Executive Order giving INTERPOL immunity in the US Signed into effect

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
How many of the Iraqi oil contracts were awarded to American companies?

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

No, your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension are the problem.

Clearly Hitler never intended to capture Moscow, since he never did capture it.

The *intent*, the *motives*, have been explained at length, but you are not going to get it, it seems pretty clear, and will just keep repeating your nonsense.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Heh, pathetic. I guess it isn't a power grab if a lib does it.
Technically this is a power giveaway as it helps provide an international law enforcement agency with more defenses and protection from our government and our citizens. I am curious as to why he did it and if we got anything in return, but it's not a power grab for our government.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
By the way, to any extent there is still genuine confusion about this issue, here is further clarification.

On June 16, 1983, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12425, which designated the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) 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, signed into law in 1945, established a special group of foreign or international organizations whose members could work in the U.S. and enjoy certain exemptions from US taxes and search and seizure laws.

Experts say there are about 75 organizations in the US covered by the International Organizations Immunities Act -- including the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the International Committee of the Red Cross, even the International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

(These privileges are not the same as the rights afforded under "diplomatic immunity," they are considerably less. "Diplomatic immunity" comes from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that a "diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State." That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.)

Basically, recognizing a group under the International Organizations Immunities Act means officials from those organizations are exempt from some taxes and customs fees, and that their records cannot be seized.

This, I'm told, is so these organizations can work throughout the world without different countries spying on each other by accessing the records of these groups.

Each president has designated some organizations covered by the International Organizations Immunities Act...

Reagan's 1983 executive order, however, did not provide blanket exemptions for INTERPOL officials, who at the time did not have a permanent office in the US. The provisions of the International Organizations Immunities Act that INTERPOL officials were not exempt from included:

• Section 2(c), which provided officials immunity from their property and assets being searched and confiscated; including their archives;
• the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes;
• Section 4, dealing with federal taxes;
• Section 5, dealing with Social Security; and
• Section 6, dealing with property taxes.

I'm told INTERPOL didn't have a permanent office in the US until 2004, which is why it wasn’t until this month afforded the same full privileges given, say, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission by President Kennedy in 1962.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...as-executive-order-regarding-interpol-do.html

In other words this is realistically a non-story once you examine the facts.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,254
55,808
136
I noticed that wiretap has deserted this thread after previously insulting people for not comprehending the issue.
 

wiretap

Senior member
Sep 28, 2006
642
0
71
It just becomes pointless after the factual information is presented, then it gets dismissed as conspiracy/hearsay/lolz/etc. The partisan ideology needs to disappear, and freedom grabs need to be recognized when they occur.. not just when the opposite party is in power. It's disappointing such narrow minded partisanship still occurs. But hey, as long as you're on the 'winning' or 'majority' or 'cool' side, it's all bliss no matter what happens. I'm sure some people here would just love to re-write the Constitution or put all people they disagree with in concentration camps.
 
Last edited:

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
It just becomes pointless after the factual information is presented, then it gets dismissed as conspiracy/hearsay/lolz/etc. The partisan ideology needs to disappear, and freedom grabs need to be recognized when they occur.. not just when the opposite party is in power. It's disappointing such narrow minded partisanship still occurs. But hey, as long as you're on the 'winning' or 'majority' or 'cool' side, it's all bliss no matter what happens. I'm sure some people here would just love to re-write the Constitution or put all people they disagree with in concentration camps.

You are talking about yourself, right?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,254
55,808
136
It just becomes pointless after the factual information is presented, then it gets dismissed as conspiracy/hearsay/lolz/etc. The partisan ideology needs to disappear, and freedom grabs need to be recognized when they occur.. not just when the opposite party is in power. It's disappointing such narrow minded partisanship still occurs. But hey, as long as you're on the 'winning' or 'majority' or 'cool' side, it's all bliss no matter what happens. I'm sure some people here would just love to re-write the Constitution or put all people they disagree with in concentration camps.

The argument isn't that it's hearsay, lolz, a conspiracy, or anything else like that. It is the simple fact that you were wrong. As in: factually incorrect.

