PDA

View Full Version : Interpol now immune from US law


ArlJim78
12-29-2009, 02:06 PM
Obama quietly signed an executive order last week that has very troubling aspects, and there has of course not been one peep out of the msm about it. This order gives Interpol, an international police organization immunity from the laws of the United States. What we now have is an international police force operating within the United States, even with the US justice department, who are free to operate with complete immunity, even FOIA inquiries. Some believe this is only the first step, and that in the end Obama wants to sign away even more sovereignty in the form of signing on to the ICC-International Crimal Court.
I can't think of any good reason for this (although I know mostpost will do his best). In fact, i think it is probably the most hideous and troubling development yet from this president who despises America. Conspiracy people can let your imagination run wild on this one. Imagine what you could get away with, bascially circumventing US law, burying information that you never want to see the light of day, or working with willing international parties to go after US citizens or former US presidents, without those parties having full constitutional protections.

This is dangerous stuff, that is if you are concerned about US sovereignty.

Below is a summary from Andy McCarthy (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY3MTI4YTRjZmYwMGU1ZjZhOGJmNmQ0NmJiZDNmMDY=)at National Review,
another summary by Threatwatch (http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/print/wither_sovereignty/)
__________________________________________________ ___
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?
____________________________________________
sorry for the lengthy post, but I thought this needed to be discussed.

boxcar
12-29-2009, 02:19 PM
This latest development by this America-hating president carries very dangerous implications; for anytime we place any entity (domestic or foreign) above U.S laws, this can only spell big trouble ahead for all but the ruling class in this country. I would not be surprised at all to find out that BO next wants to empower the U.N. by giving this world body an authoritative voice in domestic and foreign policies.

All of this is inching us closer to that one world government.

Boxcar

lamboguy
12-29-2009, 02:34 PM
yes this is very serious, and thank you for making us aware as to what is going on

wisconsin
12-29-2009, 02:43 PM
I could be wrong, but I think this a reversal of the exectutive order that Reagan signed in the 80's. Obama just altered it 180 degrees.

ArlJim78
12-29-2009, 02:55 PM
Reagan signed the XO recognizing Interpol as an international organization. However he excluded the following clause;

"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."

Obama has now simply removed this exculsion, so all of their archives are untouchable by the US justice system.

skate
12-29-2009, 03:04 PM
Welp. i hear ya.


THIS SORT has been in the works for a long looong time.

This is getting old, i can only repeat myself.

Media drive "IT", my opinion.

Early 80s, i read a Congressional Bill (transportation, no less)
that stated Saudia Arabia purchase of USA (whatever) does not
require a Saudia name attached.
This, to me, says the same as your above.

Comes down to the Ravioli Ravel and the Butt Kissers...

Greyfox
12-29-2009, 03:09 PM
Has BO been watching too many James Bond movies?

Bond has had "License to Kill" internationally for years.

No person or organization should be above the law.

LottaKash
12-29-2009, 03:50 PM
Scariest thing I've heard in some time....."NWO", is upping the pace, and they are on the march, it seems.....

Giving up our "Sovereignty" on "U.S.- Soil", is not to be taken lightly.....Why isn't there a fuss in the media ?.....

Yikes, "step by step & inch by inch"...

bewst,

woodtoo
12-29-2009, 03:53 PM
I think your right,BO just tweaked it up a bit :mad:

ArlJim78
12-29-2009, 04:19 PM
picked up at RedState (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/12/29/the-obama-administration-gives-interpol-more-favorable-rights-than-american-law-enforcement-agencies/) today.


"At a time when Obama is worried about ensuring the rights of terrorists against the abuses of the American government, he has no problem surrendering American rights to an arm of the United Nations"

Robert Goren
12-29-2009, 04:54 PM
picked up at RedState (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/12/29/the-obama-administration-gives-interpol-more-favorable-rights-than-american-law-enforcement-agencies/) today.


"At a time when Obama is worried about ensuring the rights of terrorists against the abuses of the American government, he has no problem surrendering American rights to an arm of the United Nations"Interpol is not part of the United Nations.

LottaKash
12-29-2009, 05:03 PM
Interpol is not part of the United Nations.

They are "our" new "Secret Police"...Scary ?

best,

ArlJim78
12-29-2009, 05:17 PM
Interpol is not part of the United Nations.
that was a quote from the guy from Redstate, and while its true what you say, to me it hardly matters.

substitute "International law enforcement agency" for "arm of the United Nations". It doesn't make it anymore palatable to me.

