Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > UWOA > Insurgencies & Guerrilla Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-22-2009, 16:06   #1
Warrior-Mentor
Quiet Professional
 
Warrior-Mentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: America, the Beautiful
Posts: 3,193
Exclamation Obama exempts INTERPOL!

WHITE HOUSE LINK:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...ve-order-12425

Story Link:
http://www.examiner.com/x-3132-Phila...re-on-US-lands

Obama exempts INTERPOL from search and seizure on US lands
December 22, 2009
Philadelphia Conservative Examiner
Clyde Middleton

The concept of granting immunity to foreign nationals in our country goes back at least as early as 1790 when we passed "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States," wherein immunity was granted to foreign diplomats. (This Act was revised in 1798 by the (in)famous "Sedition Act.")

The immunities were not as broad as one would think, and that lack of a broad immunity has been tagged as a reason, among many, why the League of Nations failed. In 1945, at the same time as the United Nations was formed, we passed the United States International Organizations Immunities Act. This Act gave foreign diplomats many of the same rights as citizens and permanent residents - to enter into contracts, own real property, etc. Additional rights were given, and in particular was this:

Section 2(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.

This section of the Act is the legal force behind all those "diplomatic pouches" we see in movies that cannot be inspected.

Before we get our knickers in a bunch, there is logic to this immunity. While we like our Constitution and laws, other countries like their Constitution and laws. It doesn't matter if the concept of personal freedom is more expansive here. If we expect immunity in their country, we have to extend it to them here. So we're somewhat stuck - we need to dwell in reciprocity.

The issue has been litigated plenty, with DeLuca v. the United Nations, (41 F.3d 1502 (1994)) being one of the most important of recent vintage. Our courts have consistently upheld the concept of immunity for international organizations - even though to do so leaves an aggrieved American plaintiff with no legal recourse to correct their injury.

Along comes INTERPOL: The International Criminal Police Organization. INTERPOL "facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime."

In 1983, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12425:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.

Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2(c) (presented in full text above), and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

What does this mean?

It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure. The "property and assets of [INTERPOL], wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation."

INTERPOL, an international criminal police organization, is now poised to reside above the United States Constitution - in a place of sanctity beyond our FBI, CIA, DIA, and all other criminal investigatory domestic organizations.

President Obama has just placed our Constitutional rights under international law.

Last edited by Warrior-Mentor; 01-13-2010 at 09:00.
Warrior-Mentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 16:11   #2
Warrior-Mentor
Quiet Professional
 
Warrior-Mentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: America, the Beautiful
Posts: 3,193
This concerns me greatly...and it should you too.

Just look at the recent attempts to criminalize honest discussion of islam in the United Nations.

Now consider what happens when an international law restricts free speech.

It'll be sugar coated in some fake title like restricting hate-speech or anti-blasphemy laws...

But the eventual goal is that Interpol could come get you for speaking out against islam.

This isn't far from hypothetical, the OIC [Organization of Islamic Conference] has already announced this as part of it's agenda.
Warrior-Mentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 16:19   #3
IrishYanksFan
Asset
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: downtown Washington, DC - near the White House
Posts: 25
Which is why we should withdraw from the United Nations and most other similar organizations. The USA has done 10x as much for the UN and these other groups than they have done for us.
__________________
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
IrishYanksFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 17:21   #4
lindy
Guerrilla Chief
 
lindy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Ft Benning
Posts: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor View Post
This concerns me greatly...and it should you too.

Just look at the recent attempts to criminalize honest discussion of islam in the United Nations.

Now consider what happens when an international law restricts free speech.

It'll be sugar coated in some fake title like restricting hate-speech or anti-blasphemy laws...

But the eventual goal is that Interpol could come get you for speaking out against islam.

This isn't far from hypothetical, the OIC [Organization of Islamic Conference] has already announced this as part of it's agenda.
Think bigger...

Investigations for war crimes for the invasion of Iraq, GITMO, "black sites", etc. As always with BHO, it's a witch hunt for the previous administration.
lindy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 17:31   #5
Paslode
Area Commander
 
Paslode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Occupied Wokeville
Posts: 4,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by lindy View Post
Think bigger...

Investigations for war crimes for the invasion of Iraq, GITMO, "black sites", etc. As always with BHO, it's a witch hunt for the previous administration.
I was thinking it might have something to do with the Global Warming scam and the Global Carbon Police Times Online Article-Gordon Brown calls for new group to police global environment issues....but on second thought prosecution of so-called War Crimes looks to fit as well.

