Obama Immunizes Interpol From American Law. But Why?

by Infidelesto on December 23, 2009 · Comments

This is disturbing:

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order “Amending Executive Order 12425.” It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

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.

More from Any McCarthy at NRO:

Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America’s defense).

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?

Rick Moran at the American Thinker speculates that it might have something to do with putting the Bush administration on trial for so-called BS “war crimes”, but also reminds us not to hit the panic button…yet

I would speculate that McCarthy has hit upon the reason; the president may solve the problem of “torture trials” by turning the whole thing over to the International Criminal Court. There are several hands in the Obama foreign policy shop who would support this move, while he would definitely get back in the good graces of his far left base.

But that’s just speculation. Perhaps it’s terrorism related. Maybe he’s just trying to please his European friends.

I’d like to see some others – like Eugene Volohk or Richard Posner – weigh in on this before hitting the panic button.

Want automatic updates?
4 choices: Twitter, Facebook, RSS feed or get daily email updates
  • SirWilhelm
    I don't see how this can be Constitutional. It seems to me that it legislates by executive order, the whole concept of executive orders is questionable on that account. It also seems treasonous in turning over our sovereignty to an international authority, no matter how well intentioned that is. This can easily be seen as a deliberate step towards making the US subservient to a world governing body such as the UN. The punishing of the Bush Administration could certainly be an ulterior motive. As far as I can see, the media, even Fox News, isn't covering this one, hope they pick up on it.
  • Solkhar
    I do see any such action as an attempt to alter previous Bush-Administration isolationaist and "we require special treatment" policies.

    As mentioned to John above, the idea of InterPol was cooperation and to avoid cross-border beaurocracy. like all international bodies, they have become used and abused by many nations for point scoring, which is a shame. Rather than scrap or circumvent it, the ideal way is to better fix the rules.
  • SirWilhelm
    I don't see the Bush Administration as isolationist. He welcomed anyone that was clearly on our side as allies after 911. He couldn't help it that many of those caught up in the intiial wave of enthusiasm could not maintain their resolve in the face of adversity. And I don't see that we had "we require special treatment" policies except where the war on terror was concerned, and they were based on the events of 911 which everyone recognized as despiciple at the time. Bush did make mistakes, which have been pounced on by the left and Islamic radicals, but as it turns out, they pale in comparison to the mistakes Obama has already made in his short time as POTUS, and this appears to be another one of those. The blaming of Bush for all our problems and his appologies for American exceptionalism have gained him nothing substantial from our allies or potential allies while making us look weak and ineffectual to our enemies.
  • Solkhar
    I have lots of friends whom work for Interpol and they are a client of mine. I do not think they are socialist or marxist and most people must remember that most of them are police officers on transfer and not civil servants. There are US FBI officers working for them.

    It is a difficult thing for the US to chose about being a full player or not in such things, as well as the likes of international tribunals. For my part you are either a part of the process or you are not and you cannot have half a foot in it, if you do you look hypocritial. If a country is unhappy or they think their is bais, then get out and break all ties with it.

    For example the US wishes Interpol to help identify and when it has the right agreements with particular nations, arrest people and bring them to trial or to a country that has extradition with the US. But, they did not have full-relations and a working capacity to do so with the US so the leadership of InterPol said no, cannot help. Now they can.

    As for War-crimes tribunals, the US has to play careful, because former Sec State Rice made the very big mistake of saying in a meeting how she was happy that certain people were apprahended and facing criminal charges, and a journalist took off her head and pointed out that the US has no part of that legal process and thus Americans were 'imune" from accountability. Again, you either be a part of it and accept all the rules, regulations and accountability or you stay completley away, and thus also keep your mouth shut over it. But what you cannot do, or at least you look like a smug a-hole in political terms - you do not say that it is good that other countries are in it or not abidding by it when your not.

    What I find as wrong though, is that the US does not recognise its capacity to rule against US citizens but it has two American judges sitting on it in The Hague, they for my part should be kicked out.
  • Storm_Rider
    The United States should cooperate with Interpol (and visa versa) when it comes to terrorism and international crimes, but neither Interpol or the UN must be allowed to have sovereignty over the American People; we are sovereign over ourselves through our Declaration and Constitution. Interpol must answer to American law when in America; you look like a smug Marxist or Islamist a-hole when you say otherwise. The same should apply to UN officials in the United States - no diplomatic immunity except for what occurs on UN property.

    What we need is a new international body composed of nations ruled as republics by Constitutions which are amendable by the people and which are tasked to secure the life, liberty and private property of all its citizens. Call it the "League of Constitutional Republics." Get America out of the corrupt UN; let the UN stew in Marxist and Sharia law. Let’s move the UN out of this country - it doesn't belong here.
  • yea, but why give Interpol immunity to American Law? Why would Obama do this
    so quietly? and Why now?
  • Greg-o
    I think that this is a way of attacking gun owners. Maybe a way of confiscating guns. Or criminalizing self protection like the english government does.
  • Storm_Rider
    Interpol is the police force of the UN which is hostile to the American Constitution, but friendly to Euro-Marxist and Islamic governments. Interpol and the UN are against government of the people, by the people, for the people; they are for government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite.

    The American Constitution is the supreme law of this land which can be amended by "We the People," not the regulations and laws of Interpol and the UN which are un-amendable by the American people. "We the People" of the United States can ultimately control our Constitution and therefore our sacred individual human rights and destiny, but cannot do this under the rules and laws of Interpol and the UN; we become their subjects.

    “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson

blog comments powered by Disqus