March 11, 2011 – Because of the attention given to this issue, the Embassy of the United States would like to issue the following clarification:

There is no contradiction between the statement of the Mexican government and the information provided by the United States concerning an operation that dismantled a major arms trafficking ring that has been called Fast and Furious. The operation took place on U.S. territory and arrested 20 defendants on January 25, 2011…

After the arrests on January 25, reports emerged alleging that the operation could have entailed a transfer of arms from the United States to Mexico. Attorney General Holder has called for an investigation. He has stated unequivocally that such actions, if true, “would not be acceptable.” He affirmed that he “made that clear to attorneys and agents in charge of ATF.”

The Mexican Government has stated that “it had no knowledge of an operation that might include the transgression or the controlled trafficking of arms to Mexican territory.” The briefings that took place between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement focused on operations on U.S. territory to crack down on trafficking operations. The alleged transfer of arms to Mexican territory at this point is exactly that – an allegation. Attorney General Holder has underscored that he takes “those allegations seriously.” He said “that is why I asked the IG (Inspector General) to report on it.”

The Government of Mexico has constructively “offered whatever support might be necessary in order to clearly establish the facts.” This type of mutual support is reflective of our common objectives to stop the illicit movement of arms, drugs and money that threaten both Mexican and U.S. citizens.

 

Recommended For You

11 Responses to U.S. Embassy in Mexico Statement on Gunwalker Scandal

  1. “March 11, 2011 – Because of the attention given to this issue, the Embassy [Mexico] of the United States would like to issue the following clarification:”

    “The alleged transfer of arms to Mexican territory at this point is exactly that – an allegation.”

    http://mexico.usemba…rification.html

    Guess this pretty map is mislabeled? 195 “Fast and Furious” guns recovered in Mexico are actually allegedly recovered?
    http://www.justice.g…ous_Map_ATF.pdf

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practise to deceive!”
    Sir Walter Scott

  2. I don’t remember exactly when the “politically correct” virus infected the news media, law enforcement, and the government. It was probably not long after Miranda. But I still find it the height of ridiculousness when someone like Loughner is arrested, gun in hand, with any number of witnesses who will testify that he was the perp, and both law enforcement and the media persist in referring to him as the “accused perpetrator” or “suspected assailant.” Give me a break. PC language is simply an excuse for weasel words, used with the intent to play C.Y.A., lest anyone think that they are showing decisiveness or leadership. Heaven forfend.

    • Ugh. Don’t get me started on “alleged” criminals. That drives me NUTS.

      I mean, I realize we work on a legal system that has a “Presumption of Innocence” and I’m fine with that, I would rather the guilty go free than the innocent be found guilty.

      When there is 100% proof, and everyone knows it, it DRIVES ME NUTS. I don’t care to know why they did whatever, there’s no new evil under the sun. Give ’em their right to a speedy trial and get their sentence rolling.

    • I believe it started with lawyers and lawsuits. Which, honestly, if someone put my face on the news and said I was a [whatever], I guess I’d at least want an “alleged” in front of the accusation too.
      …assuming I didn’t do it! mwahahahaha!

  3. While I agree it is a bit annoying when you have them on hi-def video from 6 angles, have DNA and prints that place them at the scene, and they’re caught standing over the body cackling like Jack Nicholson, they are likely guilty.

    However, it seldom works that way. A goodly percentage of people on death rows across the country were sent there even though they had alibis placing them across town, and there was no physical evidence linking them to the crime. None.

    They were however mostly guilty of being poor and/or black.

  4. I’m fully aware of the number of people on death row that have been falsely accused. However, that doesn’t take away from the idiocy of language-parsing to try and pretend that a situation is not what it seems, nor does it help those who are falsely accused to get a fair shake in court. The ONLY purpose is politically-correct speech is to make those that use it feel better about themselves. I direct your attention over Bloom County way: http://www.gocomics.com/feature_items/explore?page=1&tag=20973

    • Brad,

      I think we are having a semantics discrepancy.

      Since the Magna Carta, the last 700 years of Western jurisprudence have put the notion of “innocent until proven guilty” as a core value.

      Ed Gein, John Wayne Gacy, Belle Sorenson, and even Orenthal James Simpson were innocent UNTIL they are proven guilty in a Court Of Law by a Judge and/or Jury. Regardless of ‘we know they did it’, they must be found to be guilty by law before they are, in fact, are guilty.

      Personally, I find the Westboro Baptist Church to be marginally literate, inbred, and poltroons (being generous). However, the Founding Fathers wisely stated that they have the right to speak, and SCOTUS recently validated that right. They neither incite riots, nor do they shout “movie” in a crowded firehouse…

      Unpopular speech is much akin to unpopular innocence – either we all have it, or we don’t.

      In reality, a girl dies of a coke and oxy od in your house. You have no proscription for Oxy. Or blow. Many hours pass before your houseboy calls the cops. If you are Auggie Busch IV, it’s just another dead chick story (shortly) in the papers. If you are poor broke-ass Cleavon Washington, or even Fred The Cable Guy, you will be lucky to get a life sentence.

      If one has any belief in “All Men Are Created Equal” how can one think to deny even the most obviously guilty a fair trial? Do you believe the evidence won’t prove their guilt? If it won’t, why would you support a guilty verdict?

      Were it you, or your child, would you want the uninformed court of public opinion and profit-driven media determining their fate?

      “Politically Correct” means that one neither knows who Lisa Lampenelli is, nor do they laugh at her observations. The politically correct term for “stereotypes” is “demographics”. Many have figured out that most (but NOT all) people of a similar group do pretty much the same thing. Such is life.

      At the end of the day one must decide whether to be strong enough to follow The Constitution and accept that all may not be what you want – but it’s better than the Gov/mob having ultimate power, or one can suckle at the empty teat of ‘freedom’s ok, as long as you agree with me’.

      Politically and Legally accurate means that you understand that free speech is not always popular, or what you want to hear, but it is, free.

  5. I’m thinking that ATF named the operation “Fast and Furious” because of what happens when you drink unfiltered Mexican tap water. Yup, that’s right, and now we’re getting a whole steaming pile of it from our own ambassador. Do you believe this freakin’ guy? I wanna tell him: Hey, dickless, you got some big stones trying to pass this operation off as a winner. The arrest of some low-level cholos does not amount to dismantling a major arms trafficking ring.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *