Executive Order giving INTERPOL immunity in the US Signed into effect

[wiretap]

Comprehension is key to understanding. You need to comprehend what you read, not just read and dismiss.

 

[fskimospy]

Comprehension is key to understanding. You need to comprehend what you read, not just read and dismiss.

Physician, heal thyself. What you're quoting is not supporting your argument.

 

[wiretap]

My argument has already been made, showing proof that has proven yours false, as directly shown through the law/EO.

So please, continue with the insults.. your position is greatly strengthened by doing so.

 

[Aegeon]

They have the ability to hire anyone under their ranks, come in and take a person or assets, take them out of the country, then do their business outside of our shores without granting due process of law as guaranteed by our Constitution. That's how the legislation reads no matter how you want to spin it..

This is indisputably wildly false. No-one remotely sane who carefully does their research would believe the order actually does anything like that. (What you have quoted involving the actual law does not support the claims made when such research is properly conducted.)

Again, the immunity ONLY applies to certain types of activities done by Interpol, NOT actual law enforcement arrests and the like. Interpol can ASK FBI agents or the like to make arrests or conduct similar activities, but the FBI agents are still in the FBI chain of command ultimately and accountable to US laws. (Interpol does not have law enforcement operatives who would conduct arrests or the like directly working for them, and its extremely clear that if Interpol DID hire such individuals, the immunity does not apply. It SOLELY applies to things like general law enforcement coordination with actual actions still being taken by law enforcement in individual countries.)

Interpol ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT have someone do something like arrest someone and expect immunity. If an agent did detain someone and try to take them out of the country, the police officers arresting the agent and a Judge would absolutely laugh at a claim of immunity. (The only relevant question would be if others higher in the Interpol chain of command could be arrested over the incident or not.) The only good trying to make such a claim would do is potentially lay grounds for a "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense.

 

[wiretap]

This is indisputably wildly false. No-one remotely sane who carefully does their research would believe the order actually does anything like that. (What you have quoted involving the actual law does not support the claims made when such research is properly conducted.)

Again, the immunity ONLY applies to certain types of activities done by Interpol, NOT actual law enforcement arrests and the like. Interpol can ASK FBI agents or the like to make arrests or conduct similar activities, but the FBI agents are still in the FBI chain of command ultimately and accountable to US laws. (Interpol does not have law enforcement operatives who would conduct arrests or the like directly working for them, and its extremely clear that if Interpol DID hire such individuals, the immunity does not apply. It SOLELY applies to things like general law enforcement coordination with actual actions still being taken by law enforcement in individual countries.)

Interpol ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT have someone do something like arrest someone and expect immunity. If an agent did detain someone and try to take them out of the country, the police officers arresting the agent and a Judge would absolutely laugh at a claim of immunity. (The only relevant question would be if others higher in the Interpol chain of command could be arrested over the incident or not.) The only good trying to make such a claim would do is potentially lay grounds for a "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense.

They can hire whoever they want to work for them. That was already pointed out. It doesn't have to be a US agency following our Constitutional law. Why would they waste their time trying to go before one of our judges? They've already been granted immunity so they don't have to.

 

[Aegeon]

They can hire whoever they want to work for them. That was already pointed out. It doesn't have to be a US agency following our Constitutional law. Why would they waste their time trying to go before one of our judges? They've already been granted immunity so they don't have to.

Again, a non US agency CAN NOT conduct operational activities such as searches or arrests legally on US soil unless its done through the proper authorization with the FBI and other legal channels. (The executive order in no way changes this.)

The immunity only applies to SPECIFIC types of activities by Interpol, its still not a pure blanket immunity in the sense an actual foreign diplomat can have. If Interpol hired someone and had them conduct searches or to detain someone without going through proper US law enforcement channels, that person would be violating the law as clearly as any random person doing the same thing.

All you've done is make highly unreasonable claims and quote from clearly extremely dubious sources who obviously don't understand the executive order. (Or are intentionally misrepresenting the executive order in order to dishonestly raise alarm about Obama.) There is a reason even Fox News and the like is not touching this story, and that's because its essentially a non-story. (There are reasonably creditable conservative media sources out there, I.E. the Wall Street Journal, which would report on a really objectionable action by Obama if there was actually anything noteworthy to report.)

