Executive Order giving INTERPOL immunity in the US Signed into effect

[fskimospy]

No, it's quite easy. When the executive order gives immunity to anything of mine in INTERPOL's holdings (wherever that may be) and does not allow for me to have access via my Constitutional rights, that is a violation of my Constitutional rights. The executive order states their deemed property/assets are immune from search and seizure, wherever those things may be located. It's most fundamental and easily understandable.

But how is INTERPOL getting things of yours in its possession? (much less somehow imprisoning you) The world you are describing simply does not exist.

 

[Aegeon]

No, it's quite easy. When the executive order gives immunity to anything of mine in INTERPOL's holdings (wherever that may be) and does not allow for me to have access via my Constitutional rights, that is a violation of my Constitutional rights. The executive order states their deemed property/assets are immune from search and seizure, wherever those things may be located. It's most fundamental and easily understandable.

The obvious point that has been repeatedly pointed out to you is that ITS NOT AN ABSOLUTE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY EQUIVALENT. It would be revoked, (or at least partially revoked temporarily in the relevant areas) if they tried to illegally detain some or were caught stealing something for example, which would be the situation in either case if they went through improper channels and not having US law enforcement choose to do so at their request.

As noted, the identical type of immunity has applied to many different organizations for many years without any of the problems you're specifically worrying about occurring, and there is actually nothing about the nature of Interpol which would actually change this. An actual Interpol employee just grabbing someone off the street himself to arrest him and take him out of the country would still clearly be a case of kidnapping.

 

[wiretap]

And yet while that may be illegal by your standards, it isn't illegal when they deem something an asset to their investigations/operations. That's the whole point of the executive order.

 

[Aegeon]

And yet while that may be illegal by your standards, it isn't illegal when they deem something an asset to their investigations/operations. That's the whole point of the executive order.

Again this is NOT the point of the executive order, because it indisputably does no such thing when you actually properly examine it. The US authorities would laugh at the person trying to claim such as they carry them off to jail if they tried to claim such immunity as protection from the actions you're suggesting.

In many ways you're acting MORE unreasonably than someone claiming the earth is flat because its easier to personally disprove your ideas given the information now presented to you, while the question of the earth being flat is something arguably which has to be taken more on faith for the average person. (Theoretically pictures of a round world could be CGI and the like.)

(Curiously enough, even though both ABC and the New York Times responded and debunked the Interpol claims that you have been going on about several days ago, no major reasonably mainstream conservative news source has responded to them, giving the impression they are admitting that the New York Times and ABC are right and this is a bogus conspiracy theory.)

 

[BladeVenom]

It's official. Obama is now worse than Bush.

 

[Rainsford]

And yet while that may be illegal by your standards, it isn't illegal when they deem something an asset to their investigations/operations. That's the whole point of the executive order.

Yeah, we don't all get our own "standards" of legal and illegal. The situation you're describing is illegal by the laws of the United States, and nothing in this EO or any other allows INTERPOL to do what you're talking about.

 

[jonks]

Nail, meet coffin:

http://factcheck.org/2010/01/the-united-states-of-interpol/

The meat of it?

Why did it take so long for Interpol to be fully covered? According to LaTonya Miller, a spokeswoman for the U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol, which is located within the Department of Justice, Interpol didn’t have an office in the U.S. until 2004, when it opened one in New York. The privileges Interpol hadn’t been granted — exemption from taxes, etc. — weren’t needed. Its updated status under the law has been in the works since the New York office opened.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Nail, meet coffin:

http://factcheck.org/2010/01/the-united-states-of-interpol/

The meat of it?

But but but....wiretap KNOWS he is right, so all facts to the contrary are not true.

 

[fskimospy]

He copied and pasted an executive order. That means whatever insane conclusions he draws are right.

 

[Fern]

Nail, meet coffin:

http://factcheck.org/2010/01/the-united-states-of-interpol/

The meat of it?

Why did it take so long for Interpol to be fully covered? According to LaTonya Miller, a spokeswoman for the U.S. National Central Bureau of Interpol, which is located within the Department of Justice, Interpol didn’t have an office in the U.S. until 2004, when it opened one in New York. The privileges Interpol hadn’t been granted — exemption from taxes, etc. — weren’t needed. Its updated status under the law has been in the works since the New York office opened

That sounds questionable if previous info citing the Reagan Admin's purpose for denying these privileges is accurate. Supposedly search and seizure, FOA etc were denied because INTERPOL is an active police orgainzation, not because they didn't have an office in the USA at the time and therefor didn't need them.

Apparently the lack of these new priviliges didn't material affect them having a presence here; they've been here 5 or 6 yrs without them.

I also find it questionable that this has "been in the works" since 2004. It can't possible require 5 or 6 yrs to draft and issue and Exec order with one sentence amending Reagan's restrictions.

