After nearly 3 weeks of complete silence and stonewalling about the Obama executive order granting immunity from U.S. law to INTERPOL, an explanation of sorts was issued yesterday by the secretary-general of the organization, but not from the Obama White House. And the explanation simply doesn't cut it.
( AP Photo/IHH HO)
Valerie Richardson at Human Events was the first to report on INTERPOL's explanation, and Andrew McCarthy at National Review provided commentary.
In an attempt to address growing international concern over the secretive and ominous executive order, INTERPOL secretary-general Ron Noble engaged in some damage control, according to Richardson:
Why does Interpol suddenly need diplomatic immunity? Noble explained that when President
Reagan signed the original order, the organization didn’t have a permanent U.S. staff or office. That changed in 2004 with the opening of the Office of the Interpol Special Representative to the United Nations.The revisions bring Interpol’s U.S. office in line with its other seven international offices, all of which already enjoy full diplomatic immunity. “It’s international custom that international organization are exempt from FOIA,” said Noble. “We’re no different than any other international organization.”
That 'explanation' brought a sharp response from McCarthy:
That doesn’t begin to cut it. An agency’s having a permanent U.S. presence is more of a reason to bind it by U.S. law, not a rationale for immunizing it. And Interpol apparently has had no difficulty operating under the Reagan-era restraints during the five years since its permanent office opened. Moreover, as Richardson points out, Interpol is not just “any other international organization”; it is an international law-enforcement organization. As I’ve explained before, “what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical” are the constraints of law — in the U.S., such provisions as the Fourth Amendment, the Freedom of Information Act, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans.
Noble's reason for contending that the executive order is no cause for concern is based upon the prevailing wisdom of globalists who do not recognize sovereignty but base their entire ideology upon that of the United Nations and the European Union that 'international consensus' always trumps a nation's laws.
Further, this ideology pushes the envelope into the danger zone. Not only is policy and practice based upon international consensus but when it becomes clear that the 'international community' has determined that a nation's laws are unacceptable, then that nation is obligated to change its laws to coincide with the consensus of the international community.
In the McCarthy article at National Review, another crucial issue is raised that focuses on the supposed 'lack of malicious intent.' Apologists for the Obama Administration and other globalist entities maintain that Americans should not worry that INTERPOL has compete immunity simply because to date they have never violated a nation's laws or sovereignty.
The argument is spurious at best.
Is this to say that the Leftwing is now no longer concerned about the potential violations of civil rights and personal liberties inherent in the Patriot Act due to the fact that nobody appears at this point to be using the law out of malicious intent?
As much as we may trust those in government and law enforcement who have integrity, this is not enough to provide adequate protections. Just to be on the safe side we Americans cherish codified protections and limitations spelled out in statutes. You never know when someone with malicious intent will be calling the shots.
According to McCarthy,
Noble tells Richardson, “The executive order gives Interpol no law-enforcement or investigative powers to engage in activities on U.S. soil . . . [including] searches, seizures or arrests in the U.S.” He’s right — but that misses the point. The executive order removes Interpol from all constraints of American law. To hear Noble’s comment, one would assume that enforceable legal rules bar Interpol from conducting police activity on U.S. soil. But the executive order removes the enforceability of any such rules. That the order is not a positive grant of new powers to Interpol is irrelevant. The point is that the order removes the negative legal restraints that block Interpol from conducting unauthorized police activity. And it’s cold comfort to argue, as Noble does, that Interpol has a strong record of respecting its traditional limitations. It is a fact of life that when governmental agencies and bureaucracies are suddenly unconstrained, they inevitably freelance into all sorts of activities previously closed to them.
Thus, a legally unconstrained INTERPOL is a ticking time-bomb waiting to explode. And Americans would have absolutely no legal recourse:
If Interpol suddenly did start conducting operations that affected the liberty and privacy rights of Americans — whether on U.S. soil or overseas — it would now be immune from the provisions of law that can be invoked against, say, the FBI or the New York City Police Department. And if any American or official American entity — a private citizen, the FBI, a court, or Congress — wanted to inquire into what Interpol was up to, it would be unable to do so. The Obama order makes Interpol’s archives and other assets unreachable by search warrant, subpoena (administrative, judicial, or congressional), or the Freedom of Information Act.
The conclusion? INTERPOL's feeble explanation for Barack Obama's executive order giving it immunity from U.S.law raises even more trouble questions concerning the rights and liberties of our citizens.
For commentary on other issues visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere.
Comments
see international police force prison in Montana from prior reports.
