Exclusive: Interpol Given Immunity in U.S. – Why?
by PAM MEISTER
December 24, 2009
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?”