Smells like BS to me. I'll wait to see how this plays out before deciding what the real ramifications are.

Fern

 

[jonks]

That sounds questionable if previous info citing the Reagan Admin's purpose for denying these privileges is accurate. Supposedly search and seizure, FOA etc were denied because INTERPOL is an active police orgainzation, not because they didn't have an office in the USA at the time and therefor didn't need them.

Apparently the lack of these new priviliges didn't material affect them having a presence here; they've been here 5 or 6 yrs without them.

I also find it questionable that this has "been in the works" since 2004. It can't possible require 5 or 6 yrs to draft and issue and Exec order with one sentence amending Reagan's restrictions.

Smells like BS to me. I'll wait to see how this plays out before deciding what the real ramifications are.

Well the alternative conclusion is that for some reason our constitutional scholar of a president thought it would be in our national interest to cede internal control of police power to a foreign agent. Now why does that not sound likely and any alternative conclusion further ramblings from the "he wants to destroy america" crowd?

 

[Fern]

I don't understand what you're trying to say jonks. I do note you didn't address any of my three points.

Fern

 

[wiretap]

Nail, meet coffin:

http://factcheck.org/2010/01/the-united-states-of-interpol/

The meat of it?

Pretty weak coffin.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) is the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org. It's supported by the the Annenberg Foundation, the foundation that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago Annenberg Challenge organization.. the same one in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for, and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-chair of for its two operating arms.

Go ahead and list MSNBC and ABC news while you're at it..

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty weak coffin.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) is the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org. It's supported by the the Annenberg Foundation, the foundation that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago Annenberg Challenge organization.. the same one in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for, and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-chair of for its two operating arms.

Go ahead and list MSNBC and ABC news while you're at it..

Factcheck.org is a respected source recognized across the political spectrum as being nonpartisan and unbiased. Hell, it's rise to notoriety came from being quoted by Dick Cheney during a VP debate. 3 clicks on the website will give you access to numerous articles criticizing Obama for making false or misleading statements. In addition, the Annenberg Foundation is a widely respected charitable trust that has employed a great number of notable people.

As I said earlier in this thread, this is what happens with conspiracy theorists. Anyone who tells you that you're wrong simply becomes part of the conspiracy. How many more people need to tell you that you're wrong before you admit it? Is there any credible, nonpartisan source that isn't conspiring against you from which we could use info to prove you wrong?

 

[wiretap]

Just calling it out as it is; it's no conspiracy. I don't care who quotes the site. The group calls itself non-partisan because that's how they want to be viewed. Corporations all do the same thing. I bet ACORN even calls their organization non-partisan as well.

 

[fskimospy]

Just calling it out as it is; it's no conspiracy. I don't care who quotes the site. The group calls itself non-partisan because that's how they want to be viewed. Corporations all do the same thing. I bet ACORN even calls their organization non-partisan as well.

/facepalm

You are immune to reason. You've made your mind up and no number of facts to the contrary will sway you.

A waste of time.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Just calling it out as it is; it's no conspiracy. I don't care who quotes the site. The group calls itself non-partisan because that's how they want to be viewed. Corporations all do the same thing. I bet ACORN even calls their organization non-partisan as well.

Let,me guess, you also believe Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, and the CIA was behind 9/11, right?

 

[JSt0rm]

lmao wiretap the Michigan school systems have failed you.

 

[Aegeon]

Just calling it out as it is; it's no conspiracy. I don't care who quotes the site. The group calls itself non-partisan because that's how they want to be viewed. Corporations all do the same thing. I bet ACORN even calls their organization non-partisan as well.

For the record, the ABC News link earlier in the thread contained essentially the exact same information, and as noted there hasn't been any dispute of the facts presented in the debunking from a mainstream conservative media news source.

Incidentally, the Annenberg Foundation was created by Walter Annenberg, who was known for his association with Republican political circles (including being good friends with Ronald Reagon), and had been appointed the Ambassador to Great Britain under President Nixon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_H._Annenberg

In fact, the obituary of Walter Annenberg in the The Indendepent noted in a summary of his accomplishments:

he was among the most powerful figures in US publishing and media, one of his country's richest men, a backstage powerbroker in the Republican Party – and a philanthropist whose generosity ran into the billions of dollars.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/walter-annenberg-612968.html

His background doesn't exactly fit with the idea he created a liberal oriented foundation, although I'm not sure of the point of pointing out these facts to you at this point given you appear unwilling to discuss this issue rationally.

 

[wiretap]

Let,me guess, you also believe Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, and the CIA was behind 9/11, right?

No.

 

[wiretap]

/facepalm

You are immune to reason. You've made your mind up and no number of facts to the contrary will sway you.

