Just What Did President Obama’s Executive Order regarding INTERPOL Do?

All the way to the end to the meat and potatoes:
“clearly the Executive Order does prohibit US law enforcement from searching and seizing INTERPOL records…”
Thanks, Jake.

Thanks for the cogent explanation of Obama’s executive order re: Interpol. Unless someone in the press takes the initiative to push back on political pandering & hypocrisy (wherever it occurs) the public is left with the impression that such conduct is acceptable. It is not & we rely on you to help us “police” (forgive the pun) such transgressions.

Though clearly the Executive Order does prohibit US law enforcement from searching and seizing INTERPOL records,
officials say, those provisions can be waived by the president if need be.
typical of those like The Audacity of Golf to omit all of the info to try and make their ideological point….. absolutely no shame

Conservatives would again refer to the problem of ‘camel’s nose under tent.’ Is waiver of INTERPOL’s jurisdictional boundaries by POTUS simply another suttle way in providing a path for intrusion into US policy or weakening the American constitution? We must, at all cost, maintain US sovereign rights. We do not trust Obama nor his agenda.

Pathetic when you use an unnamed official from the Bush admin…who then proceeds to lecture conservatives.

===”The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have closely coordinated with INTERPOL for many, many years,” a former counterterrorism official who served during the Bush administration says approvingly.===
Why not name this former official? I don’t understand what is in this report that would prevent him from speaking on the record.

“Though clearly the Executive Order does prohibit US law enforcement from searching and seizing INTERPOL records, officials say, those provisions can be waived by the president if need be.” Really, Jake? Ex post facto? You know better than that.

So my understanding is this order takes the power away from the people (protected under the Constitution) and switches it to the President. Because now his branch is the only office to decide when they are under search and seizure and the Freedom of Information Act. HMMMMMM – if Bush was the only one with that power, I wonder how people would feel?

I’d like to add that a lot of people are making ridiculous claims that Interpol is now, because of this executive order, exempted from Freedom of Information Act requests. The problem with this being that because the Freedom of Information Act only applies to federal agencies it has never applied to Interpol anyway. And also that in the case of discovery Interpol has its own set of rules governing how it processes requests for information which require it to give to any individual who requests it, or anyone who has a legal right to request the information on the individual’s behalf, any information they have on that individual. Thus legal discovery is not in any way curtailed.
Interpol has a website, if anyone really wanted to know what they actually do and what rules they actually have to follow anyone could look there.

Also I almost forgot, Interpol doesn’t do any prosecuting anyway. During the course of a trial whoever the prosecuting party is, the state, the country, whatever, they’ll have all of the relevant information for the trial, and they’re the ones you’d get the information from anyway.

tierra – It works both ways. No one should be lecturing in what should have been an informative piece. Especially using unnamed sources.
______________________________________
Expert observations are called on all the time in news reporting. Is your problem that it is anonymous?

tierra – It works both ways. No one should be lecturing in what should have been an informative piece. Especially using unnamed sources.
______________________________________
Expert observations are called on all the time in news reporting. Is your problem that it is anonymous?
——————————
Or is the problem just that conservatives don’t like to be showed up by their own?

Or is the problem just that conservatives don’t like to be showed up by their own?
Posted by: tierra |
And you know the unnamed source is a conservative how?
Why don’t you wait for the talking points to come out. You really struggle without them.

And you know the unnamed source is a conservative how?
________________________________
Bush counter-terrorism officials are usually radical leftists? Hah!

===Bush counter-terrorism officials are usually radical leftists? Hah!===
Richard Clarke is a former Bush counter-terrorism official. I want to know who the official is. There is no reason to keep the identity secret.

===Is your problem that it is anonymous?===
Absolutely. Especially when it is totally unnecessary and your main objective is you just don’t want your readers to know who the official is.
________________________________________
Interesting perspective. The media commonly uses ‘anonymous sources’ – in part so that officials can speak honestly without fear of repercussions. In other words, it protects people who are willing to blow the whistle on wrong doings within government or other organisations.

Hey,’Oh Yeah’,”Those provisions can be waved by the President if need be”?
What if Americans don’t want one person making this determination? We just went through several years of constitutional wrangling with the Bush White House about presidential powers and Americans said, “Oh no.” Now you want to give this to Obama?

The article doesn’t say the official was a conservative.
______________________________________
Bush counter-terrorism officials are usually radical leftists? Hah!

CIA rejects charge it failed to share bomb suspect intelligence…
========================================
and Obama throws another agency under the bus to protect himself
______________________________________
The new right wing hogwash talking point – as predicted – comes forward.
“It was Obama’s personal fault, not an intelligence breakdown.”
Obama ‘blames’ somebody else by calling for a full investigative review of what happened to allow the incident.

===Is your problem that it is anonymous?===
Absolutely. Especially when it is totally unnecessary and your main objective is you just don’t want your readers to know who the official is.
Posted by: Axey | Dec 30, 2009 2:35:15 PM
_________________________________
Followed by reasons for using anonymous sources.
Is it possible the anonymous source mentioned in this article might have his/her current employment affected by his ‘honest comments’? Yes, it is.

Hey,’Oh Yeah’,
What if Americans don’t want one person making this determination?
Posted by: Suzanne
this may come as a shock to you, brace yourself, there is this thing that happens every 4 years, it’s called an election, I’ve heard rumors that millions participate, vast media coverage,.. it’s been said, that to a great extent, ‘we the people’ sort of get to decide, as they say, ‘who is in and who is out’.
further, Americans elect officials who can by legislation enact, change and delete laws, if enough Americans elect politicians with your perspective, your concerns will win the day..
I believe it was the esteemed Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who with great insight stated that: ‘elections have consequences’.

“Though clearly the Executive Order does prohibit US law enforcement from searching and seizing INTERPOL records, officials say, those provisions can be waived by the president if need be.”
Wow, so if the foreign cops are suspected of something, you ONLY have to go to the White House to get permission to investigate.
Impressive. This is so much better than petitioning GOD for permission.

Why complete inmmunity?Was not the chief of Mexico’s interpool Gutierrez Vargas, arrested last year for cooperating with drug lords? What if it happens here? they were paid up to 450.000 a month money talks.

Glad to see abc news is still standing by their man Nobama. This is no good for America but leave it to abc news to twist the story

This is so much better than petitioning GOD for permission.
_________________________________
You mean like Bush did for his attack on Iraq?

Republicans need to shut up with the criticism because this is exactly the system they left behind. Technology is the key to ending the airline delemna with terrorists, including technology that scans a plane before take off that can detect devices all luggage, plane equipment etc. It is amazing no emphasis has been placed on use of technology and its development to ward off and deter terrorist attacks.

Interpol has always had these considerations now it has been made official. Thus it protects them from some hair brained sheriff or other nut case law official from seeking front page for personal gain. One time Obama is right, and any president not just this one time guy can change the deal.

Posted by: William in Arizona
say hi to
Joe Arpaio, the Sheriff of Maricopa County,
what’s his latest caziness?

Other than Jake’s unnamed source, not one of you has made an argument for why this was necessary.
Additionally can we now conclude that all the howling about trampling on the constitution etc during the Bush years was just political noise and that you really don’t care if a president issues executive orders like these or if law enforcement listens in on American’s phone calls or investigates the library books we’ve checked out and they are all but unaccountable for it?

As if all the earlier presidents granting them various privileges is ok? Hey Jake, did you forget to mention we are also strongly considering inclusion in the International Criminal Court? Add the Interpol new freedoms to that and what do you get? Here’s a “what if”: our drones have gone off and killed civilians. Those governments demand the operator be brought before the ICC. That involves Interpol. Off the operator goes with no ability to subpoena their records.
Fine, let it all go to hell, you people never have the ability to look ahead, you would just rather “wait and see” if something goes wrong. It’s called “action of unintented consequences”.

Several posts point out the crux of the issue quite well
—
where are they? here? because if so, I assure you, they do not point out the crux of the problem clearly or well to someone not prone to paranoid type thinking or getting all ginned up about every little speculative thing.Rather than calling people selfish and ignorant, why don’t you spell it out in a calm, clear way, refuting Jake’s post point by point.
As Ron said, “It must be exhausting to see every little non-event as “the end of America as we know it!!”

As Ron said, “It must be exhausting to see every little non-event as “the end of America as we know it!!”
_____________________________________
Hahaha . . . exactly!
And just as the recent Anti-Defamation League report documented.

. Though clearly the Executive Order does prohibit US law enforcement from searching and seizing INTERPOL records, officials say, those provisions can be waived by the president if need be.
=======
That seems pretty pointless, no?