Whatever O is up to, I think it is fair to say he is selling the US down the river.
__________________
Quote:
When a man dies, if nothing is written, he is soon forgotten.

Last edited by Paslode; 12-22-2009 at 17:34.
Paslode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 20:09   #6
GratefulCitizen
Area Commander
 
GratefulCitizen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Page/Lake Powell, Arizona
Posts: 3,346
...all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Where does this fit when a foreigner deliberately violates the Constitution?
__________________
__________________
Waiting for the perfect moment is a fruitless endeavor.
Make a decision, and then make it the right one through your actions.
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." -Ecclesiastes 11:4 (NIV)
GratefulCitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 20:14   #7
Warrior-Mentor
Quiet Professional
 
Warrior-Mentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: America, the Beautiful
Posts: 3,193
I'd be more than happy to help chip in to buy one way tickets for anyone who doesn't like it here.

Lot cheaper than paying for this abortion of a health care bill.
Warrior-Mentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2009, 20:32   #8
GratefulCitizen
Area Commander
 
GratefulCitizen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Page/Lake Powell, Arizona
Posts: 3,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brush Okie View Post
They have diplomatic immunity from prosicution. can not be arrested for any reason. They can only be kicked out of the country unless their parent country revokes their immunity.
Diplomatic immunity from prosecution.
That doesn't mean that they aren't committing a crime.

Let 'em try an illegal search/seizure in a home in Colorado.

Quote:
C.R.S. 18-1-704.5 (2)

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
Any bets on the result of a jury trial?
__________________
__________________
Waiting for the perfect moment is a fruitless endeavor.
Make a decision, and then make it the right one through your actions.
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." -Ecclesiastes 11:4 (NIV)
GratefulCitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 14:54   #9
Maytime
Guerrilla
 
Maytime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 199
Quote:
...justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force...
I love Colorado, I wish Idaho had the Make My Day law.

INTERPOL would do well to tread very lightly with their new found superpowers, lest we use my favorite part of the Oath of Office against a perceived threat.
__________________
Trust your hang.
Maytime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 16:42   #10
nmap
Area Commander
 
nmap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 2,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen View Post
Any bets on the result of a jury trial?
That supposes a jury trial in Colorado.

Given their immunity, what is to prevent them from arresting the person under some other set of laws in some other locale? And then transporting the person to their preferred venue?
__________________
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero

Acronym Key:

MOO: My Opinion Only
YMMV: Your Mileage May Vary
ETF: Exchange Traded Fund


Oil Chart

30 year Treasury Bond
nmap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 19:46   #11
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
In a case like that, I would expect the Federal court to take jurisdiction and a judge there to incarcerate you for the rest of your life.

Once you see that happen the first time, and know that is what they are after you for, better to go out in a blaze of glory.

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 20:20   #12
Books
Quiet Professional
 
Books's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In transit
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor View Post
WHITE HOUSE LINK:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...ve-order-12425

Story Link:
http://www.examiner.com/x-3132-Phila...re-on-US-lands

Obama exempts INTERPOL from search and seizure on US lands
December 22, 2009
Philadelphia Conservative Examiner
Clyde Middleton

The concept of granting immunity to foreign nationals in our country goes back at least as early as 1790 when we passed "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States," wherein immunity was granted to foreign diplomats. (This Act was revised in 1798 by the (in)famous "Sedition Act.")

The immunities were not as broad as one would think, and that lack of a broad immunity has been tagged as a reason, among many, why the League of Nations failed. In 1945, at the same time as the United Nations was formed, we passed the United States International Organizations Immunities Act. This Act gave foreign diplomats many of the same rights as citizens and permanent residents - to enter into contracts, own real property, etc. Additional rights were given, and in particular was this:

Section 2(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.

This section of the Act is the legal force behind all those "diplomatic pouches" we see in movies that cannot be inspected.

Before we get our knickers in a bunch, there is logic to this immunity. While we like our Constitution and laws, other countries like their Constitution and laws. It doesn't matter if the concept of personal freedom is more expansive here. If we expect immunity in their country, we have to extend it to them here. So we're somewhat stuck - we need to dwell in reciprocity.

The issue has been litigated plenty, with DeLuca v. the United Nations, (41 F.3d 1502 (1994)) being one of the most important of recent vintage. Our courts have consistently upheld the concept of immunity for international organizations - even though to do so leaves an aggrieved American plaintiff with no legal recourse to correct their injury.