 

[wiretap]

Again, a non US agency CAN NOT conduct operational activities such as searches or arrests legally on US soil unless its done through the proper authorization with the FBI and other legal channels. (The executive order in no way changes this.)

The immunity only applies to SPECIFIC types of activities by Interpol, its still not a pure blanket immunity in the sense an actual foreign diplomat can have. If Interpol hired someone and had them conduct searches or to detain someone without going through proper US law enforcement channels, that person would be violating the law as clearly as any random person doing the same thing.

All you've done is make highly unreasonable claims and quote from clearly extremely dubious sources who obviously don't understand the executive order. (Or are intentionally misrepresenting the executive order in order to dishonestly raise alarm about Obama.) There is a reason even Fox News and the like is not touching this story, and that's because its essentially a non-story. (There are reasonably creditable conservative media sources out there, I.E. the Wall Street Journal, which would report on a really objectionable action by Obama if they was actually anything noteworthy to report.)

Again, read the executive order. I don't care about bias news sources or who covers what. Go read it directly. And if you really want to know, news corporations never cover the things that take away your rights for some reason. They simply ignore it. Everything from september 11th onward has been glorified in the name of security, even when it removes constitutional rights. Sorry, I can't ignore it any longer and say I'm a 'patriot' for going along with tyrannical power grabs. I don't care who the new face of change is. Less 1984, more 1776 please.

 

[Aegeon]

Again, read the executive order. I don't care about bias news sources or who covers what. Go read it directly. And if you really want to know, news corporations never cover the things that take away your rights for some reason. They simply ignore it. Everything from september 11th onward has been glorified in the name of security, even when it removes constitutional rights. Sorry, I can't ignore it any longer and say I'm a 'patriot' for going along with tyrannical power grabs.

I see, so you want me MISREAD the executive order the way you're claiming it is, and ignore the clear problems with your preposterous interpretation of the order.

Its all a massive conspiracy with Fox News and even the Washington Times (at least as far as I can tell) for god sakes deliberately covering for Obama, and unwilling to report on the action...

You really need to take a step back and look at the problems with what you're claiming, and realize you're going firmly into the realm of the paranoid nutcase as you persist here in spite of all the rebuttals.

 

[wiretap]

I see, so you want me MISREAD the executive order the way you're claiming it is, and ignore the clear problems with your preposterous interpretation of the order.

Its all a massive conspiracy with Fox News and even the Washington Times (at least as far as I can tell) for god sakes deliberately covering for Obama, and unwilling to report on the action...

You really need to take a step back and look at the problems with what you're claiming, and realize you're going firmly into the realm of the paranoid nutcase as you persist here in spite of all the rebuttals.

I'm not going to waste any more time. When something is plain as day right in front of your face and you continue to deny it, there's no help I can offer.

 

[Aegeon]

I'm not going to waste any more time. When something is plain as day right in front of your face and you continue to deny it, there's no help I can offer.

That's probably true in your case since you're ignoring the evidence everyone has provided you. Its just not possible your interpretation could be true and no additional significant conservative media would have addressed such a major politically damaging story in relation to Obama this number of days later. (You could discount everything else people have said and conclude you must be mistaken based on this key fact alone.)

If you actually are still 100% convinced you are right after thinking things over some more, I in all seriousness would advise you to consider some mental health counselling at this point.

 

[shira]

Another right-wing circle-jerk.

So, INTERPOL is now "immune from U.S. law," ay? The lack of force is strong in this group.

Of course, a simple reading of the original Executive Order 12425 clears it all up:

INTERPOL is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act

The International Organizations Immunities Act (enacted in 1945) is not a blanket immunity from U.S. law. It's a standard arrangement that countries grant to international organizations, of which INTERPOL is one. The latest Executive Order merely removes certain exceptions from the granted immunities.

For those actually interested in learning rather than demagoging, try reading:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act#Title_I

 

[wiretap]

Another right-wing circle-jerk.

So, INTERPOL is now "immune from U.S. law," ay? The lack of force is strong in this group.

Of course, a simple reading of the original Executive Order 12425 clears it all up:



The International Organizations Immunities Act (enacted in 1945) is not a blanket immunity from U.S. law. It's a standard arrangement that countries grant to international organizations, of which INTERPOL is one. The latest Executive Order merely removes certain exceptions from the granted immunities.

For those actually interested in learning rather than demagoging, try reading:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act#Title_I

And you're proven wrong, right within your own link, LOL.

Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act

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.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not going to waste any more time. When something is plain as day right in front of your face and you continue to deny it, there's no help I can offer.

Comprehension is key to understanding.

You were just flat out wrong on this one, but shouldn't that make you happy? While you might lose an internet argument, now you don't have to worry about INTERPOL sending you packing without Constitutional rights.

 

[wiretap]

Comprehension is key to understanding.

You were just flat out wrong on this one, but shouldn't that make you happy? While you might lose an internet argument, now you don't have to worry about INTERPOL sending you packing without Constitutional rights.

I don't care about "winning" an e-argument.. because it means nothing. Maybe to you it may boost your self esteem or something, so go ahead and claim 1st place. I don't care. I know exactly what happened, and deniers who are throat deep in Obama's cock trying to save face for him can't show factually otherwise. It has yet to happen, because it cannot be done. The way the legislation is written, it simply trumps US law. There's no way out and no way to spin it.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't care about "winning" an e-argument.. because it means nothing. Maybe to you it may boost your self esteem or something, so go ahead and claim 1st place. I don't care. I know exactly what happened, and deniers who are throat deep in Obama's cock trying to save face for him can't show factually otherwise. It has yet to happen, because it cannot be done. The way the legislation is written, it simply trumps US law. There's no way out and no way to spin it.

No. It. Doesn't.

Nothing you have linked has supported those claims of yours in any way whatsoever. It has shown that INTERPOL has diplomatic exemptions against various FOIA requests, things like that. Absolutely nowhere does it show that INTERPOL can come into the US and confiscate property, arrest citizens, or anything else like that without going through the US government and our system of laws.

Look how angry you're getting because we're telling you that the US is less of a police state than you thought. Is hating Obama this important to you?

 

[wiretap]

No. It. Doesn't.

Nothing you have linked has supported those claims of yours in any way whatsoever. It has shown that INTERPOL has diplomatic exemptions against various FOIA requests, things like that. Absolutely nowhere does it show that INTERPOL can come into the US and confiscate property, arrest citizens, or anything else like that without going through the US government and our system of laws.

Look how angry you're getting because we're telling you that the US is less of a police state than you thought. Is hating Obama this important to you?

You just fundamentally don't get it. They can claim something is an asset to them and they don't need any 'confiscation' clauses or anything else. They can say they have an investigation and something is an asset to that.. then take it and they have complete immunity. That's the way the law is written. I'm so terribly sorry you can't accept that.

I hate all people who write away our freedoms.. this time around it happens to be Obama, so be it. I'm not emotionally attached to figure heads and hollywood-like celebrities, so I don't have a problem calling things out as they are.

 

[fskimospy]

You just fundamentally don't get it. They can claim something is an asset to them and they don't need any 'confiscation' clauses or anything else. They can say they have an investigation and something is an asset to that.. then take it and they have complete immunity. That's the way the law is written. I'm so terribly sorry you can't accept that.

I hate all people who write away our freedoms.. this time around it happens to be Obama, so be it. I'm not emotionally attached to figure heads and hollywood-like celebrities, so I don't have a problem calling things out as they are.

That's absurd. By your logic any embassy has been able to do that all these years too. Why hasn't the British embassy claimed that they own the Empire State Building yet? This is reality, things don't work that way. If they claim an asset and it is contested they WILL in fact need to justify it.

I'm so terribly sorry that you have such a poor understanding of how the world works.

 

[werepossum]

Seems to me that the really dangerous parts of immunity - that Interpol might intentionally try to kidnap an American wanted in another country - was already in place. I personally don't see a valid reason why Obama would sign away the exceptions Reagan put in place, but surely we can all agree that the new immunities are less troublesome than the old, existing immunities. I still haven't heard anyone give a valid reason as to why Obama might do this, though, but I'm no longer really concerned about it.

Frankly I thought the 11th Amendment already gave FOIA immunity to Interpol, leaving only the new immunities to taxes that probably haven't been enforced anyway.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Again, read the executive order. I don't care about bias news sources or who covers what. Go read it directly. And if you really want to know, news corporations never cover the things that take away your rights for some reason. They simply ignore it. Everything from september 11th onward has been glorified in the name of security, even when it removes constitutional rights. Sorry, I can't ignore it any longer and say I'm a 'patriot' for going along with tyrannical power grabs. I don't care who the new face of change is. Less 1984, more 1776 please.

