December 24, 2009
Exclusive: Interpol Given Immunity in U.S. – Why?
Pam Meister
.jpg)
There are a lot of things going on in Washington during these last days of 2009 – the health care “reform” debate being chief among them. And, of course, most Americans are counting down the final hours until Christmas, along with the usual hubbub that accompanies the biggest holiday of the year.
Underneath it all, a White House executive order was signed that gives Interpol complete immunity from American law – something not even our own law enforcement officials receive, nor should they – everyone should be answerable to the law.
If you don’t read British crime novels like I do, you may not know what Interpol is. Interpol is the International Criminal Police Organization, which was first established in 1923. It operates in 188 nations around the world – and has had limited privileges in the U.S. up until now. Andy McCarthy explains further:
By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld. Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.
Interpol investigates international crimes like human trafficking and smuggling, which on the face of it is a good thing. But they also work closely with international tribunals like the International Criminal Court. Up until now, the United States has refused to join the ICC due to the provisions that would cause us to surrender much of our sovereignty. If other countries don’t mind giving up large portions of their sovereignty, that’s their business.
Brett D. Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation wrote back in 2005:
U.S. policy toward the ICC has been clear and consistent: The U.S. opposes the ICC because it is an international legal body that lacks prudent safeguards against political manipulation, possesses sweeping authority without accountability to the Security Council, and violates national sovereignty by claiming jurisdiction over the nationals and military personnel of non-party states.
It’s no secret that current top White House officials are in favor of our joining up with the ICC, including the State Department’s legal advisor Harold Koh, who has said that “domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law.” In other words, the U.S. Constitution, the foundation of the laws of this nation, must take a back seat to international law. This is exactly what globalists want.
(Koh also, by the way, believes that in certain “appropriate” cases, Sharia law has a place in the United States.)
John Fonte of the Hudson Institute elaborates on the threat to American sovereignty posed by “transnational legal process” advocates:
Of course, the "transnational legal process," advocated by Koh (and others in the governing center-left) is a process outside of American constitutional democracy. The American people have a Constitution, judicial institutions, and a democratic political system. Transnational "interactions" (such as appealing to foreign courts) are not part of the institutional authority and accountability inherent in the meaning of the phrase: "We the People of the United States." Koh's "interactions" are something "outside" of the "People of the United States" and "beyond" the Constitution and our democratic process. Therefore, they could be characterized as extra-constitutional, post-constitutional, or post-democratic. In effect, they seek to achieve results that could not necessarily be achieved through the regular process of American democracy. This clearly raises the core "regime" questions of what constitutes legitimate political authority and who is responsible to whom in a democratic state.
By the by, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave the barest of hints back in August that the U.S. just might join the ICC:
The US is at present not only not a member but government officials are theoretically banned from any engagement with the ICC whatsoever. An administration official predicted there will be increased US cooperation with the ICC but cautioned against expecting early entry.
Clinton, speaking at a public meeting in Kenya, the first leg of an African tour, indicated she hoped this would come sooner rather than later: "This is a great regret that we are not a signatory. I think we could have worked out some of the challenges that are raised concerning our membership. But that has not yet come to pass."
So what does this all have to do with the new Interpol immunity? Steve Schippert at Threats Watch writes:
In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that [the] Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.
The White House would like to see17 treaties ratified, including UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the feminist Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the unverifiable Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the gun rights-destroying Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials.
All of these treaties would severely undermine American sovereignty. Is the Interpol immunity order a step in that direction? “Why,” Andy McCarthy asks, “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?”
Why, indeed?
This, along with rarely mentioned civilian security force that BO alluded to during his campaign, is absolutely the end of American sovereignty. Say goodbye to "We the people" and hello to "we control the people," by whatever means necessary.
posted by: BillyJoe
Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 04:49 PM
One of Interpol's functions
is:
Corruption
Working together towards a corruption-free world by promoting and defending integrity, justice and the rule of law.’
Does this mean that the illegal alien in the White House will finally come clean?
And all involved will be arrested?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter167.htm
posted by: Bonnie
Friday, December 25, 2009 at 05:53 PM
If you Look at "ALL" documents W.J. Clinton Signed At the Uruguay Rounds 1993-94. The "FOOT IN THE DOOR" and some Cooperation was in the works.You will also notice How the DOOR was WIDE opened for Foriegn participation in OUR economy /politics.Can you spell K street manipulation of business for profit???
posted by: GRO
Friday, December 25, 2009 at 09:08 PM
This shouldn't surprise anyone. BO said during his campaign he'd use exec orders and other methods to get what he wants if Congress won't delliver. If we don't want the U.S. to be annexed by the U.N. we'd better wake up and get active. I intend to ask my elected reps: (1) Can Congress void an exec order? (2) Are exec orders subject to Constitutional review; who can initiate a review? (3) Can a private citizen initiate a Constitutional review of an exec order? If our elected reps have can "veto" BO's orders, then we must move them to do so. If they can't or won't, but WE can, then We, the People had better get off our lazy behinds and step up to the plate. Call your elected reps TODAY and ask the right questions, then pass the info on to as many others as possible!
posted by: Chuck Otto
Monday, December 28, 2009 at 04:17 PM
Specialists argue that credit loans aid a lot of people to live their own way, because they can feel free to buy necessary stuff. Furthermore, different banks give commercial loan for young and old people.
posted by: BowenLEONA
Friday, December 30, 2011 at 10:40 PM