Broke Another Campaign Promise
… Just last week, Obama broke his promise as he signed into law the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill — a $636 billion behemoth loaded with $4.2 billion of pork …
Barack = Broke

Glad to see abc news is still standing by their man Nobama. This is no good for America but leave it to abc news to twist the story
Posted by: s
===========================
I would disagree for Tapper. ABC News as a whole definitely.
However from past experience and articles I find Jake Tapper to be a good investigative reporter who will investigate both sides and I think is as straight as the editors allow. he is the only person I can think of at abc where I will actually read his political articles.

Bush petitioned Congress for his attack on Iraq and your liberal buddies went along with him.
Oh and I believe your liberal buddies are the ones extending the war right now. Odd how Iraq isn’t on the headlines everyday like it was when Bush was President.

Jake’s unnamed source is an experienced counter-terrorism official (under Bush). People on here are not.
Not so fast little lady…

Republicans are draft-dodging paper tigers. Bush did not even bother heeding to the dire security warning before 9/11. Obama not only did come out with a statement right after the attack, but also took FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the failure. The Republicans WILL NEVER take responsibility for any failure EVER. Moreover like Rep Hoekstra, they will use this incident to enrich his coffers. So on top of draft-dodging paper tigers, they are money-hungry opportunists who will capitalize on anything to prosper their agenda.

Obama was drafted?
__________________________________
No, Cheney dodged the draft and the military completely; the ultimate strutting patriot coward. How many times did Cheney dodge the draft? Read a little history, there was no draft when Obama was military age.

The communists were right – this country will collapse from within – OBAMA IS LEADING THE WAY!!!

“Bush did not even bother heeding to the dire security warning before 9/11.”
Posted by: GuyfromLA | Dec 30, 2009 6:40:06 PM
_________
Have you even read the Presidential Daily Briefing dated August 6, 2001 entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike In US?” Are you aware that this PDB was issued BECAUSE of the questions that President Bush asked of the intelligence officials?
The last two paragraphs state:
“Nevertheless, FBI information since that time (1998) indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
“The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.”
Following the PDB of August 6th, President Bush and the National Security Agency began planning changes that might have actually prevented the attacks had they had a few more weeks to implement the changes. One of the areas looked at was the “wall” which PREVENTED law enforcement from communicating with the intelligence agencies. The PDB mentions that BOTH the CIA and the FBI were investigating the SAME call to our embassy in the UAE. Had they had a joint investigation would that have prevented 9/11? We will never know.
But the main point is that AT NO TIME was there ever a credible warning with specifics of an imminent threat. Therefore this WAS NOT a “dire security warning.”

The August,2001 PDB was classified. At least, that’s what Cheney/bush told everyone. How did Mr. Danley manage to release it? Of course, he just happened to omit the portion relased by the 911 commission indicating that “aircraft” were part of the likely attack

CIA caught a suspect and released him recently because they feared if they held the detainee too long Obama administration would prosecute them. It turns out that suspect was a high level al queda official. Also Obama won’t allow U.S forces to hit taliban who are firing from buildings and one instance they escaped as they dressed as women. A U.S base also was supposed to be moved from an outpost but was delayed because of Obama’s dithering and 9 u.s soldiers wound up getting killed.
Obama during the campaign said ICE agents were terorizing illegals. When obama took office he stopped all ICE raids on work sites. Obama and Napalitano cancelled an ICE raid against 100 illegals. Obama also released 27 illegals who were arrested before his policies could be put in place.
Obama last week released 6 yemen terrorists to yemen even though yemen is now a hotbed of terrorism. A yemeni radical cleric was involved in fort hood massacre yet Obama still went ahead with the release. Obama had gates praise the saudi rehab program in may when in february saudi arabia itself called it a failure. Yet still Obama wanted saudis to take in some yemen prisoners. Now Obama came up with the terrible idea of having yemen have the same rehab center for terrorists where they can come and go. But Yemen has an even weaker elder system.
Obama wants to please the elite leftists. Obama has some military tribunals but has these high profile trials to please leftist elite.
Obama wants to hold some prisoners indefinately yet releases all these to yemen. Some of the six Obama released last week went to afghanistan to fight us. One was caught near tora bora guarding bin laden yet Obama released him.
Obama as a lawyer is afraid of the courts. He will never appeal a ruling and five of the six released weren’t even in the court process yet Obama was fearful of the courts being involved so just released them. Obama has spent so much time sending officials to yemen to release these terrorists.
Obama also stopped the Bush policy of acting on u.s interests in yemen. Under Bush if the military wanted to go after al queda with drones they did. Under Obama we have to be the lackeys of the corrupt yemen president. So the corrupt yemen president has us using our resources to go after his shia enemies in yemen. These shia aren’t involved in al queda and yet Obama is doing this yemen president’s bidding in a civil war. That is what is even more destabling yemen and yet Obama has picked yemen to send all these detainees.
And Obama will move the courts further to the left. 5 supreme court justices are over 70 so Obama could get 6 supreme court justices and it could be the Obama court for the next 30 years. Justice Stevens is stepping down next year giving Obama back to back supreme court picks next year.
America handed over more power to Obama than any president ever. They gave him a filibuster proof president with specter’s switch, huge majority in the house and six supreme court justices over 70 who are retiring soon.
This is truly Obama’s nation he has more power than FDR had.

