![[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 19:53 (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.