Federal gun smuggling

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Somewhat related.....

Wachovia Bank caught financing and laundering money for Mexican drug cartels..

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...-u-s-deal.html

"The smugglers had bought the DC-9 with laundered funds they transferred through two of the biggest banks in the U.S.: Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp., Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its August 2010 issue.
This was no isolated incident. Wachovia, it turns out, had made a habit of helping move money for Mexican drug smugglers. Wells Fargo & Co., which bought Wachovia in 2008, has admitted in court that its unit failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers -- including the cash used to buy four planes that shipped a total of 22 tons of cocaine.
The admission came in an agreement that Charlotte, North Carolina-based Wachovia struck with federal prosecutors in March, and it sheds light on the largely undocumented role of U.S. banks in contributing to the violent drug trade that has convulsed Mexico for the past four years."

"Wachovia admitted it didn’t do enough to spot illicit funds in handling $378.4 billion for Mexican-currency-exchange houses from 2004 to 2007. That’s the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history -- a sum equal to one-third of Mexico’s current gross domestic product.
“Wachovia’s blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations,” says Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case."

sorry I am not reading your links but is anybody going to jail for this?

[THE SCUD]

Tough to put anyone in jail for that, it's likely just a big fine. Only people who could likely be charged personally are

1) Anyone they can tie to the transfers and PROVE they knew it was laundered (nearly impossible, unless that person is an idiot)

2) The execs of the bank could, potentially, be charged (unlikely) as custodians of the company.


This appears, on the face of it, to be a simple case of the bank not caring where the money was coming from. Inept, yes - on purpose? Who knows.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

sorry I am not reading your links but is anybody going to jail for this?

I'm not 100%, but it doesn't look like it.

"The bank didn’t react quickly enough to the prosecutors’ requests and failed to hire enough investigators, the U.S. Treasury Department said in March. After a 22-month investigation, the Justice Department on March 12 charged Wachovia with violating the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to run an effective anti-money-laundering program.
Five days later, Wells Fargo promised in a Miami federal courtroom to revamp its detection systems. Wachovia’s new owner paid $160 million in fines and penalties, less than 2 percent of its $12.3 billion profit in 2009.
If Wells Fargo keeps its pledge, the U.S. government will, according to the agreement, drop all charges against the bank in March 2011."

$160M ...........that is a slap on the wrist.

[SeeBass]

I await the next american revolution

[THE SCUD]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I await the next american revolution

Likely won't happen, as guns are soon to be outlawed there once Obama can sit another judge or two. The last gun control debate to the supreme court was 4-5. Obama just needs one more guy and we'll finally be on the road to a more civilized America.

Obama 2012!

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by THE SCUD

Likely won't happen, as guns are soon to be outlawed there once Obama can sit another judge or two. The last gun control debate to the supreme court was 4-5. Obama just needs one more guy and we'll finally be on the road to a more civilized America.

Obama 2012!

Perhaps, the NRA is one powerful lobby though. Just when I think they have a chance to crush the gun laws it fails.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I'm not 100%, but it doesn't look like it.

"The bank didn’t react quickly enough to the prosecutors’ requests and failed to hire enough investigators, the U.S. Treasury Department said in March. After a 22-month investigation, the Justice Department on March 12 charged Wachovia with violating the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to run an effective anti-money-laundering program.
Five days later, Wells Fargo promised in a Miami federal courtroom to revamp its detection systems. Wachovia’s new owner paid $160 million in fines and penalties, less than 2 percent of its $12.3 billion profit in 2009.
If Wells Fargo keeps its pledge, the U.S. government will, according to the agreement, drop all charges against the bank in March 2011."

$160M ...........that is a slap on the wrist.

It truly is amazing what you can get away with when you wear a tie to work

[trumpethead]

Social Media users in Mexico are now living in fear of the cartels.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-14/w...do?_s=PM:WORLD

[mikey_the_redneck]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1Zq4JpQjN

Uh oh, looks like Holder has been caught lying....

"House Republicans are calling for a special counsel to determine whether Attorney General Eric Holder misled Congress during his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Operation Fast and Furious, Fox News has learned.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, was sending a letter to President Obama on Tuesday arguing that Holder cannot investigate himself, and requesting the president instruct the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel."

"The question is whether Holder knowingly made false statements of fact under oath during a Judiciary Committee hearing on May 3. At the time, Holder indicated he was not familiar with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives program known as Fast and Furious until about April 2011.
"I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks," Holder testified.
However, newly discovered memos suggest otherwise. For instance, one memo dated July 2010 shows Michael Walther, director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, told Holder that straw buyers in the Fast and Furious operation "are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels."
Other documents also indicate that Holder began receiving weekly briefings on the program from the National Drug Intelligence Center "beginning, at the latest, on July 5, 2010," Smith wrote."

