[Books]

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor

WHITE HOUSE LINK:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...ve-order-12425

Story Link:
http://www.examiner.com/x-3132-Phila...re-on-US-lands

Obama exempts INTERPOL from search and seizure on US lands
December 22, 2009
Philadelphia Conservative Examiner
Clyde Middleton

The concept of granting immunity to foreign nationals in our country goes back at least as early as 1790 when we passed "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States," wherein immunity was granted to foreign diplomats. (This Act was revised in 1798 by the (in)famous "Sedition Act.")

The immunities were not as broad as one would think, and that lack of a broad immunity has been tagged as a reason, among many, why the League of Nations failed. In 1945, at the same time as the United Nations was formed, we passed the United States International Organizations Immunities Act. This Act gave foreign diplomats many of the same rights as citizens and permanent residents - to enter into contracts, own real property, etc. Additional rights were given, and in particular was this:

Section 2(c) 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.

This section of the Act is the legal force behind all those "diplomatic pouches" we see in movies that cannot be inspected.

Before we get our knickers in a bunch, there is logic to this immunity. While we like our Constitution and laws, other countries like their Constitution and laws. It doesn't matter if the concept of personal freedom is more expansive here. If we expect immunity in their country, we have to extend it to them here. So we're somewhat stuck - we need to dwell in reciprocity.

The issue has been litigated plenty, with DeLuca v. the United Nations, (41 F.3d 1502 (1994)) being one of the most important of recent vintage. Our courts have consistently upheld the concept of immunity for international organizations - even though to do so leaves an aggrieved American plaintiff with no legal recourse to correct their injury.

Along comes INTERPOL: The International Criminal Police Organization. INTERPOL "facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime."

In 1983, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12425:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.

Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2(c) (presented in full text above), and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

What does this mean?

It means that we have an international police force authorized to act within the United States that is no longer subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure. The "property and assets of [INTERPOL], wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation."

INTERPOL, an international criminal police organization, is now poised to reside above the United States Constitution - in a place of sanctity beyond our FBI, CIA, DIA, and all other criminal investigatory domestic organizations.

President Obama has just placed our Constitutional rights under international law.

WM -

I'm not sure I'm picking up what you're putting down. . .

Are you saying that that INTERPOL is a criminal organization? That INTERPOL agents will start kicking in doors? I don't believe those concerns are entirely founded. As I understand INTERPOL, they are essentially an LNO organization between the world's national police forces to facilitate criminal intelligence cross borders. They don't have an "action arm," as it were and are forbidden by their constitution from interfering with member state's affairs. The 3rd Article reads: "It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character."

Also, what I read from the change in law is that INTERPOL is now elevated to the same status as other diplomats while they conduct affairs in the US. While I don't think this is necessarily a good thing, I don't think it's as bad as you guys are making it out to be. We conduct investigations on the diplos all the time and while we can't look into their bags, we can kick them out of the country, turn 'em PNG.

What I'm not sure about is why this was done in the first place. As the article states, the diplomatic immunity is a two-way street with other countries. But what do we get out of this deal from INTERPOL? Also kids, a reminder of civics: BHO didn't write the law, he signed it. Who ginned it up in the House and Senate? This law has a history and I'm interested to know where it came from.

As far as the Islamic community trying to criminalize critical discussion in the US, so long as we have a strong separation of Church and State, Mohammad can go pound sand.

And as for the concerns about searches/seizures by the black booted ones, I think the rest of the world knows that we've taken the defense of our bill of rights seriously enough to enshrine the right to bear arms in them.

my .02 cents . . .

Books