Robert Goren
12-29-2009, 05:39 PM
that was a quote from the guy from Redstate, and while its true what you say, to me it hardly matters.

substitute "International law enforcement agency" for "arm of the United Nations". It doesn't make it anymore palatable to me. Do you have any idea what Interpol does? They are a clearing house for information on criminals who operate across international borders. Smugglers, counterfeiters, bank robbers and that ilk. There only a few countries who do not share information on these crooks through Interpol, The most notable one being North Korea probably they engage counterfeiting themselves. I suppose you think the US government should be keep in the dark when one of these criminal enterprises moves in to our country.

skate
12-30-2009, 02:01 PM
But R G, what you say is not of any use,

Do we pay them?

Do they override CIA?

Are they just nice people?

You seem critical, but what are you adding, other than "police Force"?

Ok ok ok, so now maybe we should allow N. Korea into the mix.

What ever comes from the info provided by Interpol? Cia, is big enough.

cj's dad
12-30-2009, 02:45 PM
IF Interpol has information as to Obama's birth records, they are now off limits.

boxcar
12-30-2009, 03:46 PM
IF Interpol has information as to Obama's birth records, they are now off limits.

...as would be his school transcripts.

Boxcar

cj's dad
12-30-2009, 11:08 PM
...as would be his school transcripts.

Boxcar

You know that many folks on this site think we are conspiracy theorists, but the reality is that this is the the most under scrutinized POTUS in our lifetime

Tom
12-31-2009, 11:23 AM
You know that many folks on this site think we are conspiracy theorists, but the reality is that this is the the most under scrutinized POTUS in our lifetime

Not really - China, Russia, Al Qeda, N Korea, Iran.....all are paying a lot of attention to him and reacting accordingly. The world breathes a sigh of relief that Bush is gone, that is for sure. Because they knew he was not shy about capping their arses if they pissed him off. They know this pussy-cat has no balls.

Happy New Year! :rolleyes:

LottaKash
12-31-2009, 11:37 AM
A question(s) ?.....If Interpol has some "probable cause" (whether true or not) pertaining to you, your family, or group of friends, do they now have jurisdiction over you, despite you (we) being a citizen(s) of the U.S, even to the extent of keeping you under guard without any proof ?.....Does the government of the U.S. get to protect us from this, or, are we to bow to their power, giving up "all" of our sovereignty in the process ?....

This is the greatest danger to all of this, that I can forsee....:eek:

ArlJim78
12-31-2009, 01:01 PM
not sure if this is a real concern or not. reading the response from state run media NYT's (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/31interpol.html), its no big deal. merely internet misinformation run amuck. that may be the case but i think it merits a better explanation and it should be watched closely.

apparently the Bush state department approved it, but Bush wasn't able to act on it before leaving office.

some of the comments in the Times report;
__________________________________________________ ____
Contrary to its portrayal in some movies, Interpol has no police force that conducts investigations and makes arrests. Rather, it serves its 188 member countries by working as a clearinghouse for police departments in different nations to share law enforcement information — like files on wanted criminals and terrorists, stolen cars and passports, and notices that a law enforcement agency has issued an arrest warrant for a fugitive.

“We don’t send officers into the field to arrest people; we don’t have agents that go investigate crimes,” said Rachel Billington, an Interpol spokeswoman. “This is always done by the national police in the member country under their national laws.”
In 1983, President Ronald Reagan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/ronald_wilson_reagan/index.html?inline=nyt-per) extended some rights — including immunity from lawsuits or prosecution for official acts — to Interpol, which was holding its annual meeting in the United States. But Mr. Reagan’s order did not include other standard privileges — like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure — because at the time, Interpol had no permanent office or employees on United States soil.

That changed in 2004, when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) in New York City. The office consists of five staff members, Ms. Billington said, and they have access to law enforcement information submitted by other countries with restrictions on who may receive it.

“When the office opened in 2004, we said look, we’d like to have the Interpol staff working in the office in New York afforded the same immunities as other international organizations,” Ms. Billington said. “It’s only for the New York office.”

The State Department recommended approving the request, but the Bush White House did not complete the matter before its term ended, and so it rolled over.
__________________________________________________ _
sounds plausible, but I don't trust them so I think it merits further review.