Along comes INTERPOL: The International Criminal Police Organization. INTERPOL "facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime."

In 1983, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12425:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.

Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2(c) (presented in full text above), and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

What does this mean?

It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure. The "property and assets of [INTERPOL], wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation."

INTERPOL, an international criminal police organization, is now poised to reside above the United States Constitution - in a place of sanctity beyond our FBI, CIA, DIA, and all other criminal investigatory domestic organizations.

President Obama has just placed our Constitutional rights under international law.
WM -

I'm not sure I'm picking up what you're putting down. . .

Are you saying that that INTERPOL is a criminal organization? That INTERPOL agents will start kicking in doors? I don't believe those concerns are entirely founded. As I understand INTERPOL, they are essentially an LNO organization between the world's national police forces to facilitate criminal intelligence cross borders. They don't have an "action arm," as it were and are forbidden by their constitution from interfering with member state's affairs. The 3rd Article reads: "It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character."

Also, what I read from the change in law is that INTERPOL is now elevated to the same status as other diplomats while they conduct affairs in the US. While I don't think this is necessarily a good thing, I don't think it's as bad as you guys are making it out to be. We conduct investigations on the diplos all the time and while we can't look into their bags, we can kick them out of the country, turn 'em PNG.

What I'm not sure about is why this was done in the first place. As the article states, the diplomatic immunity is a two-way street with other countries. But what do we get out of this deal from INTERPOL? Also kids, a reminder of civics: BHO didn't write the law, he signed it. Who ginned it up in the House and Senate? This law has a history and I'm interested to know where it came from.

As far as the Islamic community trying to criminalize critical discussion in the US, so long as we have a strong separation of Church and State, Mohammad can go pound sand.

And as for the concerns about searches/seizures by the black booted ones, I think the rest of the world knows that we've taken the defense of our bill of rights seriously enough to enshrine the right to bear arms in them.

my .02 cents . . .

Books
__________________
This is a dynamic business that is impacted by continuously changing variables complicated by human dimensions that are both unpredictable and fickle.

- Jack Moroney
__________________
Books is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 20:23   #13
The Reaper
Quiet Professional
 
The Reaper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Free Pineland
Posts: 24,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Books View Post
Who ginned it up in the House and Senate? This law has a history and I'm interested to know where it came from.

Books
Books:

You do understand what an Executive Order is, don't you?

TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910

De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 20:32   #14
Surgicalcric
Quiet Professional
 
Surgicalcric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Wherever my ruck finds itself
Posts: 2,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Books View Post
...I think the rest of the world knows that we've taken the defense of our bill of rights seriously enough to enshrine the right to bear arms in them...

For now the world does...

It is unfortunate the entire Congress doesnt share in our belief that the 2nd Amendment applies at the individual level... That's a topic for another discussion though.
__________________
"It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees."

"Its not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me" -Batman

"There are no obstacles, only opportunities for excellence."- NousDefionsDoc
Surgicalcric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2009, 21:34   #15
GratefulCitizen
Area Commander
 
GratefulCitizen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Page/Lake Powell, Arizona
Posts: 3,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmap View Post
That supposes a jury trial in Colorado.

Given their immunity, what is to prevent them from arresting the person under some other set of laws in some other locale? And then transporting the person to their preferred venue?
If you use lawful force to defend yourself in Colorado, it's best to stay in Colorado thereafter.

Quote:
C.R.S. 16-3-201.
Arrest by a private person.

A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person when any crime has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the presence of the person making the arrest.

ANNOTATION
Officer outside of jurisdiction arrests with authority of private citizen.
A peace officer acting outside the territorial limits of his jurisdiction does not have any less authority to arrest than does a person who is a private citizen. People v. Wolf, 635 P.2d 213 (Colo. 1981).
Heh, heh.
Officer without jurisdiction/authority to arrest?

Quote:
18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.
Any bets on that jury trial?

Eventually, the ruse would be exposed for what it is.
As TR stated, a few blazes of glory might follow.

In the end, whoever holds the guns makes the rules.
__________________
__________________
Waiting for the perfect moment is a fruitless endeavor.
Make a decision, and then make it the right one through your actions.
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." -Ecclesiastes 11:4 (NIV)

Last edited by GratefulCitizen; 12-23-2009 at 21:35. Reason: ..
GratefulCitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:33.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies