Obama elevated Interpol over U.S. law
In a recent article in the now openly leftwing Newsweek, reporter Michael Isikoff accused one of us, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, of being part of the “wacky conspiracy wars” ignited by the Obama presidency. And what was our “wacky” conspiracy theory? Suggesting that elevating an international police force above the American Constitution and laws may be damaging to American civil liberty.
In a snarky piece that equates questioning the granting of full diplomatic immunity to a transnationalist police force with fever-swamp Internet allegations that President Obama is the anti-Christ, Isikoff glibly dismisses concerns that the Obama administration has now done what no previous administration would do–indeed, what the Reagan administration purposefully avoided doing: freeing Interpol, the international police force, from legal constraints that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans.
In the dead of the night on Dec. 16, as Washington wound down for the Christmas holiday, President Obama signed an executive order giving Interpol and its agents in the United States for the first time full diplomatic immunity. In effect, his action–taken without any explanation–freed Interpol from the constraints that currently bind U.S. law enforcement. Interpol’s assets and property are now immune from search and seizure and its archived documents permanently out of reach of American citizens, courts or the Congress.
Mr. Isikoff dismisses the executive order as “routine” and quotes Interpol Secretary-General Ronald Noble reassuring Americans that it merely gives Interpol the same immunities from certain taxes, fees (read: parking tickets) and public disclosure requirements enjoyed by other international organizations in the U.S. “The executive order gives Interpol no law-enforcement or investigative powers to engage in activities on U.S. soil . . . [including] searches, seizures or arrests in the U.S.” Noble has been quoted saying.
All of which is true–and completely beside the point. The difference between Interpol and the International Pacific Halibut Commission, which also enjoys immunity from U.S. laws, is that Interpol is a law enforcement organization. The overwhelming majority of police and prosecutors are honorable men and women, but like all human beings, law enforcement officials are not, as a class, angels. What prevents the men and women of law enforcement from abusing their power are the constraints of law. In the United States, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure while FOIA and other laws protect American liberty and privacy from being violated by rogue cops or corrupt prosecutors.
Secretary-General Noble and others who defend President Obama’s grant of immunity to Interpol claim that the order gives the agency no new power. But the point is not that the order grants Interpol new powers, the point is that it immunizes Interpol from the laws that can be invoked if and when it abuses its authority–the same laws that hold the FBI, a local policy department or any domestic law enforcement agency accountable for abuses. Since the President’s executive order, if Interpol were to act in violation of U.S. law, there is no law we can invoke to hold them accountable. And to add insult to injury, if an American citizen or official wants to find out what Interpol is up to, they can no longer do so. The Obama administration order makes Interpol’s files unreachable by search warrant, subpoena or FOIA request.
All of which is why, in 1983, the Reagan administration declined to give full diplomatic immunity to Interpol. Reagan administration officials decided that the agency merited limited protection but, because it was a police force, it should not receive unqualified protection from U.S. laws. President Reagan determined (and Congress did not dissent) that Interpol’s property and assets would remain subject to search and seizure and its records remain accessible to public scrutiny. It was a decision that served the American people (and Interpol, judging by its lack of complaint) well for over a quarter century.
Why, then, elevate Interpol above U.S. law now? Perhaps the biggest problem that critics of the move have with the Obama Administration is that the change came without any explanation. An administration and a president who are notoriously indifferent to American sovereignty suddenly decided to free an international police force operating on our soil from the constraints of our law and our Constitution and they have refused to explain why. After all, Interpol officials have not been publicly petitioning for immunity, nor have they raised any suggestion that U.S. laws are somehow interfering with their operations.
When the Bush Administration proposed, and the Congress passed, the PATRIOT Act in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, critics complained that the additional powers granted law enforcement in the law couldn’t simply be dismissed with a pledge of “trust us” by the Bush administration. U.S. officials spent years in court and in the court of public opinion justifying the necessary law enforcement authorities the act granted to keep Americans safe.
Now, the Obama Administration is essentially saying “trust us” as it grants an international police force immunity from American law. It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist, wacky or otherwise, to legitimately ask, “Why?”
Newt Gingrich is Chairman of American Solutions and a former Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008)
(7 votes, average: 4.43 out of 5)
Loading ...
Crazy conspiracy theory Newt.
This is my favorite part, in the first sentence you agree they will have no law enforcement powers but then you go on to worry they will abuse those powers…
“The executive order gives Interpol no law-enforcement or investigative powers to engage in activities on U.S. soil . . . [including] searches, seizures or arrests in the U.S.” Noble has been quoted saying.