Where were you 6 years ago, when Bush claimed the right to lockup US citizens indefinitely without charges, evidence, or trial? That wasn't a big enough power grab for you then? Can't get more of a power grab then unlimited power to lockup anyone forever. Whoops!

As has been noted in many places, Interpol uses officers from the member countries to arrest or perform investigations. So for the US, it would be regular FBI agents investigating and following US federal law (and FBI guidelines) if there was a criminal investigation. There would *NOT* be German agents (or any other country) arresting anyone, as they have no rights to arrest anyone in the US.

You are either seriously misinformed, or willfully misinterpreting this. Which is it? Based on the lack of complaints for the last 8 years for all the illegal and other "power-grabs" committed by Bush, I am guessing the latter.

 

[Specop 007]

National Review is a bad joke. You need to go elsewhere for your info, as we do to get the reason for this Executive Order.

The hypocrisy is thick the people who will squeal the oudest about any hint of any international authority in the US are the same who think it's great the US put hundreds of thousands of armed mercenaries occupying the nation of Iraq who were immune, as US forces are, to Iraq law, but also immune, unlike US forces, to US law.

Gotta love how the NR hack thinks he's proven there are no Bush and Cheney crimes just by his saying the phrase that the actions were 'for our defense'.

How twisted has the word defense become when one nation invades and occupies another for years, primarily over its concern that it can get its hands on that country's oil, and calls it 'defense'.

I guess Bermie Madoff 'defended himself' from his clients when he aggressively solicited their money. OJ 'defended himself' from his wife.

No wonder we changed 'Department of War' to 'Department of Defense'. Propaganda, and boy has it worked on people. The old Soviet Union propagandists must have been in awe of our guys.

How many of the Iraqi oil contracts were awarded to American companies?

I guess your whole "War of Oil" soapbox just collapsed.

 

[wiretap]

Where were you 6 years ago, when Bush claimed the right to lockup US citizens indefinitely without charges, evidence, or trial? That wasn't a big enough power grab for you then? Can't get more of a power grab then unlimited power to lockup anyone forever. Whoops!

As has been noted in many places, Interpol uses officers from the member countries to arrest or perform investigations. So for the US, it would be regular FBI agents investigating and following US federal law (and FBI guidelines) if there was a criminal investigation. There would *NOT* be German agents (or any other country) arresting anyone, as they have no rights to arrest anyone in the US.

You are either seriously misinformed, or willfully misinterpreting this. Which is it? Based on the lack of complaints for the last 8 years for all the illegal and other "power-grabs" committed by Bush, I am guessing the latter.

During the Bush Administration's years, some of the largest power grabs and Constitutional rights grabs have occurred. The Patriot Act 1 & 2, Homeland Security creation and expansion, the violation of Posse Commitatus, etc. I could harp on that all day long, but it's pointless now because those things already happened.. we need to focus on today and the future in order to get back our past freedoms. Until then, tyranny is still marching forward.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

During the Bush Administration's years, some of the largest power grabs and Constitutional rights grabs have occurred. The Patriot Act 1 & 2, Homeland Security creation and expansion, the violation of Posse Commitatus, etc. I could harp on that all day long, but it's pointless now because those things already happened.. we need to focus on today and the future in order to get back our past freedoms. Until then, tyranny is still marching forward.

Like I said, you never complained about those power grabs, and did nothing to try and stop them. But once that secret muslim kenyan ordered a power grab (which isn't a power grab at all, as it has been pointed out numerous times to you) in your eyes, you throw out the "tyranny is on the march"

Yeah, why do I have a problem with believing you?

 

[wiretap]

Heh, pathetic. I guess it isn't a power grab if a lib does it.

 

[JSt0rm]

Heh, pathetic. I guess it isn't a power grab if a lib does it.

Are you ignoring the fact that it wasn't a power grab at all?

 

[shira]

And you're proven wrong, right within your own link, LOL.

Learn to read.

There's a difference between being "immune from U.S. law" and being immune from search and seizure.