Skip to comments.Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?
Posted on 12/29/2009 7:25:07 AM PST by DBCJR
...One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.
Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization... By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld. ...
On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force ...will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.
Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes i.e., for actions taken in America's defense).
Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
One of the first things to be repaired when the adults return to power.
Here's the biggest problem, as I see it - while any file that the US government maintains one (with some exceptions) may be viewed by the subject by filing a simple FOIA request. But, no such provision exists for any records or databases that INTERPOL may be keeping on you, from information that they've obtained while on US soil. That's bad. So much for the "most transparent administration, ever". This ruling does more to undermine privacy than anything in the Patriot Act.
Impeachable? I don't think so. It's not a high crime or misdemeanor. It's stupid, but it's not a crime.
Obama is only removing a limitation that placed by a previous president, which are both actions allowable with respect to the relevant US law, specifically International Organizations Immunities Act. Obama's just exercising his executive authority granted to him by the Constitution.
Paging the ACLU.....
IMHO, I believe your right.
First, it does do more to undermine privacy than anything contained in the Patriot Act, now or before.
Second, the President is only exercising his executive authority granted to him by the Constitution (as so many before him has done.
I do agree that this is not an impeachable offense, I’m not a lawyer or Constitution expert but I can not see the regular exercise of authority rising to that height.
I don’t believe this in anyway allows INTERPOL to operate without check in this country and snatch folks off the street or anything that drastic. But it does place them outside the reach of any questioning.
“Since Obama has ceded American sovereignty to International powers then why should anyone recognize a US government at all? “
He’s nothing more than the provincial governor to Amerika SSR.
How so? The immunity granted is the same as diplomatic immunity (excerpted from the Legalmatch law library:
Diplomatic immunity is just what it sounds like: a legal immunity applied to diplomats in their host countries, ensuring that they can't be arrested or criminally prosecuted for any violations of local law. Basically, if an Ambassador, high ranking diplomat, or member of a diplomatic mission is arrested, and he claims diplomatic immunity, the police call a special hotline setup by the State Department to verify his status. If the arrestee's status is confirmed, then the police must let him go, no matter how serious the crime. The sole punishment that can be leveled against him is immediate deportation (this can only be ordered by the State Department), and even that is usually only prescribed for the most heinous of crimes, such as rape or murder. (my emphasis)So, any particular Interpol officer could be deported (if the State Department agrees, hmmm?) but this would have little overall effect on Interpol's interventions in this country.
Chilling, if you ask me. Also right on par with many other actions the 0 Administration has taken.
I wonder if he is thinking ahead about protection for himself in case of revolt and the US military doesn’t back him???
“I wonder if he is thinking ahead about protection for himself in case of revolt and the US military doesnt back him???”
It occurs to me that there’s nothing to stop “Interpol” from growing into a large paramilitary organization - except dollars and recruiting. Of course, since it would be manned with foreigners, they’d have no compunctions about fighting and killing Americans.
I’m sure 0 has nothing like that in mind - does he? I mean, that’d be the only way to have a Gestapo like police force in America... I’m also reminded of his remarks about a “civilian defense force, as powerful as the military”.
Interesting times, to say the least.
We can not prosecute or arrest those with diplomatic immunity.
I do not think this EO gives INTERPOL ‘Diplomatic Immunity’. It is part of agreement contained within international law in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). The Convention does not cover the personnel of international organizations. Specific and important within the Convention. Those personnel have their privileges are decided upon on a case-by-case basis, which usually rely on the treaties and are found in the treaties founding such organizations.
No I believe you are wrong on this count. I think the EO just gave them relief from search and seizure of their organizational property/data.
First step in moving to a one world government. Hope they show up at my house and meet my friends Mossberg and Springfield
I believe I'm right unless the article has it wrong. To quote:
This international police force ...will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.That seems quite unambiguous to me.
Remember, Obama didn't grant the immunity originally, the Act of Congress did some 30 years ago. All (and it's a lot)Obama has done is remove the restrictions on that immunity that was created with Reagan's EO back in '83. And, that restriction did nothing to limit the diplomatic immunity that the individual INTORPOL agents enjoyed back then, and today. This particular exception dealt only with record-keeping and transparency of those records, not the individual INTERPOL agents themselves.
Um, because Obama’s a traitor?
I think and I could be wrong that this applies to their papers and property and not their personnel.
I maybe wrong and if I am I will be the first to admit it. I don’t believe that this places INTERPOL personnel above the law with diplomatic immunity from arrest or seizure of their persons.
