Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Interpol Immunity (update from Andrew C. McCarthy)
Nation Review Online ^ | January 8, 2010 | Andrew C. McCarthy

Posted on 01/09/2010 8:19:57 AM PST by opentalk

Finally, today, we get at least an attempt at an explanation of President Obama’s dead-of-night decision on December 16 to grant Interpol — the international police force — immunity from American law. (See here and here.) Unfortunately, in the habit to which we’ve grown accustomed, the Obama administration itself didn’t provide the explanation. It comes from Interpol’s secretary general, Ron Noble, via an informative report by Valerie Richardson at Human Events. (Ms. Richardson, who quotes from my posts in her story, was good enough to call me for comment; I regret that, because of the press of other business, I didn’t retrieve the message until after I learned early this morning that her story was posted.)

The biggest problem with President Obama’s immunity grant is that it came without any explanation. The administration can’t or won’t explain why a president — whose administration is notoriously indifferent to American sovereignty — suddenly decided Interpol needed to be freed from the U.S. Constitution and other American law. Certainly, Interpol was not clamoring publicly for immunity; neither Noble nor any other Interpol official was heard to suggest that American law was interfering with some aspect or other of its operations.

To his credit, Noble at least attempts a post hoc rationalization for Obama’s move. Richardson writes:

Why does Interpol suddenly need diplomatic immunity? Noble explained that when President Reagan signed the original order, the organization didn’t have a permanent U.S. staff or office. That changed in 2004 with the opening of the Office of the Interpol Special Representative to the United Nations.

(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: 2004; 200912; 20091216; foia; globaist; haroldkoh; icc; interpol; obama; oisr; secrecy; sovereignty; statedepartment; transnationalist; un; unoisr

1 posted on 01/09/2010 8:20:00 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: opentalk
from article:

AMERICA: JUST ANOTHER COUNTRY
Advertently or not, however, Noble does tip us to President Obama’s thinking — and to why the administration clearly doesn’t want to discuss the matter any further. The issue is what Noble refers to as “international custom”; relatedly, this is about the game known as “customary international law,” so beloved by transnational progressives

2 posted on 01/09/2010 8:22:30 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

And I wonder what the opinion of the pro-Constitution members of the SCOTUS have to say about this...???


3 posted on 01/09/2010 8:36:07 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

There was no reason for Obama to give Interpol such powers.

It seems Obama’s objective is to make the USA no different than any other tyrannical dictatorship.


4 posted on 01/09/2010 8:37:33 AM PST by Presbyterian Reporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
As long as all countries allow warrantless searches and carte blanche behavior from police forces acting across international boundaries, then it is all right? NO other “diplomatic office” conducts searches and seizures, arrests, or information gathering, so why are they treated as though they were a foreign government?

They are in reality one step closer to the international police force for the one world government that is coming.

So a treaty some day bans my constitutional rights, and they can send Interpol to arrest me and take me off and there is no recourse under American Law?

I need more explanation than this...I do not recognize the authority of the “international” police force.

5 posted on 01/09/2010 8:44:35 AM PST by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Presbyterian Reporter
From article:

Explains why he chose transnationalist Harold Koh for State Department’s top lawyer, I think Hillary is also on board with ICC.

Saying out loud that we need to immunize Interpol — to put it above the U.S. Constitution — in order to be more like Kenya, Thailand, Zimbabwe, etc., would not go over well. That would bode ill for the administration’s agenda to subjugate the U.S. to such transnationalist schemes as the Law of the Sea Treaty and the International Criminal Court. Better to say nothing.

6 posted on 01/09/2010 8:49:26 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota

What difference does it make that they have a permanent office now? Isn’t anyone paying attention to the extreme disregard of the COnstitution this man is exhibiting? Doesn’t anyone on the left wonder if this is not a greater threat to our Constitutional rights than anything that has preceeded this?

America deserves the government is elects.


7 posted on 01/09/2010 8:55:13 AM PST by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
And I wonder what the opinion of the pro-Constitution members of the SCOTUS have to say about this...???

I wonder too. I heard an interview where Andrew Mccarthy took down his first article on NRO to research further. He seems like a good source on this topic.

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former federal prosecutor, Mr. McCarthy is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Justice Department's highest honors: the Attorney General's Exceptional Service Award (1996) and Distinguished Service Award (1988). He has served as a Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and as an Associate Independent Counsel in the investigation of a former cabinet official. He has also been an Adjunct Professor of Law both at the Fordham University School of Law and at New York Law School. (from defenddemocracy.org)

8 posted on 01/09/2010 9:02:25 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Interpol agents have no power to search, seize or arrest anyone. All this really does is grant them protection FROM our right to search and seize their investigative reports.


9 posted on 01/09/2010 9:04:17 AM PST by tuckrdout ("Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

http://www.newsmaxworld.com/global_talk/France_insults_marriage/2010/01/08/306266.html


10 posted on 01/09/2010 9:12:23 AM PST by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Book mark


11 posted on 01/09/2010 9:12:58 AM PST by NorwegianViking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Presbyterian Reporter

One does wonder why GWB would not have done this, if it were a move that would keep American’s safe.


