did that happen? No. Because someone else always falls on the sword.

    • Obama is unimpeachable because he’s well-liked, by people and the media. So was Reagan, by both people and the media. So was Clinton, for that matter, and although he was impeached (tried, that is) he was never going to be convicted, not in this lifetime. Nixon, on the other hand, wasn’t even liked by his dog Checkers, so he got it in the neck or up some other organ.

      I used to practice in Nixon’s law firm. He’d been gone for years, but people still spoke of him as if he was a scorpion with a nice suit. On the other hand, John Mitchell, who brought Nixon into the firm, was revered.

      C’est la vie.

Comments are closed.