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-and-furious/

Evidence suggests American agencies are purposely arming the Sinaloa cartel to act as a counter-balance to the Los Zetas.

"In an effort to prevent a Los Zetas takeover, Uncle Sam has gotten into bed with the rival Sinaloa cartel, which has close ties to the Mexican military. Recent court filings by former Sinaloa cartel member Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla, currently in U.S. custody, reveal that the United States allowed the Sinaloas to fly a 747 cargo plane packed with cocaine into American airspace - unmolested."

"The CIA made sure the trade wasn’t one-way. It persuaded the ATF to create Operation Fast and Furious - a “no strings attached” variation of the agency’s previous firearms sting. By design, the ATF operation armed the Mexican government’s preferred cartel on the street level near the American border, where the Zetas are most active."

The reason why I would doubt that the CIA was the source is that the guns provided weren't any better than the cartel could get from other sources. They weren't even fully automatic. Columbia can provide fully automatic AK47s for whoever is willing to pay.

The Fast and Furious operation began shortly after Obama was elected and at a time when he was trying to sell the American public that the gun problem in Mexico were caused be American guns. Unfortunately the evidence didn't back up the accusation. Showing an increase in American guns being used in across the border crime would achieve two objectives. It would give traction to any new gun laws as well as provide an escape goat for his failed border/immigration policy: Someone points out immigration crime- Obama points to American guns as the problem.

What is silly is that they could even pretend this operation was to track the guns to the buyers in Mexico. If they were going to do that they would need the cooperation of the Mexican government. Mexico knew nothing about this and are pretty upset about the whole thing.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The reason why I would doubt that the CIA was the source is that the guns provided weren't any better than the cartel could get from other sources. They weren't even fully automatic. Columbia can provide fully automatic AK47s for whoever is willing to pay.

The Fast and Furious operation began shortly after Obama was elected and at a time when he was trying to sell the American public that the gun problem in Mexico were caused be American guns. Unfortunately the evidence didn't back up the accusation. Showing an increase in American guns being used in across the border crime would achieve two objectives. It would give traction to any new gun laws as well as provide an escape goat for his failed border/immigration policy: Someone points out immigration crime- Obama points to American guns as the problem.

What is silly is that they could even pretend this operation was to track the guns to the buyers in Mexico. If they were going to do that they would need the cooperation of the Mexican government. Mexico knew nothing about this and are pretty upset about the whole thing.

Yup, they are going to ramp up the gun grabbing in America, although I hope this situation represents a set-back in the effort.

The insiders know that the economy is only going to get worse, and that is why I believe that the gun-grabbing efforts will increase. They don't want a Greece situation with an armed populace...could you imagine? This is why I support protests. Unfortunately (Fred Phelps) you have to take the good with the bad, but it's worth the price.

I believe the CIA is likely involved because historically they are no strangers to the drug industry, and operate internationally. I'm not sure the FBI or ATF can do that, ...correct me if I'm wrong. Also, if it is true that the Mexican government does not know about this operation, that could be further indication that the CIA is involved.

The cartels also possess sniper rifles and grenades. Hopefully those hardcore weapons didn't come from the States...yikes.

You know what? Why doesn't Obama send a couple of those fancy drones to patrol for cartel thugs from the skies in Mexico? That would do humanity a great favor.

[Calgaryborn]

From what I've read it sounds like some of the weapons at least come from Mexico's corrupt miltary. They buy weapons from the States so I would imagine that a few sniper rifles and grenades have a made in USA sticker on them. China will sell arms to just about anybody as well and then there is Columbia that doesn't mind reselling to their neighbors.

That is what's funny; semi automatic rifles and maybe a few hand guns isn't going to mean much in a drug war. The target must of been the second amendment. That seems to be what the whistle blowers in the ATF believe. Although if the CIA was part of this the ATF agents probably wouldn't know anyways.

Mexico definately didn't know what was going on. I suspect their President won't be asked to the White House any time soon again either.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The gun grabbers are terribly short sighted. Their arguments are based on emotions and political correctness more than anything.

It is a short sighted opinion and I used to hold it until I read an article that Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. I then realized the issue is deeper than banning guns.

Universal health care and other social programs combined with legalized distribution of mariuana, cocaine and exctasy would go farther to curb violence than gun control.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

It is a short sighted opinion and I used to hold it until I read an article that Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. I then realized the issue is deeper than banning guns.

Universal health care and other social programs combined with legalized distribution of mariuana, cocaine and exctasy would go farther to curb violence than gun control.

Yes no one ever gets violent on coke

[valo403]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1Zq4JpQjN

Uh oh, looks like Holder has been caught lying....