12 posted on 01/09/2010 9:17:17 AM PST by tuckrdout ("Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

What is most telling is that the UK, Australia, Canada and western European countries have NOT granted Interpol such diplomatic immunity. It is also a concern the the White House will give no explanation for doing this. These facts give reason for us to be suspicious about the motives for making this change. I also question whether the President has the Constitutional authority to give away US sovereignty or make such an international agreement without seeking advise and consent from the US Senate as with any treaty.


13 posted on 01/09/2010 9:20:03 AM PST by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk
Interpol is based in France and has offices in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Cameroon and El Salvador where their agents enjoy immunity, therefore we should too, right?

More of Obama’s leadership from the rear. The guys a follower, not a leader. None of his ideas are new (a mix of American Afro, US liberal, and typical socialist ideas). He hides behind others to relay the bad news (Gates talks of defense cuts, Nobel tells the the US public about Interpol powers, he arrives late in Copenhagen to avoid taking a leadership role and being tied to it when it fails.....). He is inexperienced and does not understand the functions and systems he's now running (A Commander in Chief with no military, police, intelligence, business, foreign affairs, or executive experience). Obama put it best in 2008 while on the campaign trail, he wanted to be "Commander of Chiefs," as he put it, at least now he knows what his job title is.

Obama is a young pretty face that hugs kids, talks good, looks good, and says what everyone wants to hear, even if he contradicts himself in the same speech. Did you know he has a six pack, plays basketball, and is loved in Europe because? That combined with his experience as a community organizer is the entire resume this man brought to the office. Historic (Black), he is supported by a part of the public that will give him every benefit of the doubt, and redirect blame. Loved by Hollywood and a news media that is dominated by liberal dogma, Obama gets asked the really hard questions, like “What was your most enchanting moment in the first 100 days of office,” while the unemployment was climbing, Iran is seeking a nuke, we have multiple attempts of terrorist attacks in the US........etc. I wonder if Obama right about now is rethinking that whole GITMO idea? Well, it sounded good at least. Not knowing what he's doing, he lets others make the decisions or relies on a belief and value system to make decisions in a vacuum of the realities of how things work.

This event exemplifies what this administration is about. A bad decision, based on some belief, they attempt to downplay by not making reference or mention of it and let others do the speaking and take the egg in the face. In the meantime Obama will nominate some trans-gender to some office so that the LGBT community is happy and rallies behind him (They were getting upset at him). He is maintaining an extraordinary popularity despite the threats, Iran's defiance, unemployment, debt, and a health care bill more than two thirds the public rejects, how is that possible? Because while he's a novice and ideologically left bent at making the decisions of a Commander in Chief he is very well at selling himself, from the Food Network, Late shows, View..... the man is still in complete sell myself mode and even as everything around him is crumbling, he looks so debonair! He's a consummate politicians knowing the games played in politics, legally buying people off, timing things correctly, controlling who says what, and when. So, if we have a major attack on US soil, will MSNBC ask Obama how he keeps his hair so pretty? If unemployment rises, will CNN ask Michelle Obama who helps her pick out her dresses? This Interpol story hardly made they news, and it's a Constitutional issue that involves US sovereignty!

America is lost; we are no different than the Europeans, bread and games keep the “masses” happy.

14 posted on 01/09/2010 9:22:13 AM PST by Red6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
I also question whether the President has the Constitutional authority to give away US sovereignty or make such an international agreement without seeking advise and consent from the US Senate as with any treaty.

He had to be reminded by Senators, in a letter, before he went to Copenhagen that he does not have sole power.

15 posted on 01/09/2010 9:48:21 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Obummer: The Constitution? WTF is that? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution...


16 posted on 01/09/2010 9:59:44 AM PST by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Presbyterian Reporter
There was no reason for Obama to give Interpol such powers.

Of course, there was a Reason. Otherwise, why do it? And why stonewall?

We just don't know what it was. And we aren't supposed to know, either.

Which means we need to find out...

17 posted on 01/09/2010 10:03:38 AM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: okie01

EXACTLY!


18 posted on 01/09/2010 10:19:50 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
What is most telling is that the UK, Australia, Canada and western European countries have NOT granted Interpol such diplomatic immunity.

There's no need of it -- because Interpol doesn't maintain an office in any of these countries. However, it does maintain offices in these countries (along with France):

As its website explains, these are located in Argentina, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Kenya, Thailand, and Zimbabwe.

First question: What do these seven countries have in common that requires an Interpol presence?

Second question: What do these seven countries have in common with the United States of America?

I've no answer to either...

19 posted on 01/09/2010 10:19:57 AM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

I HEARD KRAUTHAMMER THE OTHER NIGHT say it was routine nothing Unusual.


20 posted on 01/09/2010 1:45:33 PM PST by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson