I realize the Executive Order on it's own doesn't say much due to its legal language. You can look at the original here to understand the modifications: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12425
I don't agree with the conspiracy theorists that this executive order infringes upon fourth amendment rights of US Citizens but I still find it disturbing.
In 1983 Reagan allowed Interpol access to the US with certain diplomatic limitations. An international police organization is useful as some crimes cross borders. Why would Obama remove the exclusions spelled out by Reagan?
Obama's executive order now gives Interpol in the US:
- exemption from the Freedom of Information Act - Prosecutorial immunity - exempt from search of offices and effects. - exemption from taxes (property, SS, etc)
Does anyone else find it disturbing that there is an international police force operating within our borders that is not subject to the same laws as the local police or the FBI?
posted
It might be when they actually have the ability, means, manpower and goal to arrest anyone, something they can't actually do.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interpol has 188 member nations. There are Americans who are Interpol officers inside the US. There are American Interpol police with complete diplomatic immunity and authority to operate within our borders.
I once did a counter-narcotics interdiction deployment with the US Navy. Under international law, navies cannot board and inspect vessels in international/foreign waters. Coast Guards can. I was on a US Navy Destroyer with a crew of 300 and a compliment of 6 Coast Guard officers and enlisted. When we wanted to board a vessel, the Navy CO relinquished command (temporarilly) to the Coast Guard officer and we raised the Coast Guard flag above the Navy Destroyer. I have a Coast Guard Special Operations medal to prove it, even though I was never in the Coast Guard. Vuala, perfectly legal.
Lawyers in power can do interesting things against the intent of the law.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
But to quote someone I know more knowledgeable than me on interpol:
"The nastiest thing Interpol can do to you is put out a Red Notice informing your government that you're a wanted criminal in another country, and that the other country's government would greatly appreciate it if you were arrested and extradited.
And even then they're very limited in what they do. They don't investigate you or build the case against you, they just pass on the relevant information from the other government to your government. And they don't attempt to find you or arrest you, they just ask your government very nicely if it can send some of its own law enforcement folks out to pick you up. Basically they're just an information exchange so that different countries' law enforcement agencies can cooperate on criminal investigations that cross national boundaries."
Anyway, based upon what do you contend that interpol does or is even able to arrest people in the first place?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing it does is normalize Interpol's immunities to be the same as similar organizations' immunities. They already had immunity from criminal proceedings, this just deals with some minor differences in the way the previous orders giving them immunity dealt with protection from search.
It is not at all alarming, and pretty much entirely un-newsworthy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh. Newsworthiness is all based on how you sell it these days. Who cares whether the event is significant! All that matters is whether it can be made into something that will sell. And fear sells.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If what you mean by "similar" organizations you are referring to "international", I would agree. They are an international organization with policing authority granted by our government. Our country is a member nation of Interpol...essentially the world police. Obama has granted immunity of prosecution, search and FIOA to an international police force. If Bush had given these exemptions to the FBI there would be an outrage.
What if Bush made an executive order exempting US law enforcement from Freedom Of Info Act, Law Suit and Search? Doesn't international law trump national law? The international police are no longer subject to national laws that apply to our nation's police.
Anyone who fretted about the Patriot Act should have blood shooting out their eyes over this one...of course they wont.
Interpol are the new US Marshals, with immunity and secrecy assured. The enforcers of international law are above the limitations of our nation's law enforcement agencies.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again, I'm curious: Where are all these officers of interpol who go about acting like a police force? Please show me.
What they are isn't what you seem to think they are. But perhaps you weren't listening to me before. After all, it's so much more boring for them not to be.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They were never subject to FOIA (which only applies to federal agencies -- they've never been one). They were already immune to prosecution, by an order from the desk of Ronald Reagan. The only thing Obama did is make them immune to searches, which was just something they forgot to do in the first place, basically.
And, as noted, they have no law enforcement powers, in the US or elsewhere.
Why do you keep posting falsehoods?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
More than likely he is just parroting arguments made elsewhere by people who also failed to research the actual implications of both the original order and the new one.
I didn't know anything about either, so this has been informative to me, despite the OP. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I provided a link to the .gov executive order and the original document. I provided the links to avoid a lengthy post. Here are the specific sections of immunity that Reagan specifically excluded concerning INTERPOL and Obama returned. The diplomatic immunity statements predate Reagan (1940's). Diplomatic immunity applies to individual nations, Interpol is an International Organization. Diplomatic immunity is given to a specific foreign nation. Interpol is not A nation, rather a "one world" organization with 188 member nations. Interpret as you wish.
2c)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.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the baggage and effects of alien officers and employees of international organizations, or of aliens designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to such organizations, or of the families, suites, and servants of such officers, employees, or representatives shall be admitted (when imported in connection with the arrival of the owner) free of customs duties and free of internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.
Sec. 4.
The Internal Revenue Code is hereby amended as follows:
(a) Effective with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1943, section 116 (c), relating to the exclusion from gross income of income of foreign governments, is amended to read as follows:
``(C) INCOME OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS.—The income of foreign governments or international organizations received from investments in the United States in stocks, bonds, or other domestic securities, owned by such foreign governments or by international organizations, or from interest on deposits in banks in the United States of moneys belonging to such foreign governments or international organizations, or from any other source within the United States.´´
(b) Effective with respect to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1943, section 116 (h) (1), relating to the exclusion from gross income of amounts paid employees of foreign governments, is amended to read as follows:
``(1) RULE FOR EXCLUSION.—Wages, fees, or salary of any employee of a foreign government or of an international organization or of the Commonwealth of the Philippines (including a consular or other officer, or a nondiplomatic representative), received as compensation for official services to such government, international organization, or such Commonwealth—
``(A) If such employee is not a citizen of the United States, or is a citizen of the Commonwealth of the Philippines (whether or not a citizen of the United States); and
``(B) If, in the case of an employee of a foreign government or of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, the services are of a character similar to those performed by employees of the Government of the United States in foreign countries or in the Commonwealth of the Philippines, as the case may be; and
``(C) If, in the case of an employee of a foreign government or the Commonwealth of the Philippines, the foreign government or the Commonwealth grants an equivalent exemption to employees of the Government of the United States performing similar services in such foreign country or such Commonwealth, as the case may be.´´
(c) Effective January 1, 1946, section 1426 (b), defining the term ‘‘employment’’ for the purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, is amended (1) by striking out the word ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph (14), (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (15) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the word ‘‘or’’, and (3) by inserting at the end of the subsection the following new paragraph:
``(16) Service performed in the employ of an international organization.´´
(d) Effective January 1, 1946, section 1607 (c) defining the term ‘‘employment’’ for the purposes of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, is amended (1) by striking out the word ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph (14), (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (15) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the word ‘‘or’’, and (3) by inserting at the end of the subsection the following new paragraph:
``(16) Service performed in the employ of an international organization.´´
(e) Section 1621 (a) (5), relating to the definition of ‘‘wages’’ for the purpose of collection of income tax at the source, is amended by inserting after the words ‘‘foreign government’’ the words ‘‘or an international organization’’.
(f) Section 3466 (a), relating to exemption from communications taxes is amended by inserting immediately after the words ‘‘the District of Columbia’’ a comma and the words ‘‘or an international organization’’.
(g) Section 3469 (f) (1), relating to exemption from the tax on transportation of persons, is amended by inserting immediately after the words ‘‘the District of Columbia’’ a comma and the words ‘‘or an international organization’’.
(h) Section 3475 (b) (1), relating to exemption from the tax on transportation of property, is amended by inserting immediately after the words ‘‘the District of Columbia’’ a comma and the words ‘‘or an international organization’’.
(i) Section 3797 (a), relating to definitions, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new paragraph as follows:
``(18) INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘international organization’ means a public international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities as an international organization under the International Organizations Immunities Act.´´
[edit] Sec. 5.