A waste of time.

Just how you do the same with people throwing arguments at you.

 

[wiretap]

For the record, the ABC News link earlier in the thread contained essentially the exact same information, and as noted there hasn't been any dispute of the facts presented in the debunking from a mainstream conservative media news source.

Incidentally, the Annenberg Foundation was created by Walter Annenberg, who was known for his association with Republican political circles (including being good friends with Ronald Reagon), and had been appointed the Ambassador to Great Britain under President Nixon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_H._Annenberg

In fact, the obituary of Walter Annenberg in the The Indendepent noted in a summary of his accomplishments:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/walter-annenberg-612968.html

His background doesn't exactly fit with the idea he created a liberal oriented foundation, although I'm not sure of the point of pointing out these facts to you at this point given you appear unwilling to discuss this issue rationally.

I could care less about what neo-con or liberal did what with the organization. They're on the same team when it comes to destroying the country.

 

[PJABBER]

I am commenting on this thread a bit late, but I want to add a bit of clarification as to what our obligations are in respect to INTERPOL, and specifically a 611 Red Notice.

A Red Notice, or an international alert for a wanted person, is not an international arrest warrant. It is one of the ways in which Interpol informs its 187 member countries that an arrest warrant has been issued for an individual by a national judicial authority. It is flagged red for the most serious fugitives. It is specifically not used for political "crimes" but it most certainly can be used for war crimes.

From the U.S. Department of Justice guidance -

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00611.htm

611 Interpol Red Notices

An Interpol Red Notice is the closest instrument to an international arrest warrant in use today. Interpol (the International Criminal Police Organization) circulates notices to member countries listing persons who are wanted for extradition. The names of persons listed in the notices are placed on lookout lists (e.g., NCIC or its foreign counterpart). When a person whose name is listed comes to the attention of the police abroad, the country that sought the listing is notified through Interpol and can request either his provisional arrest (if there is urgency) or can file a formal request for extradition.

Please be aware that if a Red Notice is issued, the prosecutor's office is obligated to do whatever work is required to produce the necessary extradition documents within the time limits prescribed by the controlling extradition treaty whenever and wherever the fugitive is arrested. Further, the prosecutor's office is obliged to pay the expenses pursuant to the controlling treaty. Those expenses, which can be quite high, will typically include the costs of translating the extradition documents and may include the costs of hiring local counsel to represent the United States. Further, these obligations, which remain until the fugitive is arrested or the Red Notice is withdrawn, may result in prosecutors who have succeeded the Assistant United States Attorney who originally requested the Red Notice having to prepare the documents and arrange for payment of hefty fees years after the fugitive originally fled from the United States. Therefore, it is important for prosecutors to make certain that the case is significant enough to warrant placing their offices under such a burden in deciding whether or not to request issuance of a Red Notice.

Now, I am not an international criminal lawyer, but it would seem that with the reciprocity usually required by international treaty obligations that named U.S. persons wanted in foreign jurisdictions for criminal activity can certainly be provisionally arrested (if there is urgency) pending the filing a formal request for extradition.

As can heads of state.

On March 5, 2009, Sudanese President Omar Bashir became the first head of state under an international arrest warrant on charges of war crimes. The International Criminal Court, in a 2-1 decision, issued the arrest warrant for Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with the civil war in Sudan's Darfour province.

A number of foreign courts, ie Italy and Spain, have issued warrants for unnamed, or named by alias, CIA officers. Others have conducted trials in absentia of such officers with sentences rendered, service of which will commence upon capture.

Attorney General Holder has been tasked by President Obama to conduct an open investigation of the methods used to interrogate suspected terrorists after 9/11. How high up the food chain he wants to go is up to him (and Obama, though Obama publically washes his hands of this and thus makes Holder a very nervous AG when specifically questioned about this.)

If Holder finds criminal liability, he can choose to prosecute. Or he can determine there is sufficient information to allow an extradition hearing to occur should the party in question be identified by an INTERPOL 611 Red Notice issued by a signatory state or other mechanism. The extradition hearing will then be the mechanism that determines if someone is sent packing in chains or not.

With the exception of the International Criminal Court, international law has no enforcement mechanism other than the right of national courts to prosecute those in their custody for atrocities committed abroad. The torture convention of 1984, ratified by 124 governments, requires states to prosecute suspected torturers for alleged crimes committed outside their jurisdiction, or to extradite them. The Geneva conventions of 1949, ratified by 189 countries, require each participating state to search for persons who have committed grave breaches, and to bring them before its own courts.

Obama and Holder can certainly respond to criminal extradition requests, say for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, et al.

I doubt they will, even if only because once that happens they themselves and future national leaders become subject to such risks. Not to mention that it would mean a complete abandonment of national sovereignty. Which is another topic altogether.