Posted on 12/29/2009 7:25:07 AM PST by DBCJR
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.”
http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/print/wither_sovereignty/
” 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.
Matthew 24:21-22:
21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and 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.
Unbelievable.
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.
###########
INDEED.
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. § 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 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.”
FYI
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.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1381853.html
“114,601 foreign-born individuals serving in the U.S. armed forces”
Mexican cartels looking to exploit gang connections in U.S. military
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2408794/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2362258/posts
* 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.
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.