One of the stories that hit while I was on Christmas/Blizzard ’09 Part II break concerned a December 17th executive order issued by President Barack Obama.
It reads:
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.
(Emphasis mine, as it is throughout this post.)
Steve Schippert at ThreatsWatch explains what this order does:
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.
It gets worse:
Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets – Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air suggests Schippert overreaches with his last argument and asks an important question:
American law does not consider people as “assets.” It does mean, though, that Interpol officers would have diplomatic immunity for any lawbreaking conducted in the US at a time when Interpol nations (like Italy) have attempted to try American intelligence agents for their work in the war on terror, a rather interesting double standard.
It also appears to mean that Americans who get arrested on the basis of Interpol work cannot get the type of documentation one normally would get in the discovery process, which is a remarkable reversal from Obama’s declared efforts to gain “due process” for terrorists detained at Gitmo. Does the White House intend to treat Americans worse than the terrorists we’ve captured during wartime?
Here’s a better question: Why would he do such a thing? Why would he write an order elevating a law enforcement agency above the Constitution?
Andy McCarthy at The Corner may be onto something here:
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).
Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee also writes at Pajamas Media. He offers a look at what might be motivating this move:
If President Obama and his radical allies in the Democratic leadership have their way, American soldiers could presumably be brought up on charges as war criminals by enemy nations and marked for arrest and deportation by an international police force on American soil. They would face charges in a foreign land without the constitutional protections they fought and bled to protect. The White House seems to be on the bewildering path of giving al-Qaeda terrorists who murder innocent women and children more legal protection than the very soldiers that risk their lives trying to bring terrorists to justice. The asinine court-martial charges being brought against three Navy SEALs based upon the word of a terrorist they captured suddenly make a sickening kind of sense.
It also stands to reason that Obama’s seeming willingness to put American soldiers’ lives in the hands of a corrupt international community could also be brought to bear against his political enemies. Foreign investigators of dubious intent, and our own left-wing extremists, have long branded officials of the previous administration “war criminals” for actions they’d taken in the war on terror. It is entirely conceivable — perhaps even likely — that these same organizations and enemy governments that went after 25 Israeli government officials through INTERPOL and the ICC would quickly move to indict a wish list of current and former U.S. government officials for alleged “war crimes.” Former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would obviously be at the top of such a list of politically motivated suspects, but such a list could just as easily include General David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, congressmen, and senators.
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.
It’s the hesitance to hit the panic button that makes me mention this post by Jonn Lilyea at This Ain’t Hell:
Basically, the only thing Obama is changing is removing part of a sentence. That sentence refers to text that has to do with import duties on INTERPOL’s stuff they bring into this country and the withdrawal of the text gives them tax exemptions for income they earn here.
…
Yeah, it’s real riveting stuff. Let’s get outraged about things that are real – Lord knows, Obama does enough real stuff to get angry about.
Other bloggers writing about this:
- Dr. Melissa Clouthier did a podcast interview with “constitutional scholar Clyde Middleton of the Patriot Room.”
- Brutally Honest
- Wizbang
- The Anchoress
- Pink Flamingo Bar
- A Soldier’s Perspective
- Patriot Room
- Weasel Zippers
- Infidels Are Cool
- Flopping Aces
- Moonbattery
- Flopping Aces…again
- Political Pistachio
- The Liberty Sphere
- Doug Ross
- Alphecca
- Snowflakes in Hell
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Leave a comment below and sound off.