Cheney dodged the draft?
__________________________________
Yes he did, the question was how many times?
…
Speaking of Cheney, Rep. Eric Massa (who has actually served in the military) lambasted him tonite on the Ed Show. Everybody should watch the clip.
Also Dan Pfeiffer’s WH blog called “The Same Old Washington Blame Game” is very good:
“There has been a lot of discussion online and in the mainstream media about our response to various critics of the President, specifically former Vice President Cheney, who have been coming out of the woodwork since the incident on Christmas Day. I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers…To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.”
He also addresses the peculiar accusation from Cheney that the President needs to realize we are at War, an accusation I just find particularly lame. Ummm…Hello? Cheney? Ya think maybe sending 30K+ more troops to Afghanistan may have anything at all to do with realizing we are at war?

I think Cheney received 5 or 6 deferments..

The August 6, 2001 PDB was declassified and approved for release on April 10, 2004 for the 9/11 Commission. It has since been posted on the Internet.
You can Google “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike In US” and read the entire PDB for yourself. The only mention of “aircraft” is the following excerpt:
“We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [--] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of ‘Blind Shaykh’ ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.”

I’d like to add that a lot of people are making ridiculous claims that Interpol is now, because of this executive order, exempted from Freedom of Information Act requests. The problem with this being that because the Freedom of Information Act only applies to federal agencies it has never applied to Interpol anyway. And also that in the case of discovery Interpol has its own set of rules governing how it processes requests for information which require it to give to any individual who requests it, or anyone who has a legal right to request the information on the individual’s behalf, any information they have on that individual. Thus legal discovery is not in any way curtailed.
Interpol has a website, if anyone really wanted to know what they actually do and what rules they actually have to follow anyone could look there.
Posted by: JacobK | Dec 30, 2009 2:20:21 PM
_________________________________
Interesting.

Regarding former CIA Director George Tenet’s April 14, 2004 testimony, in a Washington Post article entitled “Forgotten Briefings of August 2001,” by staff writer, Dana Priest, published on April 15, 2004–the day after Tenet’s testimony–is the following excerpt:
” ‘That’s an amazing story (Tenet testifying that he did not speak to President Bush in August 2001),’ one reporter said, seeking an explanation from CIA spokesman Bill Harlow.
” ‘Yeah, but it’s not accurate,’ Harlow said, a response usually reserved for critics alleging CIA secret operations, wrongdoing or incompetence.
“CIA records show that Tenet briefed the president twice in August — once in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 17, and once in Washington, on Aug. 31. A CIA analyst who accompanied Bush on his vacation briefed him approximately six days a week, Harlow said. It is likely that Tenet spoke to Bush by phone, he added, but the complete record is not yet available.
” ‘He momentarily forgot,’ Harlow said of Tenet.”
What is truly shocking is that Tenet NEVER briefed the White House regarding Zacarias Moussaoui until AFTER 9/11.

