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.
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.