Obama exempts INTERPOL!

[Warrior-Mentor]

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.

[Warrior-Mentor]

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.

[IrishYanksFan]

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.

[lindy]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

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.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by lindy

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.

[GratefulCitizen]

...all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Where does this fit when a foreigner deliberately violates the Constitution?

[Warrior-Mentor]

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.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

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.

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?

[Books]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

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

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Books

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

[Surgicalcric]

Originally Posted by Books

...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.

[Paslode]

Does the US have any agencies (maybe DSS or CIA) that are allowed these same privileges outside the US? And/Or is our privilege limited to matters in which a US Citizen is involved?

[Richard]

Gawd - more hyperbolic BS than a feedlot full of recyclable fertilizer.

Does anybody know how to read anymore - or does everyone just take whatever is posted on the WWW as e-gospel fact to energize their emotionally charged, conclusion jumping exercise programs.

BHOs ExOrd merely shortened the redundancy of the pervious ExOrd and left the following (which pretty much sums up the rest of the relevant sections) in place:

Title 1 - Section 2 (d) Insofar as concerns customs duties and internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation, and the procedures in connection therewith; the registration of foreign agents; and the treatment of official communications, the privileges, exemptions, and immunities to which international organizations shall be entitled shall be those accorded under similar circmstances to foreign governments.

If anybody wants to read the original Act under discussion as revisited by Congress HR 4489 dtd 29 Dec 1945 because of the necessity related to the recognition of new NGOs (such as the UN) and which is the Act actually being cited in the ExOrds - it can be found at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24429759/U...s-Act-of-1945#

MOO - it would be better to put the e-megaphones away, take a chill pill, and save the misplaced outrage for some of the REAL issues we're facing out there.

Richard's jaded $.02

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Richard

Gawd - more hyperbolic BS than a feedlot full of recyclable fertilizer.

A little hyperbole goes a long way towards inducing apoplectic fits in some liberals.
(YOU CAN"T SAY THAT!!!)
Great fun.

[Paslode]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY3MTI4YTRjZmYwMGU1ZjZhOGJmNmQ0NmJiZDNmMDY=

[/URL]

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law? [Andy McCarthy]

You just can't make up how brazen this crowd is. 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. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. 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. Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.

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 (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) 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?

Steve Schippert has more at ThreatsWatch, http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/print/wither_sovereignty/

Time for food, frolic and a Merry Christmas!