GuyFromLA said:
“Obama not only did come out with a statement right after the attack, but also took FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the failure.”
Uh, yeah, just as soon as Gibbs and Napolitano got laughed off the Sunday morning shows claiming “success” in foiling the attacks.
They were what we like to call trial balloons, and no one bought it. So the President manned up and blammed policies that were put in place in the previous administration. How “big” of him, what a sterling example of leadership. President Obama blammed low-level workers in the government and policies from previous adminsitrations.
I guess Bush should have blamed the previous administration (for refusing to take Bin Ladin when it had the chance) and for Jamie Gorelick’s “wall” between the CIA and FBI limiting the sharing of information on investigations, based on Obama’s superior example of leadership and courage…

Can anyone explain to me how LIMITING our access to INTERPOL files eases information sharing?
Did anyone even proof-read this to see if it made sense?

Prince Kofi Milquetoast claims the IOIA is unconstitutional and notes that it is being challenged. Mr. M implies that the challenge somehow makes his unsupported statement valid. It does not. That a case is brought proves nothing.
An opinion from a 1998 case in the DC Court of Appeals started thusly:
“This case involves a well-known method of enforcing a judgment and a little-known immunity from judicial process. Appellant, in an effort to enforce two
state court judgments against her former husband by garnishing his wages, sought a declaratory judgment in the district court that her husband’s employer, a financial institution protected by the International Organizations Immunities Act, is not immune from garnishment proceedings under that Act. The district court, concluding that the employer was entitled to immunity under the Act, dismissed the declaratory judgment action. We affirm.”

So why didn’t you name this “former counterterrorism official who served during the Bush administration”?
If he or she is so confident this is a good thing, you’d think he’d have the guts to go on the record about it.
Or perhaps it’s one of the counterterrorism officials charged with subverting the Constitution and the rights of American citizens, in which case it would be counter-productive to his argument to be public about this.
Incidentally, a single unnamed member of both the Bush and Obama administrations told me this EO modification is dangerous to American rights.
But I won’t tell you who said it. Does that me a Pro Fessional Jernalist?

Obama will go down as the First Black President and the WORST. He is a bitter person and married one too. Something tells me he will be the last black man to ever be elected again…sad.

Jake,
You need to do a little more fact-checking. You wrote:
“(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.)”
The International Organizations Immunities Act is considerably more than that.
Here’s Section 2(b):
International organizations, their property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of Judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.
Of course, Section 2(b) has been in effect for INTERPOL since Pres. Reagan’s PO back in 1983.

It would allow Interpol to arrest Bush and Cheney and bring them to Europe to be tried in a World Court.
Put this together, Jake- with your other post about Obama declassifying Bush secrets.
Obama always does things for a specific reason.

If there is nothing newsworthy involved, then why won’t the White House answer these basic questions regarding the EO?
Posted by: CapCube
because, they don’t want to deny the conspiracy nuts continued opportunities to be crazy and make fools of themselves

If this order doesn’t change anything according to the White House, then why would the White House issue it? There must be a reason.
There is no such thing as losing a little Constitutional Rights and Freedoms.
This was done for a reason, now tell me what was the reason and how does that not infringe on my rights.
Again, no change no need to issue it.

“Conservatives can’t have it both ways,” the official says. “You can’t be complaining about the hypothetical abdication of US jurisdiction at the same time you’re complaining the Obama administration is not being tough enough on national security.”
This is an absurd comment. You most certainly CAN say that Obama is weak on National Security without then also subjugating the citizens of the United States to the investigative whims of a foreign entity within our own country. An organization that now officially can’t be touched.
If they choose to harrass an American citizen, there is nothing anyone here can do about it. It could be done in utter secrecy.
Yes, you can be concerned about national security without just accepting any assinign idea that is presented to us as “relating to national security”.
False choice. And a really bad day for the freedom of American citizens.

Jake,
Instead of STUPID FLUFF PIECES why don’t you ask him this question.
“Mr. President, is it true that due to your amendment to Executive Order 12425, INTERPOL may break into a home without a warrant, seize private property of a US citizen, hold a citizen for questioning without the right of legal representation and not be subject to any legal or criminal repercussion?”
I’d really like them to ask that question. Wouldn’t you?
You and the media have LIED to the American people ENOUGH! We are SICK OF IT!
Tell us the truth and start asking some REAL questions of this administration!

