The gun-running scandal: Sunshine, please
Congressional subpoenas must reveal what the Justice Department won't explain about a Border Patrol death and its ham-handed effort to link illegally sold guns with Mexican drug cartels.
With Justice largely stonewalling, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, plans to subpoena officials involved with a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) program known as "Fast and Furious," reports The Hill newspaper.
A bad idea from the start, the program authorized U.S. gun stores to illegally sell thousands of firearms to Mexican cartels' "straw purchasers" -- in hopes of tracing those guns to, and prosecuting, cartel bigwigs.
But ATF lost track of some of those guns.
Two turned up at the Arizona scene where Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a drug-gang firefight. Others might have grounded a Mexican government helicopter.
Attorney General Eric Holder touts an internal probe. But a Justice Department that countenanced "Fast and Furious" in the first place can't be relied on to get to the bottom of the fiasco that resulted.
What's needed is a clear-eyed, independent investigation -- which Rep. Issa's planned subpoenas and hearings will provide.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.