As I've said before, INTERPOL is NOT immune to a 142gr MHP. Any police action they institute on American soil is criminal regardless of any unconstitutional "Executive Order." I couldn't find anything about Excutive Orders in the U.S. Constitution and if the power isn't granted in the Constitution it does NOT exist legitimately. Frankly, I do not think the office of the President has the legitimate authority to sign away the unalienable rights or constitutional protections afforded to Americans.
McCarthy is either an idiot or a liar; Interpol was NEVER subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act, since it is not and never has been part of the Executive Branch - the only part of government under FOIA.
@ Robert,
Was that the American Police Force with a Serbian flag or some such????
Could you please post a link to those prior reports..even if only in text form...on this comment page..??
Paladin, you are missing the point. The point is they are doing it whether they have the authority or not. You can argue until you are blue in the face concerning their lack of authority. We know they have no such authority. But they are exercising the authority they don't have to pull all kinds of illegal stuff, such as taking over GM and Chrysler and setting salaries. This is the simple truth whether we like it or not. And something must be done about it.
Anthony G. Martin:
"But they are exercising the authority they don't have to pull all kinds of illegal stuff, such as taking over GM and Chrysler and setting salaries"
Can you please elaborate on this comment? I don't get it
WoW,
In our system of government we have the principle of enumerated powers, meaning that the federal government has no power other than what is specified in the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the federal government the power or authority to become an owner of a private business, or become the controlling stockholder of a corporation, much less set the salaries of those businesses. Thus, every action the government has taken in this area, under the stimulus bills or TARP, are illegal according to the provisions of the Constitution.
The feds are thus exercising authority they are not granted. This is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and is thus illegal.
That's as dumb an argument as the FOIA one about Interpol, Martin.
The U.S. government did not just take over GM & Chrysler - the companies granted unusual powers to the US government in return for getting a bunch of taxpayers' money.
It was a voluntary action - you'll notice Ford did not take government money - even if the companies had little choice, considering their financial situations.
It's no different, except in scope, than when the feds place requirements and restrictions on contractors being paid with federal funds.
Old,
I doubt you are reporter or else you would know better. When this whole thing started in the last quarter of 2008, then-Treasury-Secretary Henry Paulson forced Wall Street banks and mortgage brokers to sign the agreements whether they wanted to or not.
And it doesn't really matter if anybody in the group 'volunteered' as you say--the Constitution grants no such authority or power to the federal government to do what they did. Thus, Chrysler and GM both are parties to a crime as well.
So, every federal grant that contains restrictions and conditions on minority participation and set asides is illegal?
It's the same thing: If you wish to suck from the federal teet, you have to live by the federal rules.
NO ONE held a gun to the bankers or the auto companies and FORCED them to accept federal bailouts - they could have gone out of busniess, as so many others have - and we taxpayers have every right to require them to give us something in return.
I'm not a fan of the bailouts - but they're legal.
Now, how about my ORIGINAL point: The Interpol has NEVER been under FOIA?
The point about FOIA is moot. It should fall under Freedom of Info NOW because it operates under the Department of Justice, which DOES fall under FOIA.
No, they operate THROUGH the DOJ, not "under" it - same as they always have.
They present something to the DOJ and ask them to investigate, make an arrest, etc. - but Interpol itself has NO police powers.
And you can FOIA DOJ, because it's part of the Executive Branch. (Don't expect to get anything on an active investigation though.) But Interpol has never been subject to FOIA and never will be, anymore than the World Health Organization is.
Anthony G Martin: I think Old Reporter said it best, I also think if GM wasn't so top heavy with white shirts, and knew how to build a car still, they wouldn't have needed any bailout money. If you're wasting money, and beg for more like Rick Wagoner did, then there has to be conditions. Would you loan $50 to a crackhead just because he said he was going to buy food with it?
Still a moot point. You can pull semantics games all you wish, but they are part of the DOJ, working 'through, under, over, beside' or whatever you wish. And as long as Reagan's order stood, they WERE subject to FOA. Now they are not. Period, end.
AGM: So you think auto makers should be allowed to produce garbage, pay more than any other maker, AND receive bailout money when people quit buying their crap?
From the U.S. Justice Department concerning Freedom of Information Act requests--
The Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) is the principal contact point within the executive branch for advice and policy guidance on matters pertaining to the administration of the Freedom of Information Act. Through OIP's FOIA Counselor service, experienced FOIA advisers are available to respond to FOIA-related inquiries at (202) 514-3642 (514-FOIA).
For inter-agency contact purposes, the following list contains the principal FOIA administrative and legal contacts at all federal agencies dealing regularly with FOIA matters.
