Obama gives Interpol free hand in U.S.

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Mercor, Jan 2, 2010.

  1. Examiner Editorial
    December 30, 2009

    No presidential statement or White House press briefing was held on it. In fact, all that can be found about it on the official White House Web site is the Dec. 17 announcement and one-paragraph text of President Obama's Executive Order 12425, with this innocuous headline: "Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities."In fact, this new directive from Obama may be the most destructive blow ever struck against American constitutional civil liberties. No wonder the White House said as little as possible about it.

    There are multiple reasons why this Obama decision is so deeply disturbing. First, the Obama order reverses a 1983 Reagan administration decision in order to grant Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization, two key privileges. First, Obama has granted Interpol the ability to operate within the territorial limits of the United States without being subject to the same constitutional restraints that apply to all domestic law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. Second, Obama has exempted Interpol's domestic facilities -- including its office within the U.S. Department of Justice -- from search and seizure by U.S. authorities and from disclosure of archived documents in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by U.S. citizens. Think very carefully about what you just read: Obama has given an international law enforcement organization that is accountable to no other national authority the ability to operate as it pleases within our own borders, and he has freed it from the most basic measure of official transparency and accountability, the FOIA.

    The Examiner has asked for but not yet received from the White House press office an explanation of why the president signed this executive order and who among his advisers was involved in the process leading to his doing so. Unless the White House can provide credible reasons to think otherwise, it seems clear that Executive Order 12425's consequences could be far-reaching and disastrous. To cite only the most obvious example, giving Interpol free rein to act within this country could subject U.S. military, diplomatic, and intelligence personnel to the prospect of being taken into custody and hauled before the International Criminal Court as "war criminals."

    As National Review Online's Andy McCarthy put it, the White House must answer these questions: Why should 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 that will be beyond the scrutiny of Congress, American law enforcement, the media, and the American people?

  2. Is it possible that the US agencies, i.e. FBI, CIA, etc. are corrupt and can't be trusted?

    Is it possible that an outside agency would be in a better position to really see what is happening?

    Just who is the watchdog on the FBI, NSA, CIA, etc.?

    Why didn't the existing agencies do their job that would have stopped the efforts of the recent NWA terrorist?

    (No, NWA isn't niggaz with attitude, it is Northwest Air Lines.)

    Isn't it just a bit odd that security was so lax in this situation (and on Christmas day), that we didn't catch this terrorist before he entered US airspace?
  3. To cite only the most obvious example, giving Interpol free rein to act within this country could subject U.S. military, diplomatic, and intelligence personnel to the prospect of being taken into custody and hauled before the International Criminal Court as "war criminals."

    Make sure that Cheney isn't carrying his shotgun when they take him to the war crimes trial...

  4. jem


    One step closer to oppression by one world government and zzz is in favor of it again.

    zzz does not condemn terrorist acts and he is in favor or international police.

    Is he even american?
  5. Some of the executive orders that have been put in place over the past 10 years should make" the hair stand up on your head".
    This is just more of the same.
  6. Why do you feel the need to make up lies?

  7. I am against the concept of executive orders in general, Bush was probably the greatest abuser of executive privilege we have ever seen.

    Obama never discussed Bush's use of executive orders much, simply because he wanted the same power at his disposal.

    Congress should put an end to this executive order stuff, as there is no effective or expedient check on this type of executive branch power.


  8. That is my point also.
  9. Sadly, it should be the point of all Americans, but the partisanship takes us away from principled behavior.

    The right wing rarely complained about the executive orders of Bush, but they would complain if Obama did the exact same thing...

    I commented several years ago on ET that Bush's abuse of executive orders would come back to roost when the dems gained power...because they would also abuse the power of executive order.

    Really, in an emergency, you could get the president and congress to meet in a special session in 24 hours and pass any necessary legislation...if that special legislation was truly necessary for national security.

  10. What are the odds we'll ever hear an explanation? I'd love to hear it but doubt we ever will.
    #10     Jan 2, 2010