Comments on: Barack Obama and Interpol

By: binadaat

binadaat — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:08:32 +0000

I wrote my congressman about this. He got back to me today. Dear Mrs. Karni, Thank you for contacting me regarding Executive Order 13524, "Designating Interpol as a Public International Organization Entitled To Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities." It amended Executive Order 12425, in which when President Reagan recognized Interpol (the International Criminal Police Organization) as an International Organization under the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945. Giving an organization such a status accords it certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities in conducting business in the United States. Originally, President Reagan withheld certain privileges from Interpol. President Obama, however, has removed the constraints initially placed on Interpol, allowing it to enjoy benefits it previously could not, such as certain tax exemptions. In providing Interpol the protection of Section 2(c), the new Order effectively immunizes Interpol's assets from searches and seizures, and seals its archives by exempting them from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The main concern over these privileges is that they will interfere with much-needed oversight that is crucial for monitoring any law-enforcement agency, which inherently have the potential to adversely affect the rights of American citizens. I share your concerns that an international law-enforcement organization now has more privileges than our own F.B.I. or any local or state police agency and would support more oversight for such an organization. You may be pleased to know that the House Foreign Affairs Committee is currently considering a bill that would revoke the Order. Representative Mike Rogers (R-Miss.) introduced H.R. 4453, "INTERPOL Immunities Oversight Act of 2010," and it was referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee in January. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention and please know I will keep your views in mind should further action be taken on this bill. Again, thank you for taking the time to share your views with me. If you would like to stay informed about federal legislation introduced in the 111th Congress, as well as local issues that may interest you, please take a moment to subscribe to my weekly e-newsletter at www.lungren.house.gov. I look forward to discussing this or any other issue affecting our 3rd Congressional District with you in the future. For upcoming Town Hall meetings, or for information on issues or legislation pending before Congress, please visit my website at www.lungren.house.gov. If you need assistance with a federal agency, please call my Gold River office at (916) 859-9906. My staff and I are always available to address your concerns, answer your questions, and listen to your ideas. Sincerely, Daniel E. Lungren Member of Congress Note: Please do not respond directly to this e-mail. To better serve the constituents of the Third District I have established a Feedback Form on my website. If you wish to contact me with any concerns, I would ask that you please utilize the following link and I will respond shortly (https://forms.house.gov/lungren/forms/email.shtml).

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:44:34 +0000

BrianE quotes:
> “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.”

For me the issue is not how they currently run their operations. The daily modus operandi can change on a dime. The issue is, what are the legal bounds upon how they *may* run their operations in the future? Can Interpol send officers into the field? What evidence can they collect? What evidence can they conceal? It is the boundaries of their legal capabilities that concern me. It’s what they are allowed to do, not what they choose to do today, that I want to know.

By: suek

suek — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 20:14:03 +0000

Karl Rove…
He is such a cherubic, innocent looking person…but that brain just keeps churning and churning. I just couldn’t understand what the left was so irate about…or why they kept calling him satanic etc. He was really behind the scenes during Bush’s presidency. Since then, he’s been on a lot of Fox’s analysis shows and he’s outstanding. Now I understand the ‘satanic’ stuff – he was beating them at their own game. He has numbers and all sorts of facts right here and now…he’s fantastic!
Cheney, Palin and Rove….man! how I’d love to see that ticket as the GOP ticket! Cheney for president because he’s a master at doing what needs to be done, Palin so she could train with the master and be ready for her turn, and Rove to manage the political spectrum.
I know…not going to happen…but I can dream, can’t I?

By: excathedra

excathedra — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:36:49 +0000

Shelby Steele, who shares a mixed black/white ancestry with Obama, makes the case that the President is empty as a man, just a cultural symbol embodying our race problem.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614540488450188.html

By: BrianE

BrianE — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:18:16 +0000

OK…so why did he do it? Just felt the urge to sign something???

Good question.

Is Axelrod smart enough to bait conservatives? The left always considered Rove a cross between the wizard of oz and satan.

By: suek

suek — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:51:35 +0000

>>According to the MSM, this is much ado about nothing.>>

OK…so why did he do it? Just felt the urge to sign something???

By: BrianE

BrianE — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:04:08 +0000

Over-reaction or obfuscation? According to the MSM, this is much ado about nothing. That appears to be the consensus at The Volokh Conspiracy. Prime directive- "Trust but Verify" may be the order of the day. Obama administration and Interpol officials say the fears and accusations are based on ignorance about how Interpol works and about the context and impact of the order, which was issued on Dec. 17 without any statement. “There is nothing newsworthy here,” said Christina Reynolds, a White House spokeswoman. 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. In the United States, a bureau at the Justice Department staffed by American officials transmits information between law enforcement agencies and Interpol. If a foreign country issues an arrest warrant for a person inside the United States, it is up to the United States government, based on its own laws, to decide whether to apprehend the suspect. “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.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/31interpol.html?_r=2

By: BrianE

BrianE — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:34:00 +0000

Steve Shippert and Clyde Middleton have raised the questions that immediately came to mind. Is this the first step to making the ICC sovereign over our military and our citizens? The left’s dream trial would be George Bush at the bar before the ICC. This is one small step toward that. The question needs to be answered—does Interpol have arrest authority, and even if it doesn’t, would this give them a wink and a nod authority were they to engage in rendition style arrests (but without the assistance of the host country). It’s very unlikely a “high value target” like Bush would be successfully spirited out of the country, but how about a Rumsfeld or even lower level administration official who doesn’t have lifetime Secret Service protection? I don’t want to be a conspiracist, and the leftist media would like nothing better than to label concerns over this action as “nutist”, but we have seen a president whose strategy of making America a pawn to the Eurotocracy through the ICC is well under way—evident by his apology tour, the non-closing closing of Guantanamo and his rejection of non-torture torture techniques used on a few high-level jihadist operatives in the early days of the two-front war on terror. ”In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves. [snip] When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement. For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.” http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/wither-sovereignty/ Even the sycophants in the MSM should demand an explanation of what Obama intended with the order, and Congress needs to conduct hearings as to its effects.

By: BrianE

BrianE — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:29:32 +0000

What is it exactly about Barack Obama that Nate Henthoff fears?
“I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had.”—Nat Hentoff
He is certainly no fan of George Bush, whom he accuses of vastly expanding the NSA ability to spy on Americans. But he pulled no punches in his evaluation that Obama may be even more of a threat given his lack of core principles.
Clearly Henthoff is fearful of a NSA whose powers are immense and could potentially be misused by a President. The left saw this threat in Bush. But for his failings Bush respected the constitution (ignoring the left’s ranting about his abuses). It is the left, who see the constitution as a Times Square reader board that Americans should be truly fearful of.

Is this seemingly obscure presidential order something Henthoff was alluding to in declaring Obama the most dangerous president in American history?

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:39:16 +0000

They don’t worship ‘our’ freedoms. They worship their freedom to exploit and destroy.