Under Department of Justice you find the following entry for FOIA requests:
INTERPOL
FOIA/PA Specialist (202) 616-9000 (A)
Suite 600 BICN
Washington, D.C. 20530
The point being, if INTERPOL is not and never has been under FOIA, then WHY is all the info there for FOIA requests from INTERPOL?
Old Reporter--more evidence you are clueless.
WOW--stop wasting my time. I never said I supported bailouts for ANYBODY!! I opposed ALL of them. Sheesh. Go away.
AGM: Oh, like your time is better spent writing more dribbling articles made up of half-truths and paranoia. YOU are a waste of time, and apparently, a crackhead who suffers from delusions of grandeur, (yes, its all in your head) You, I am certain, are the clueless one. And you pride yourself as being a 'foot soldier'? You seem to be a stupid, arrogant fool, and VERY wrong with your assumptions. And no, you can't have $50
I think also, if you want to be like Rush? you need oxycontin... Oh wait, it all makes sense now...
Martin, you really need to learn to research further. Even just a little digging would have shown you that the ONLY thing you can get through FOIA of the USNCB is stuff from US GOVERNMENT AGENCIES - not Interpol itself.
Further, a lot of stuff even from USG agencies falls under Exemption 7 or 7(D).
From the USNCB FOIA page, www.justice.gov/usncb/whoweare/foia.php
USNCB files contain messages transmitted between foreign police and U.S. law enforcement authorities in criminal investigative matters. The USNCB also maintains administrative files.
The USNCB searches only its own records to respond to FOIA requests. *** It cannot arrange for searches of files in foreign countries. ***
(That means it only has access to records of USG agencies.)
In other words, Interpol is NOT subject to FOIA - the US office that acts as liaison to Interpol can and will only respond to FOIA requests concerning US Government organizations' relations to Interpol.
So many thoughts, assumptions, arguments and blind sleeping Americans (real Americans) missing the whole point. Do a little research (like the kind that some hypocrites are telling Anthony to do) and see where Hussein's (sorry, Obama's) Marxist/Muslim extremist views come from. He wanted Hitler style "brown-shirts" to do his bidding and now he's gone a step farther; his "brown-shirts" will be able to bully the whole world! say what you will (no doubt you'll falsely accuse me of narcotic use also) but the fact is, our freedom and independence has just been thrown off the cliff by your glorious leader; by 2012 YOU will understand, have fun with that!..............
Old,
Your obvious doubletalk does nothing but cloud the central issue--INTERPOL has been subject to the Freedom of Information Act. One way or another the process has been in place to get information from them. You just admitted it yourself in the midst of your rubble. Now that Obama has placed them above U.S. law, however, they are now outside the reach of even the DOJ or any other American governmental entity. Subject closed.
The problem with going back and forth, back and forth, with people like you is that you engage in circular arguments that go nowhere.
Either you believe in Constitutional authority or you don't. You have made it abundantly clear you don't. End of story.
So many thoughts, assumptions, arguments and blind sleeping Americans (real Americans) missing the whole point. Do a little research (like the kind that some hypocrites are telling Anthony to do) and see where Hussein's (sorry, Obama's) Marxist/Muslim extremist views come from. He wanted Hitler style "brown-shirts" to do his bidding and now he's gone a step farther; his "brown-shirts" will be able to bully the whole world! say what you will (no doubt you'll falsely accuse me of narcotic use also) but the fact is, our freedom and independence has just been thrown off the cliff by your glorious leader; by 2012 YOU will understand, have fun with that!..............
Are you functionally illiterate, Martin?
You could FOIA USG agencies BEFORE this, you can FOIA them today -and in neither case could you ever FOIA ~~Interpol~~.
Let's try an explanation maybe a states rights guy can understand:
You want to know what went on with a Joint task Force of DEA, ATF, State Police, four county sheriff's and 18 local police departments.
You submit a FOIA to the DOJ, the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, and any other fed you can think of.
Assuming it's not an active investigation and you are simply denied, here's what you'll get:
DOJ: Contact the agencies
FBI: No files found
DEA: Something, heavily redacted to remove ANY details about state, county or local involvement
ATF: Something, heavily redacted to remove ANY details about state, county or local involvement
Notice: if you want anything from State,county or local - you have to request from each under state FOIA or Open Records laws.
Now read USNCB FOIA instructions: NO INTERPOL INFO.
Interpol was granted immunity to finish the collapse of the Rockefeller Cartel, along with bushes/clintons and anyone dealing with economic sabatage or terrorism against the united states people and the people of the rest of the world.
read more at divine comsos's dot com's newest post.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!