That would mean amending the charter of the organization itself and amending the treaties of every country that has signed on as allowing it to operate within their borers.
Even reading “International Organizations Immunities Act” (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad034.asp), I see nothing about exempting personnel from arrest ad diplomatic immunity grants them. Mainly firewalls their personal and real property and exempts them from taxes.
I am strictly construing the words as courts have said when reviewing these things (in my experience). I believe this ‘unrestrained’ applies to exempting them from search and seizure in their property ... not the actual activities of their personnel.
If it truly is an American President granting a foreign/international organization power over the American people and a grant of authority to act with impunity within our borders it is unconstitutional. We will have to wait and see how they use it or if it is challenged in a court of competent jurisdiction or reversed by act of Congress.
INTERPOL will be the zero’s SS.
The immunity is not the same. Pleas read my Post #13.
Diplomatic Immunity is granted by Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961).
International organizations immunity is granted by International Organizations Immunities Act (December 9, 1945).
These are two totally different documents and they contain different provisions.
This exceeds his authority.
One of the links from the National Review article views this move as precursor to subjecting the USA to the ICC:
“The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.”
” Obama’s former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.
“Until we’ve closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.”
Reagan was acting in his executive authority enforcing the Constitution. Obama’s 1) revoking that EO and 2) extending immunity and granting no accountability to Interpol is a decision that would AT LEAST involve a treaty and possibly require a Constitutional Amendment.
this is more of the framework God is setting up. We ain't seen nothing yet.
21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until nowand never to be equaled again.
22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
Not at all. All, he is doing is revoking an prior-existing Executive Order. It happens all the time. He doesn't confer any additional immunity, other than what is allowable under the relevant statute - a statute that was codified some 50+ years ago.
The Kenyon's impeachable offenses continue to pile up.
Could anything be done by a new congress in 2010 when there are a few more “adults” in the building?
I would certainly hope so.
The Kenyon’s impeachable offenses continue to pile up.
And a just jury sentence for treason of being keel-hauled stem to stern under the USS RONALD REAGAN . . . begins to look too kind.
Thankfully, God will deal with him in God’s way and time.
God have mercy on us about any delay in such dealings.
(b) Representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as such representatives, officers, or employees except insofar as such immunity may be waived by the foreign government or international organization concerned.Since Reagan was quite concerned about US sovereignty, this seems strange. According to the Beaufort Observer, INTERPOL was subject to the same oversight as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, with no immunity. They claim this new executive order grants immunity:
Here's the background.
Generally, foreign military and police organizations are restricted from operating in the United States without oversight by the CIA, FBI, Departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security or though some other arrangement that makes such operations subject to U. S. authority. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12425 that allowed the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) to operate in the United States but generally subject to the same laws that restrict CIA, FBI and other Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Specifically, INTERPOL agents were not immune from being prosecuted for violating American laws.
One of those laws is 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 which prohibits law enforcement authorities from violating an American's constitutionally protected rights. Presumably, that does not apply to INTERPOL as a result of this Executive Order President Obama has just signed.
The effect of Obama's amendment is to give them immunity from violating any American law. Agents of INTERPOL will now presumably have the same protection that foreign diplomats have while in this country.
At a minimum, there's considerable confusion swirling around this issue. I'm hoping for some real clarification soon. If nothing else, having INTERPOL be immune from FOIA requests is wrong, and another example of 0 rhetoric versus reality. "Most transparent administration in history" - my eye!
It is very confusing dealing with the EO and two separate international agreements that the US is party too.
We need clarification from someone who actually knows. It is confusing.
I can only hope that the President doesn’t sign the Rome Statute/ICC ... that I believe would be a nail in his political coffin for a vast majority of voters.
First, let me preface this by saying I am an attorney, and I have had the opportunity to be stationed overseas where I enjoyed some limited immunity, like Reagan and Obama have extended to foreign nationals working in an official capacity. There's not a lot that's strange or unique about it. MANY foreign nations give our own FBI, NCIS CID and other federal investigative agencies very similar immunity in their own respective countries. And, sometimes these are immunities that these agents DON'T enjoy while working in the official capacity back in the states.