"House Republicans are calling for a special counsel to determine whether Attorney General Eric Holder misled Congress during his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Operation Fast and Furious, Fox News has learned.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, was sending a letter to President Obama on Tuesday arguing that Holder cannot investigate himself, and requesting the president instruct the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel."

"The question is whether Holder knowingly made false statements of fact under oath during a Judiciary Committee hearing on May 3. At the time, Holder indicated he was not familiar with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives program known as Fast and Furious until about April 2011.
"I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks," Holder testified.
However, newly discovered memos suggest otherwise. For instance, one memo dated July 2010 shows Michael Walther, director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, told Holder that straw buyers in the Fast and Furious operation "are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels."
Other documents also indicate that Holder began receiving weekly briefings on the program from the National Drug Intelligence Center "beginning, at the latest, on July 5, 2010," Smith wrote."

So a Republican makes a claim and it's automatically truthful? Would it work the same way if a Democrat made a claim? How about we wait for the actual investigation before declaring anyone "caught lying".

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The reason why I would doubt that the CIA was the source is that the guns provided weren't any better than the cartel could get from other sources. They weren't even fully automatic. Columbia can provide fully automatic AK47s for whoever is willing to pay.

The Fast and Furious operation began shortly after Obama was elected and at a time when he was trying to sell the American public that the gun problem in Mexico were caused be American guns. Unfortunately the evidence didn't back up the accusation. Showing an increase in American guns being used in across the border crime would achieve two objectives. It would give traction to any new gun laws as well as provide an escape goat for his failed border/immigration policy: Someone points out immigration crime- Obama points to American guns as the problem.

What is silly is that they could even pretend this operation was to track the guns to the buyers in Mexico. If they were going to do that they would need the cooperation of the Mexican government. Mexico knew nothing about this and are pretty upset about the whole thing.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by valo403

You mean:

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

It is a short sighted opinion and I used to hold it until I read an article that Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world. I then realized the issue is deeper than banning guns.

Universal health care and other social programs combined with legalized distribution of mariuana, cocaine and exctasy would go farther to curb violence than gun control.

Not sure about legalized the hard drugs, but legalizing pot would help. Either way, not that anyone will read it, especially not those naive enough to think gun control works, but a recent study saying gun control has nothing to do with homicide rates dropping in Canada the past 30 years.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10...-linked-study/

Criminal record checks, 28-day waiting periods, the long-gun registry: none has done anything to stem Canadian firearm homicide rates, according to a new study by an emergency-medicine academic.

“No significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates were found,” reads the abstract on the study, written by Caillin Langmann, a resident in the division of emergency medicine at McMaster University, and himself a vocal foe of gun-control measures who has argued instead for enhanced social programs to combat the causes of gun violence.

Notice the point about social programs.

But hey, lets just continue being short-sighted and say gun control works.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not sure about legalized the hard drugs, but legalizing pot would help. Either way, not that anyone will read it, especially not those naive enough to think gun control works, but a recent study saying gun control has nothing to do with homicide rates dropping in Canada the past 30 years.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10...-linked-study/



Notice the point about social programs.

But hey, lets just continue being short-sighted and say gun control works.

I think it is fairly obvious that the less guns that you have in a society the less gun deaths you will also have, (and gun control does not neccersarily man reduced numbers of guns) that also applies to cars or anything else really, the question is what benefit does having the guns bring to the society that balance out the increased deaths.

Cars kill way more people than guns ever will, but are so usefull we don't question the price that they come at.

[Azure]

Why does there have to be a benefit? A lot of things exist that are not beneficial to humanity. Alcohol for one. And alcohol kills a lot more people than guns ever will.

Either way, even if you come to the ridiculous conclusion that guns serve no benefit to humanity and therefore we should eliminate them, the only thing gun control will do is keep law-abiding citizens from buying a gun. No form of gun control will keep Mexican cartels from transporting weapons back and forth between the US and Mexico. Nor will it stop gangs in major cities throughout the US from obtaining those weapons and using them in their gang wars.

Far as I'm concerned, people who are naive enough to think that extreme gun control will work, are ignorant to the fact that gun control is a short sighted, and to a degree short term and stupid solution to a MUCH bigger problem than gun crime. That being poverty. The US has a continuously growing separation of class, with more and more people falling from the middle class to the lower class. It has been documented many times that people in poverty will often turn to crime in order to make ends meet, or in many cases, just feed their family.

If you initiate a system wide approach designed at helping the lower class climb out of poverty and obtain good, decent and honest jobs so that they can feed their family, they will have no reason to turn to violence and crime. As a result the level of gun violence will drop as well.

Oh, and it might help to fully secure the border, and end the ridiculous war on drugs. Prohibition has never accomplished anything outside of creating a lot of criminals.