All of which is true–and completely beside the point …. What prevents the men and women of law enforcement from abusing their power are the constraints of law.
I do not know much about Birth Certificates. Only that little Johnny had to have one to play Little League baseball, and bigger Johnny had to have one to join the USAF, and old Johnny will probably need one to get SS in a few years. Why would’nt, as my esteemed majority Leader puts it, “A light skinned negro need to show his to be President of the United States of America”??? My great grand daughter calls the tan crayons “Obama Brown”.
My first thought concerning any subpoena of records would be what if evidence pointing to the guilt of terrorists on trial in New York exists within Interpol’s records? What if Interpol doesn’t want to play nice and share that evidence freely to aide in the prosecution? Bottom line is, if there was no need to make this change, what drove it? Conspiracy to undermine the US Constitution or not…it’s still extremely unusual and needs to be answered.
The GOP loves this conspiracy stuff because it keeps their followers too busy to really pay attention to what is the important stuff. Stuff like: During the two terms of President Bush and with the help of a Republican controlled congress, the national debt nearly doubled. It went from $5.73 trillion when Bush took office to 10.7 trillion when he left office. When I saw those numbers, the Republicans lost my loyalty. Anybody else want some answers how the supposedly fiscal conservative Republicans managed to run up such a huge bill?
Back to this new INTERPOL nonsense. The National Rifle Association has a different take on it than does Mr. Gingrich (who wants to be a contender in 2012) Check out the NRA’s thoughts at http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=5284%20
Hmmm…interesting. So essentially some boys from an INTERPOL field office in San Diego could drive their blacked out Suburban down to Tijuana for the weekend then drive back to the office on Monday with no fear of search.
How convenient.
Come back on Sunday night and they can swing past L’il Wayne’s house on the way home.
The reason Mr. Isikoff of (was he not the koran flusher source), is so intent on smearing those outing Mr. Obama is he like all of this tribe are very uncomfortable in the Birthers and Truthers are numbering the majority of Americans in demanding Mr. Obama produce his birth certificate.
This is valid as Mr. Obama on his own website stated he was British, but it “expired”. No one’s birth expires and once one is British Nationality Act British, one is British for life, just as Mr. Obama’s parents were by birth and marriage.
Mr. Isikoff like all Obama elite voters are going to be quite humiliated when this grinds to place which exposes Mr. Obama an international fraud and people were either duped or willing maniacs circumventing the US Constitution. The easiest way is to smear Americans as Mr. Isikoff does in order to cast the light away from the Constitutional violations Mr. Obama has put into place.
Mr. Obama did more than just give Interpol a free reign in America, but he divided up America into 10 dictatorships, placing sitting Governors on this group board to rule America in emergencies. He can not do that as no elected Constitutional officer can serve two posts in state or federal.
It is like Obama roulette in wondering which one of these Obama high crimes is going to be the one which brings him down, and Mr. Isikoff is running out of fingers to point in smears and fingers to plug the holes in the Obama leaky dam.
See what I mean?
Like your new constituency, Newt?
Very cute, Newt.
It’s not what you say but how you say it.
Try it like this:
“In 1983 President Ronald 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.
Ronald Reagan
This order granted personal diplomatic immunity to INTERPOL agents but did not exempt the property and assets of INTERPOL from search and confiscation or protect their archives from the reach of discovery laws.
On Dec. 16, 2009 President Obama amended that order to include these exemptions.”
This…
“An administration and a president who are notoriously indifferent to American sovereignty suddenly decided to free an international police force operating on our soil from the constraints of our law and our Constitution and they have refused to explain why.”
And this…
“Now, the Obama Administration is essentially saying “trust us” as it grants an international police force immunity from American law.”
…is just playing on the irrational fears of that segment of the population who believe that this president is seeking to turn over American sovereignty to the UN and a New Socialist World Order.
I guess you don’t feel that you’ll be able to win the nomination in 2012 unless you make some overtures to the fringe.
Helluva start.
Bravo to a very concise, well written op-ed about an EO that has been little covered by other news organizations. The authors lay excellent reason’s why this should give all American’s pause.
“the point is that it immunizes Interpol from the laws that can be invoked if and when it abuses its authority”
The above should be enough for all American’s who love the constitution, believe in civil liberties to research further how this executive order should never have been signed.