Furthermore, that Beaufort Observer post is laced with inaccuracies. Obama's EO, nor Reagan's EO gives INTERPOL the authority to execute warrantless searches, or to seize evidence or items. That's a ridiculous statement. These limited grants of immunity are for personal protection against civil lawsuits - very much like the protection granted to our Federal judiciary, and federal prosecutors. While it's not technically diplomatic immunity, it is a kind of or de facto diplomatic immunity; an extension of diplomatic immunity extended as a courtesy in furtherance of intentional anti-crime and anti-terror cooperation.
I did prefer the language Reagan used because it did allow for much more transparency with respect to INTERPOL's operation on US soil. Obama's EO seems to cloud, at least to some degree, that transparency. Neither EO, Obama's nor Reagan's, extends any privilege to INTERPOL that hasn't already been made allowable under 22 U.S.C. 288.
Some of this "drama" stems from the fact that most people have a very limited understanding of the power of Executive Orders (like the author of this Observer piece). Some EO do have the full force of law, others are only administrative orders that impact the Executive Branch. No President, Obama included, could grant such sweeping (or limited) immunity without Congress first ceding such authority in previously passed legislation - in this case, that authority was ceded in International Organizations Immunities Act from (I think) 1945 or 1946.
He can sign anything he wants, but it doesn't have full force of law until it's ratified by 3/4 vote in the Senate. Even with his "super majority", he's still at least 15 votes shy of ratification. And, I seriously doubt if he could keep his 60 vote coalition together for such a ratification.
There are differing schools of thought on this, but my personal belief is - if as unlikely as it is - if this treaty is signed and ratified, it would face a very tough Constitutional fight. I believe, as do many others, that this ICC-Rome provision, is in violation of our own Constitution. And, while the Constitution does say that ratified treaties do enjoy the full force effect of Constitutional law, those treaties can't be in violation of our own Constitution (see Reid v. Covert).
While there are due process provisions in the ICC, there isn't a provision that allows for the US President to pardon the convicted - a privilege that is clearly in the US Constitution, and is therefor a possible remedy that is stripped from a US citizen facing an ICC tribunal. IOW, the stuff that a Constitutional challenge could be built upon.
With this current Congress? If he signs it, it would pass the Senate by party-line vote. More Reid ‘buy-outs’, er bribes.
This USSC has conservatism in the minority right now. I have my doubts if a majority would stand against a truly unconstitutional act.
I know I’m being a pessimist. I use to always see the glass as half full. But these days, many Americans truly baffle me and the glass is half empty.
To enforce the agreements Obama makes illegally with the UN...but we can’t pick up terrorists in other countries to detain them...but Obama thinks it is ok to use a foreign police force on our own soil against Americans...
No, the ratification of all treaties require - per the US Constitution - ratification by three-fourth's of the Senate - IOW, any treaty needs 75 votes for ratification. Reid doesn't have 75 votes.
Reid can't change the Senate rules to ratify with a simple majority, or a super-majority. He'd need to amend the Constitution.
“It occurs to me that theres nothing to stop Interpol from growing into a large paramilitary organization - except dollars and recruiting. Of course, since it would be manned with foreigners, theyd have no compunctions about fighting and killing Americans.”
The incident at ft. Hood also comes to mind.
Soldiers sworn in as U.S. citizens
[snip]Immigrant soldiers receive expedited naturalization. A recent report from the Immigration Policy Center said that as of June 30 there were 114,601 foreign-born individuals serving in the U.S. armed forces or about 7.91 percent of the 1.4 million military personnel on active duty.
And between Oct. 1, 2008 and Sept. 30, 2009, 10,505 immigrant soldiers became citizens, the report said.
114,601 foreign-born individuals serving in the U.S. armed forces
Mexican cartels looking to exploit gang connections in U.S. military
* An overwhelming majority (69 percent) of people in Mexico thought that the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans (Mexico- and U.S.-born) should be to Mexico. Just 20 percent said it should be to the United States. The rest were unsure
actually by the Constitution IT IS A 2/3’S vote ... that would be 66.
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2: “... by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ...”
Reid can’t change the Constitution, but he can change Senate rules. Nancy has changed House rules, last time last week I think.
It is 66. I don't know what I'm thinking. I think I'm still hungover from Christmas Eve.
As to Interpol, it seems to me the question is, in major part, does it have personnel operating in the US of which we should be more afraid than those who work for the International Halibut Commission or, possibly, Monaco (or the USSR). McCarthy says one thing (and he is often quite good), and others say not -- at this stage , I vote -- Dunno. I do know that it wasn't interpol that finally got Milosevic and Karadic or the Rwandans -- it was military forces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.