I like the way Tapper builds the case for INTERPOL, siting praise from “the other camp” to disarm those nasty conservative bloggers.
As if any of that mattered in the question of whether it’s appropriate to allow a foreign agency to have the freedom to snope, investigate, hold, sieze the property of, and harass American citizens. Without being answerable to anyone.
One wonders if Tapper would have a problem he himself found himself to be the subject of wire taps, etc. of INTERPOL? Would he try to appeal to his local law enforcement authorities? Would he call the CIA hotline? Would send an email to his Congressman?
According to the Executive Order, none of these people could help him.
But I’m sure, in Tapper’s mind, this work-around the protection from illegal search and seizure only applies to the proletariat, and not to his class – so no need to get alarmed.

You would think the American media would probe into this more.
I mean seriously, this blog feels more like a White House press release.
Will ABC not dig into this? Is this not serious enough to ask a few pointed questions?
Instead, we get a pat on the head from this reporter implying that this is just run-of-the-mill business.
You would think there would at least be a basic reporter’s curiousity.
I guess not.

Andy McCarthy in a National Review article writes: “Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?”
.
Too bad the rest of the worthless media is not asking these same questions and absolutely DEMANDING answers to these very valid questions!!!! Since they do not I can safely assume that they are either lazy, ignorant, incompetent, or maybe they fully agree and are therefore complicit?

Obama’s talking tough on terrorism now but why is he letting Eric Holder bring 5 terrorists to NYC for trial? And Eric Holder’s law firm will represent them. The lawyers will be given millions and we will pay for it. This is a tragedy for the people of NYC.

This president is a danger to our Republic and should be kicked out. A great platform for the GOP or Independent Candidate in 2012 would be simply to un-do everything obama has done, that is if obama hasn’t signed an executive order by then banning elections.

OldTimer,
So this is your defense of Obama? “Bush too!”
I thought that Obama was so superior to Bush, that any of his supporters would shrink away from any such comparison.
And, I guess, by your post, you are essentially telling us that any policy decision that has “national security” slapped on it, is justified.
I’m sure somebody has tried to slap “national security” on the socialized health care debacle in the same way.
Instead of taking a bank shot at Bush (big surprise), why don’t you just build a case for why this is such a great policy move. Hopefully you can make a better argument that ABC has.

Let’s look at this in a positive manner.
Maybe Obama is greasing the skids for the arrest and World Court prosecution of war criminals and other evil doers residing in this country.

I don’t think this is at all different from diplomatic immunity. Have a look at 2b:
“(b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of Judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.”
“From suit and every form of Judicial process” seems pretty self-explanatory to me. It means immunity.

You people need to get out more. INTERPOL is not an international police force.
It doesn’t have enforcement agents or any such thing. It does not undertake any police operations what so ever. It has no investigating agents. All it does maintain some databases and email lists through which information is gathered, correlated and redistributed.
It is an information exchange. It has a tiny budget of $58 million per year.
That is all.
This flapdoodle is making the conservatives in the US look like a bunch of raving morons.

I learned more from the comments than I did the obviously partisan article. Thank GOD for the UK media sources or I would never know the facts in my own country. Our MSM is embarrassing.

record

Captain Obvious- How is the article obviously partisan? It provides a historical background and logical explanation with citations. On the other hand, the comments you seem to commend are overwhelmingly partisan.

who is this alleged conservative Tapper quotes? It’s real easy to quote an unidentified people, but how does anyone know he actually exists?

This has nothing to do with conservatives or liberals. Every card-carrying member of the ACLU should be up in arms over this depredation of our legal protections against abuses of our rights and liberties by foreign agents, immune from responsibility for their acts.

dude open your eyes how can you look at each individual thing with this president and be like oh ok no big deals.. well it is a big deal because its all against the constitution.

“abdication of US jurisdiction” = eradication of sovereignty

Hey All,
“Can’t have it both ways” – nice.
Bush was supposed to be so hard on national secuirty as to call him a ‘fascist’, but somehow he never felt the need to put INTERPOL records/evidence/archives beyond the reach of US law..
I did a history & explanation of this over @ my place – Go HERE and you’ll see that, like so many things Obama has done that’s left people shaking their heads, this act wasn’t ‘overt’ so much as ‘set-up’… and the Devil is in the details.
- Ron

“…INTERPOL, an international criminal police organization with strong ties to the anti-American institutions and organizations, is now positioned above the United States Constitution; in a place of sacredness even far above our own criminal police organizations (i.e. FBI, CIA, DIA). No matter how you look at this, the facts speak for themselves; President Obama has purposefully placed our Constitutional rights under international law…”
Enough said…

So, the article listed what organizations three REPUBLICAN Presidents had added to the list…why none of the DEMOCRAT Presidents? Are we to believe that they added no one? I find that VERY hard to believe…show us the Carter and Clinton lists!

