ATF tries to block whistleblowing agent’s ‘Fast and Furious’ book

The Washington Times ^ | 10/13/13 | John Solomon

[Nachum]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is blocking the main whistleblower in the Fast and Furious case from publishing a book for pay, claiming his retelling of the Mexico “gun-walking” scandal will hurt morale inside the embattled law enforcement agency, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times.

ATF’s dispute with Special Agent John Dodson is setting up a First Amendment showdown that is poised to bring together liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and conservatives in Congress who have championed Mr. Dodson’s protection as a whistleblower.

The ACLU is slated to become involved in the case Monday, informing ATF it is representing Mr. Dodson and filing a formal protest to the decision to reject his request to publish the already written book, sources told The Times, speaking only on the condition of anonymity.

The battle also could have repercussions on Capitol Hill, where the two lead investigators who helped uncover the Fast and Furious scandal, Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell E. Issa, Calif. Republican, had written a foreword to the book, the sources said.

ATF officials declined Sunday night to discuss Mr. Dodson’s specific matter, citing personnel privacy. But the officials said it was possible for an agent to be rejected for publishing a book for pay but get permission to publish it for free. No manuscript for any Fast and Furious book has received approval for unpaid publication, however, the officials said.

[vox_freedom]

I'm shocked, truly shocked.

[ModelBreaker]

“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is blocking the main whistleblower in the Fast and Furious case from publishing a book for pay, claiming his retelling of the Mexico “gun-walking” scandal will hurt morale inside the embattled law enforcement agency, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times.”

I wonder which furloughed employees are following up on this. Apparently, gagging whistleblowers is an “essential” function of the Obama administration.

[Smokin' Joe]

They’re on our side more & more often. We should be allies.

It isn't that they moved to the right, it is that everything else has shifted that far left.

[csn vinnie]

I can see your point. If you have to live in a banana republic, you should at least be able to enjoy the bananas.

[GladesGuru]

Not only does the Constitution not contain any words even vaguely capably of being construed as protecting the citizen from being “offended”, it also does not discuss protecting the “morale” of either agency, agencyperson or just plain citizen.

[Lazamataz]

We have fully become the Soviet Union. Only a brief time before the Gulags are set up.

[Lazamataz]

Was I naïve, or did we lose it all in less than 20 years?

No, you pretty much nailed it.

[Lazamataz]

Hurt your morale? FU BATFE. How’s that feel on your morale?

That's Felony Bullying (34 USC 12.3)

[caww]

[Eleutheria5]

Damn that pesky first amendment. Arrange for him to have an accident. Nothing blatant.

[kabumpo]

No toilet paper. Shortages of salt. And trust me, there aren’t that many beautiful women.

[USNBandit]

It would actually help morale if an investigation rocked the management in that agency. Morale at BATFE is already rock bottom. Who wants to work at a place where your boss is coercing you into committing a crime which your agency is supposed to be stopping. Even after F&F imploded the people running the op got moved, not fired. I bet every smart line agent is keeping book on their supervisors. Not a healthy working environment.

[don-o]

Article says the ATF first denied on July 17. Then deial upheld internally four days later.

My question is what happened between then and now.

[Uncle Miltie]

"The Most Transparent Administration Ever."

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"I really wish that conservatives would be able to outgrow the knee-jerk hatred of the ACLU (and probably likewise). Many times, they are on the same side. Find the areas of agreement before looking for the disagreements."

I agree with you on this. My biggest disagreement with them is on the interpretation of the separation of Church and State (which oh by the way isn't even in the first amendment). I think they have that all wrong. However, on other first amendment issues they are usually correct. Including their most hated decision to defend the Neo Nazi's in the Skolki Illinois march. They were correct but I'm glad that a situation was avoided.

One of my biggest beefs is not really with them. It's with media portrayal. The biggest second amendment rights group (NRA) is always portrayed as beholden to special interests, yet they have five million dues paying members. The ACLU is never protrayed that way in the press, but as the upholder of the first amendment. Yet it is made up of perhaps a couple thousand at most dues paying members and they are almost all lawyers.

[autumnraine]

So he loses his first amendment for someone’s moral?

[bgill]

Expect more Hastings-ides.

[Cyber Liberty]

So the primary rationale for prohibiting the book is “morale?” This won’t last.

[Cyber Liberty]

The ACLU decided to get involved.

[Yollopoliuhqui]

>>We should leave politics to the lefties and try to reform the ACLU. They’re on our side more & more often. We should be allies.

Good to see someone thinkin’ with their head rather than their program. There are a number of issues we have in common with the left- banking, big pharma, safe foods, rational environmentalism, reducing foreign policy adventurism, Internet freedom, safe neighborhoods, better schools and access to higher education, reduction of the power of lobbyists, etc. They are there if you look for them.