(a) Effective January 1, 1946, section 209 (b) of the Social Security Act, defining the term ‘‘employment’’ for the purposes of title II of the Act, is amended (1) by striking out the word ‘‘or’’ at the end paragraph (14), (2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (15) and inserting in lieu thereof a semicolon and the word ‘‘or’’, and (3) by inserting at the end of the subsection the following new paragraph:
``(16) Service performed in the employ of an international organization entitled to enjoy privileges, exemptions, and immunities as an international organization under the International Organizations Immunities Act.´´
(b) No tax shall be collected under title VIII or IX of the Social Security Act or under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act or the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, with respect to services rendered prior to January 1, 1946, which are described in paragraph (16) of sections 1426 (b) and 1607 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and any such tax heretofore collected (including penalty and interest with respect thereto, if any) shall be refunded in accordance with the provisions of law applicable in the case of erroneous or illegal collection of the tax. No interest shall be allowed or paid on the amount of any such refund. No payment shall be made under title II of the Social Security Act with respect to services rendered prior to January 1, 1946, which are described in paragraph (16) of section 209 (b) of such Act, as amended.
[edit] Sec. 6.
International organizations shall be exempt from all property taxes imposed by, or under the authority of, any Act of Congress, including such Acts as are applicable solely to the District of Columbia or the Territories.
2. You have no comprehension of the things you attempt to critique, nor do you have any concept of the history of the EO's you comment on.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
They provide information to police forces, and attempt (with varying levels of success) to assist countries OWN police forces in order to coordinate with other international agencies to catch criminals who attempt to use international borders to shield them from prosecution.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Interpol has 188 member nations. There are Americans who are Interpol officers inside the US. There are American Interpol police with complete diplomatic immunity and authority to operate within our borders.
Can we hear it from someone with actual knowledge of how these things work that this is in fact true? Why would a US citizen have diplomatic immunity inside their own nation? Are you assuming this, or is it something you have actually read? I don't trust your perception of the situation, and would like to hear from your source, or someone who know what they're talking about.
To all: The real curiosity for me is that, though I don't recall mal in particular voicing this argument, I am quite sure that he would, if prompted, defend the Bush administration's various breaches of civil liberty and privacy. Much of what the Bush administration did was not only sinister and a violation of public trust, but in actual fact illegal, despite the late administration's exemption of their co-conspirators from testifying against the government that coerced them into breaking the law. Obama changes an official position on international relations, and *he's* the bad guy. God forbid the President does something in the public eye, rather than simply flouting the law and using his executive privilege to ensure that the nation has no recourse against it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never defended Bush's breaches of civil liberty. I'm quite sure you did attack those breaches. You now defend a police force with complete immunity to Freedom of Information Act and prosecution within our borders. I hate Bush and his deficit expanding policies. I hate Obama for doing the same times ten. There are Americans who are Interpol officers within the US. If Bush gave the same immunity to the FBI, you would be the first to scream and I'd be screaming with you. Obama wouldn't grant those protections to our law enforcement agencies. He's the first "post American" president. Obama cares about the world...the world loves him. He's not an imperialist American, he's above that. He's interested in what is best for the world, not the US. He'll grant immunity to world police.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:You now defend a police force with complete immunity to Freedom of Information Act and prosecution within our borders.
Mal, I'm confused. Neither prosecution of INTERPOL nor FOIA were affected by Obama's EO. Why do you think otherwise?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I provided the links to his EO and the original document.
"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."
SECTION 2C (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.\"
There goes Freedom Of Information Act
Go back and read the rest...Interpol now has complete diplomatic immunity. Reagan's specific exclusions were removed by Obama. Obama ammended it by deleting the portion as quoted above. He deleted the exceptions:
"by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section..."
He removed the exceptions of complete diplomatic immunity but we still have international law enforcement agreements with them.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Freedom of Information Act never had any legal bearing on any international organizations. It only applies to Federal Agencies, and always has only applied to them.
Either you can't parse this fact, or you are ignoring it as this isn't the first time it has been brought up in this thread.
Which is it?
Simply stating lies as fact over and over again doesn't actually MAKE them a fact, you know.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