Jake wake up, stop relying on “what you’ve been told” you are comparing tuna fish and the international police.
doesnt this spell: abuse of power?Interpol was deprived of this immunity originally for a good reason.
this explanation is like saying concentration camps were factories.
this is a coup for power by the executive branch to circumvent checks and balances…it was planned in advance and is part of larger plan rooted in the fundamental disdain of americanism.

No big deal….status quo….not to worry…..Just another inch…no big deal….when will America have a congress and president who are not willing to give away our liberties and rights one inch at a time? I recall am old saying concerning “give an inch and they will take a mile”…? Wonder just what that means? Liberals, Concervatives, Independants, ALL Americans loose with each given inch.

So, do we really think THIS president will “waive the provisions” forbidding FBI to access Interpol information?!
Duh!!!

I can’t see how any American citizen can honestly claim that he or she still lives within a democracy. The constitution of America, which is the foundation on which rests every citizen’s civil rights, is crumbling away as the Govt continues to push its myth of “terror”. National secrity is the excuse the Govt uses to strip away the liberties of its people and allows it to continue to carry out its foreign policy,(War). The role of government acording to the constitution is to protect the civil liberties of its people, but as we can see it’s the agenda of the govt to do just the opposite. The implications of this executive order amendment are stunning to say the least. There is no reason to have an international police force exempt from the American freedom of information act. I don’t know about you but this just opens the doors to Dictatorship and police state. I have to say this is rather alarming especially when you consider the majpority of the american public knows nothing about it…What happens to those who don’t comply within a police state? I don’t want to know but I am suddenly remembering all those 600 odd scary looking FEMA camps scattered all over the US..I’m Canadian and I’m scared… Now I’m remembering the North American Union… God help us all….

You people make me laugh. A bunch of feckless, wanna be conspiracy theorists.
Let me tell you, if you hear about it on the radio, it’s because it’s not a secret plot.
Let me tell you another thing. If you think that America ever was somehow this “glorious land of liberty” that the “founders intended”, you’ve probably never read any historical text tthat wasn’t penned by some bloviating political ninny.
I don’t know where you people have been, but Interpol has been around for freakin’ ever. Obama IS the status quo. He hasn’t changed anything from the same, fundamentally elitist and capital-centric course we’ve been on since the countrie’s foundation. It was founded by rich colonial businessmen, with a paid, mercenary army, to stop from having to pay taxes.
And, quite justly, they’ve been using that system, from day one, to protect their interests, and avoid paying taxes. It’s the American way!
Interpol exists to protect money and international power. However, they don’t arrest you, they share information and coordinate with police agencies in their local countries. Interpol cannot order or execute anyone’s arrest, they simply reccomend it, and usually get their way.
THAT hasn’t changed one bit. That was the case before Obama gave them tax breaks. The document seizure immunity… I don’t know where you got the idea that they would ever have to comply with a FOIA request in the first place. The FOIA never applied to them. The executive order is an order, by the executive (the chief of all enforcement) NOT to search or seize their property. But, with an organization like Interpol, that’s a technicality, because only the executive would most certainly be consulted for such an operation anyhow Do you think the FBI would raid the UN without consulting the president?
It’s not that I’m for Obama. As per my CONSISTENT beliefs on these matters, I regard him as a lacky of the same aristocracy (powerful people who influence and perpetuate our government with connections and money… a real big secret) as Bush or Clinton before him.
I’m just tired of the utter tripe I have to deal with as a TRUE conspiracy theorist every dang time there’s a Democratic president. The idiots come out of the woodwork with half-cocked theories. Oh, and the Aliens. Freakin’ aliens. What is it with conservatives and aliens?
Sorry, it’s just that there is so much corruption in the world, it’s frustrating to have to deal with an influx of boob-toob addled baby-boomers, railing about some BS conspiracy they heard about ON TV! ON TELEVISION! As if this were the end of the world, and Glenn FREAKIN Beck had the scoop.
Wake me when we have a Republican president, so at least the fair-weather conspiracists will make some kind of sense.