Catch up on the latest - NIBIN is run by OST / Laboratory Services. (And, Riehl wasn't going to go to Philly. One of the Baltimore ASACs was. Neither Riehl nor Chait were going to move. Chait's staying on the DC ride and there were other plans for Riehl; who was also not moving.)

It was with curiosity and confusion that I read this string of posts. I wondered what this was about. After "googling" "ATF mummies king tut" I was directed to the article outlining the subject and clearining up my confusion. I now know why those posting to this subject are angry. I find it amazing that in times of dwindling resources, competing interests, wayward and directionless mamagement, and low morale, public relations stunts such as these fuel the fire of discontent. Beware though, when Congress realizes that ATF forensic personnel has time to identify mummies rather than conduct scientific analysis of evidence, they will be more ammenable to further cut the dwindling ATF budget. While good for public relations, this has the potential to backfire. I have first hand knowledge that forensic labs at USSS, Postal, FBI, DEA, and state agencies are so overloaded, that they either do not conduct, or severely limit the number and scope of forensic exams of evidence submitted to them. If ATF has time to reconstruct 2,500 year old pharoes, think about the consequences.

Don't confuse these activities with those of ATF's Forensic Sciences labs in California, Atlanta and Maryland. Lab personnel are plenty busy and don't have time for arts and crafts.

In the post-9/11 changes, Congress moved explosives issues authority from the Secretary of the Treasury (the "Secretary") to the Attorney General (although some sections of 18 USC still say "the Secretary"). Except in 18 USC 856 ("In addition to any other investigatory authority they have with respect to violations of provisions of this chapter, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, together with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, shall have authority to conduct investigations with respect to violations of subsection (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), or (i) of section 844 of this title.") the jurisdictional authority lies with whomever the Attorney General delegates it to. The Attorney General delegated investigative duties to the Justice Department investigative agencies (like ATF and the FBI) best prepared to handle the duties. If the ATF DD told the DAG that ATF's authority comes from Congress, a reasonable response from the AG could have been "No, MY authority comes from Congress and I'll delegate it as I see fit;" perhaps putting ATF out of the explosives arena altogether. It was reasonable to simply showcase ATF expertise, make the case that ATF should do what it does so well, and hope that reason prevailed. It, perhaps, did not play out to the pure benefit of ATF, but I'm not sure that ATF didn't make its best case in the fight. Is it a surprise that the FBI has more clout? (Did anyone really expect that the FBI would settle for a "compromise" that didn't give them the leverage to do as they please?)

Why would a president put forward the name of an ATF Director before a mid-term election? Wouldn't that just open up all of the candidates (Republican or Democrat) to questions concerning ATF, gun-control, US support to foreign countries (i.e. Mexico) and other controversies that might best be left until after November?