By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Now, think about the consequences of that; Interpol able to work in the US with US law enforcement having no say in the matter. And INTERPOL doesn't have to work according to the Constitution; isn't THAT just a little progressive dream?
Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.
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. (Emphasis added.)
Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.")
Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets - Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.
Think about THAT crap: Interpol could arrest someone for whatever reason and you not only don't have the right to call an attorney, they could argue they have the power to take you out of the country for investigation and trial somewhere else and nobody can stop them. Isn't that a nice Christmas present from The Obama?
Which brings up the next part: that this could be a big step for Obama subjecting the US to the International Criminal Court:
However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.
Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.
"Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.
The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.
President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.
No bloody kidding. Go read the whole thing, and then start spreading it around to everyone you can, and start yelling at the congresscritters. This is Obama & Co. making another step to get rid of the sovereignty of the United States, and it needs to be dealt with.
1 comment:
I'm gonna say the same thing I said the last place I saw this - it's nothing.
INTERPOL doesn't have "officers" that "arrest" people, no matter what the people at ThreatsWatch think.
It has maybe 500 people worldwide, and a $59 million budget. All it does is let national police agencies share information about crimes, criminals, and stolen identification documents.
There's also no way that an executive order could make arrested American citizens into "assets" of a foreign entity; Americans working for the UN aren't protected by diplomatic immunity, yet the UN already enjoys that.
There are plenty of things Obama might do that affect American sovereignty in a real and negative fashion.
This? Nothing.
(If ThreatsWatch is right about the ICC, that's another matter. But that's... literally, another matter.
INTERPOL isn't a threat to American sovereignty; it's not an actor on the international stage, and has no powers to speak of. It can't arrest Americans, let alone do so with no Federal legal recourse.)
Post a Comment