You have been told this by any number of people on here, and the 'evidence' that you used to back up your side didn't say what you claimed it said. You fundamentally misunderstood what you were reading, and you started attacking everyone when they tried to show you how and why.
 

wiretap

Senior member
Sep 28, 2006
642
0
71
I'm sorry you can't understand the very basic fundamentals of the executive order I directly copy and pasted, which details exactly what I said. You're getting nowhere just dismissing it as some fallacy. The direct wording contradicts your statements and supports mine. There's no other spin or explanation that needs to be put on it. The executive order is written clearly.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
I'm sorry you can't understand the very basic fundamentals of the executive order I directly copy and pasted, which details exactly what I said. You're getting nowhere just dismissing it as some fallacy. The direct wording contradicts your statements and supports mine. There's no other spin or explanation that needs to be put on it. The executive order is written clearly.

So much for kids getting taught reading comprehension these days in school, if you can't understand what was written.
 

wiretap

Senior member
Sep 28, 2006
642
0
71
So much for kids getting taught reading comprehension these days in school, if you can't understand what was written.
You are talking about yourself, right?

OMG ZING LOL WOW GOOD ONE LOL!

Parrot and repeat.

rolleyes.gif
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
You are talking about yourself, right?

OMG ZING LOL WOW GOOD ONE LOL!

Parrot and repeat.

rolleyes.gif

Sorry, read Aegeon's post above....it lays it out clearly and in English. If you can't comprehend that, your reading ability is in question.

But never let the facts get in the way of what you believe. It's the troll's way.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,254
55,808
136
I'm sorry you can't understand the very basic fundamentals of the executive order I directly copy and pasted, which details exactly what I said. You're getting nowhere just dismissing it as some fallacy. The direct wording contradicts your statements and supports mine. There's no other spin or explanation that needs to be put on it. The executive order is written clearly.

I'm not sure what to say other than 'no it doesn't say that'. It's not complicated, you're just failing to read and comprehend what you are reading.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
Your spin does not negate their unsurpassed immunity.

Wiretap: This is wrong and a power grab. I say so.

Rest of world: No, because of facts X, Y, and Z.

Wiretap: Nope, you are wrong. I have no evidence, but I am right.

Rest of the world: No, all the people that wrote the law, the lawyers that interpret the law, and everyone else all agree that you are wrong because of facts X, Y, and Z.

Wiretap: Nope, I'm right. I have no evidence, no proof, but I know I'm right!
 

wiretap

Senior member
Sep 28, 2006
642
0
71
More like I copied and pasted the exact executive order literature into the thread, then you deny it and spin it around to say that isn't really what it means, then try painting me to be the person who is misrepresenting the factual data. Nice try straw man.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,254
55,808
136
More like I copied and pasted the exact executive order literature into the thread, then you deny it and spin it around to say that isn't really what it means, then try painting me to be the person who is misrepresenting the factual data. Nice try straw man.

Why don't you paste the exact part of the order that you think enables INTERPOL to come and arrest you/seize your property outside of US law?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
lol...this thread. Wiretap you retard just walk away like the rest of the neocons.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
I already did. Learn to read and you'll see it.

Give it up. All the lawyers and politicians all say you are wrong. There have been several explanations given as to what it means, but you choose not to believe.

When millions of people all say one thing, and all the facts say one thing, but you alone think something different. Hmmm, I wonder who could be wrong? All the professionals that deal with this in their job, or an anonymous kid on P&N that magically "knows" everyone else is wrong.

That really is a tough choice, don't you think?
 

wiretap

Senior member
Sep 28, 2006
642
0
71
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.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
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 wouldn't you agree that Reagan's earlier grant of immunity should be the most troubling? If it's not caused problems - and if it has, I can't recall it - why expect this extension to do so? I'm still curious as to why Obama would do this, but it seems pretty harmless to me, and I'm, um, a pretty conservative guy not given to trusting government in general and Obama in particular.
 

wiretap

Senior member
Sep 28, 2006
642
0
71
I don't believe Reagan should have put forth the executive order either. I don't believe any international organizations should have a hint of jurisdiction in our country, nor get a free pass on anything, whether it be tax/assets/etc.