![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsFor the last year or so there has been a nasty rumor floating around that the BATF, the agency in charge of regulating firearms and explosives, has been actively supplying arms to the the Mexican drug cartels. The exact reasons for doing this vary depend on who's telling the story but they range from "Being a gangster pays better" to "the CIA is trying to bring down the Mexican government".
While the first option is depressingly plausible, the rumor had been dismissed (even by bitter clingers such as myself) as just another conspiracy theory. Now its seems that I may owe the folks in tin-foil hats an apology.
CBS Evening News: Documents point to ATF "gun running" since 2008
Regardless of your opinions on gun-control, or the drug war I think this revelation raises a deeper and more interesting moral conundrum, namely...
Is an informant or undercover cop who breaks the law as part of thier cover any less of a criminal?
If not, Why?
Keep in mind that we are not talking about a drug sting where someone substituted some cocaine for a tracking device and some flour. ATF agents intentionally bypassed thier own system of background checks to allow known cartel members to purchase functional firearms and then didn't arrest anyone. Where is the line between "gathering evidence" and "accomplice"?.
While the first option is depressingly plausible, the rumor had been dismissed (even by bitter clingers such as myself) as just another conspiracy theory. Now its seems that I may owe the folks in tin-foil hats an apology.
CBS Evening News: Documents point to ATF "gun running" since 2008
Regardless of your opinions on gun-control, or the drug war I think this revelation raises a deeper and more interesting moral conundrum, namely...
Is an informant or undercover cop who breaks the law as part of thier cover any less of a criminal?
If not, Why?
Keep in mind that we are not talking about a drug sting where someone substituted some cocaine for a tracking device and some flour. ATF agents intentionally bypassed thier own system of background checks to allow known cartel members to purchase functional firearms and then didn't arrest anyone. Where is the line between "gathering evidence" and "accomplice"?.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/11 19:37 (UTC)I won't comment on the particulars of this case, but in general, the answer is, quite obviously I think, "yes". Is a person speeding to a hospital with a sick child any less worthy of a speeding ticket than a guy in a hurry to pick up a pizza? Of course. If I steal a loaf of bread to feed my children am I less of a criminal than some jackass who shoplifts DVDs for shits and giggles? Sure
Context and intent matter, possibly more than anything else.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/11 19:53 (UTC)To use your example, I could easily argue that stealing to eat is clearly criminal even if it isn't immoral.
Likewise there is a famous saying about the path to hell...
Are there actions that can not be justified no matter the intentions? If so by what criteria do we make that determination?
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/11 20:15 (UTC)deterrence matters: We might punish someone for doing an act even if we don't think them immoral for doing it so that we can continue to discourage others from doing it. So, I think I agree that something can be criminal, or worthy of punishment, even if it isn't immoral.
The road to hell point is salient. We can't just say that good intent absolves people of responsibility. Lots of bad things are done for good reasons, and we want to continue to keep people from doing them even if they have good intents. But beyond that, bad or stupid things done for the best of reason should still be punished, if they were still bad or stupid things. (if I drive to the hospital at 110 mph and kill five people, the fact that I was trying to get to the hospital may mitigate my guilt but it by no means absolves me of it.)
"Are there actions that can not be justified no matter the intentions?"
Sure, I don't know that anything is fully justified by good intentions, I'm just saying that good intentions vs. bad intentions makes a huge difference in terms of how blameworthy a person is and the degree of punishment they deserve.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/11 20:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/3/11 20:35 (UTC)That depends if they were given permission or not, I would guess. A lot of u/c folk have to run certain things by higher-ups before they're allowed to participate, I think. There's also the question of standing by as crime is committed, in favor of building up a rap or waiting for something more serious. Does this make them accessories?
If not, Why?
Because a criminal only someone who has been convicted of a crime in a court of law and by a jury of his or her peers. Until that happens, you ain't a criminal, even if you are guilty, but that isn't how our government looks at it. You are only a criminal if we tag you with the label, official-like. Otherwise you are innocent.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/11 21:50 (UTC)There are certain cases where I can see an exception is necessary, but they'd better be damned sure that people aren't being harmed because of it. (selling guns to drug lords is right out) and there had better be ample documentation and huge amounts of paperwork. I want it to be hard.
(no subject)
Date: 9/3/11 22:36 (UTC)I think the general consensus was "no". Even though we are passionate advocates of bulldog breeds and would love to see more raids and prosecutions of dog fighting rings, the fact that sentient, pain-feeling animals were put into pens to tear each other apart is irreconcilable with an "ends justify the means" approach. The same activity would not be undertaken if the officers themselves were in as much physical danger as the dogs -- yes, I'm aware that undercover work is dangerous, but not as dangerous as being put in a ring to face off with another pit bull every week, not to mention the training, the ongoing injury, the lack of adequate vet treatment, etc.
I feel differently about undercover drug sales, I suppose, and it's not that I don't see the utility of sending cops undercover to bust dog fighting rings. As I said, I would love to see more consequences for people who use and abuse dogs like that. I'm just not okay with the real negative consequences for the dogs. Plus, I think that discovery of such undercover work will further exacerbate the criminal-cop "arms race" - what will the next round of undercover cops have to do to gain access into the inner circles of dog fighting rings? Will they push further and further into very murky moral territory? At what point will law enforcement say "This method of investigation causes more harm than good, we're done"?
(no subject)
Date: 10/3/11 01:54 (UTC)Th incident that spawned the investigation was the death of a border patrol agent. the CBP (local border patrol) and FBI started following leads which in turn revealed the ATF's involvement in smuggling.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-04/us/mexico.guns.grassley_1_atf-project-gunrunner-guns-federal-authorities?_s=PM:US
The question then becomes, is supplying our enemies worth whatever intelligence we might gain by doing so?
Personally I am inclined to say no.
I feel differently about undercover drug sales...
care to elaborate why?
(no subject)
Date: 10/3/11 02:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/3/11 09:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/3/11 16:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/3/11 23:43 (UTC)Akward questions ensued...
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-04/us/mexico.guns.grassley_1_atf-project-gunrunner-guns-federal-authorities?_s=PM:US
(no subject)
Date: 11/3/11 01:56 (UTC)