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.
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.