Obama signs EO giving INTERPOL Search and Seizure Immunity in U.S.

[vector7]

Been patiently waiting for this to finally take shape.

Umm, this is disturbing.

Just in case you forgot who Ronald K. Noble was:

Quote:

Noble, who is known as “The Enforcer,” has been instrumental in working with Chinese authorities to provide policing in the Communist country for major national events.

Quote:

However, his most notorious role was as Undersecretary for Enforcement of the United States Department of the Treasury, diminishing the actions of the BATF following the federal government’s siege on the Branch Davidian compound at Waco which killed 76 people including more than 20 children and two pregnant women in April 1993.

As Carol Moore writes, “Noble had approved the decision to go ahead with the raid,” and therefore, “had little interest in issuing a report that either would challenge significantly the BATF’s investigation or modus operandi or would admit these led to crimes against the Davidians.”

Ronald K Noble is now the first American to head the International Police Organization, with more than 187 participating member nations.

Interpol and U.N. Back ‘Global Policing Doctrine’

By DOREEN CARVAJAL
Published: October 11, 2009



PARIS — Interpol and the United Nations are poised to become partners in fighting crime by jointly grooming a global police force that would be deployed as peacekeepers among rogue nations riven by war and organized crime, officials from both organizations say.

On Monday, justice and foreign ministers from more than 60 countries, including the United States and China, are gathering in Singapore for a meeting hosted by the two international organizations.

It is the first step toward creating what Interpol calls a “global policing doctrine” that would enable Interpol and the United Nations to improve the skills of police peacekeepers, largely by sharing a secure communications network and a vast electronic trove of criminal information, including DNA records, fingerprints, photographs and fugitive notices.

“We have a visionary model,” said Ronald K. Noble, secretary general of Interpol and the first American to head the international police organization, which is based in Lyon. More than 187 member nations finance the organization.

“The police will be trained and equipped differently with resources,” Mr. Noble said. “When they stop someone, they will be consulting global databases to determine who they are stopping.”

Modern peacekeeping has evolved dramatically since the blue-helmeted U.N. military force won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1988. Since 2005, the number of police officers within the total force of 95,400 peacekeepers has more than doubled from about 6,000 to 12,200 in 17 countries.

-snip-

With the meeting of justice ministers on Monday, which coincides with a general assembly of Interpol police members, the group is expected to debate the global police issue and to craft a declaration that would lead to an action plan for international police peacekeeping within 12 months. [/b]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UN and Interpol Partner in “an Alliance of All Nations”

October 16, 2009

Officials of Interpol and the United Nations announced the two organizations will begin more closely collaborating in peacekeeping operations in nations ravaged and torn by war and organized crime. The declaration, which some are calling a clear move toward a global police force, occurred at Interpol’s 78th General Assembly, held in Singapore and attended by about 800 delegates from 187 member countries and the UN.

Interpol (International Criminal Police Organization) Secretary General Ronald K. Noble described the partnership as “an alliance of all nations.”

Over 60 justice, interior and foreign affairs ministers, along with senior law enforcement officers from around the world, consented to Interpol’s involvement in UN efforts to strengthen the role of police forces to maintain law and order. The plan is expected to shift from peacekeeping to peace-building operations in countries in crisis. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a video message, assured the gathering that the international organization fully supports the initiative.

During the meeting, participating governments, the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Interpol acknowledged that, in addition to military forces, international police peacekeeping is vital, especially in post-conflict zones.

Andrew Hughes, current head of the U.N.’s force of police officers explained in The New York Times that organized crime functions as would any other corporation. He called it “a business that looks for opportunity to expand their market enterprise…When you have a breakdown in police and courts and corrections, organized crime is ripe,” which “gives birth to the toxic effect of corruption” and makes it “difficult to build a functioning society.”

Clarifying his organization’s role in the alliance, Interpol’s Director of Legal Affairs, Joel Sollier, stated, “Interpol is not going to send troops out into the field here and there throughout the world. What Interpol is going to do is provide technical assistance, technical support” (AFP).

General Noble described the relationship in a statement: “In the framework of our partnership with the UN, Interpol will provide deployed police peacekeepers with access to the world’s only secure global police communications system; global police databases including names of criminals, fingerprints, DNA profiles, stolen passports, and stolen vehicles; and specialized investigative support in key crime areas, including fugitives, drugs, terrorism, trafficking in human beings and corruption.
Mr. Noble noted the alliance will make it possible for the UN to handle international conflicts and transnational crime much better by relying on Interpol’s resources.

The alliance, according to The New York Times, will favor recruiting women in particular, and will work toward increasing female UN force numbers to 20 percent. This includes new, all-female units like the soon-to-be-deployed group of 140 peacekeepers from Bangladesh. Mr. Hughes said the motivation for the new units was that “Many of the victims of atrocities are women, and they’ve had enough of men with guns and uniforms.”

During the next year, world leaders of the two international organizations are scheduled to draw up a plan of action to further solidify the partnership.

Waco Siege "Enforcer" To Rule Over Global UN and Interpol Police Force coming to US

Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:19 PM EDT

For a taste of what Americans who aren't so favorable to taking orders from foreigners on home soil can expect, consider the fact that the secretary general of Interpol, and one of the men at the forefront of setting up the global police force, is none other than Ronald K. Noble.

Noble, who is known as "The Enforcer," has been instrumental in working with Chinese authorities to provide policing in the Communist country for major national events.

The danger of having a global police force conducting law enforcement on U.S. soil under the control of Interpol and the UN is self-evident. Global cops who do not have to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution have no obligation to follow it. Operating outside of the realms of the U.S. legal system, global cops will have carte blanche to snatch, grab and intern citizens without recourse. A highly centralized system of policing guarantees hardly any liability whatsoever and therefore encourages rampant illegality and police brutality.

[vector7]

Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Executive Order gives INTERPOL Immunity in U.S.- Is this the end of our Sovereignty and the Beginning of One World Government?

Our President signed an Executive Order giving INTERPOL immunity in the USA to act as they see fit....but we are not governed by International law you say, we are a Sovereign nation....well we'll see about that in the coming three years.

From the White House Press Office:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425
EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

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.

BARACK OBAMA

H/T Dawn Marie Jones
Posted by Jody L. Wilcox at 12:29 PM
Labels: Executive Order giving INTERPOL immunity

[vector7]

It's Begun!!

• Posted by Don Vondran on December 22, 2009 at 7:51am
• View Don Vondran's blog

Borrowed text from Alftie on Oath Keepers.......ALERT....ALERT....ALERT!!!!
You guys need to read this.

Have you guys seen this, I hadn't until just now on another list. All the puzzle pieces are falling into place and much too fast for me. I did a quick search on eo 12425 and there it was.

on dec. 16th,in the dead of night,no press,obama signed order giving INTERPOL immunity in the USA and giving them authority to act with homeland security-- guess who's coming to dinner?
Executive Order 12425 - Interpol now has immunity and impunity to function inside our country
Starting to get the picture now? Guess who is coming to your doorstep with the DHS.

EO: AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

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.

Here's the text of 2(c), which this EO now has applying to INTERPOL:
(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.

An INTERPOL branch in the US now cannot be searched, it's files are not subject to legal subpoena nor discovery. If any branch of government wants to keep documents out of the hands of the court system, just hand them over to INTERPOL until the smoke clears.

INTERPOL will now be able to maintain files on US citizens.

By this EO, Obama has conferred diplomatic immunity upon INTERPOL, exemption from being subject to search and seizure by law enforcement, exemption from US taxes, and immunity from FOIA requests, etc.

Obama just declared INTERPOL records immune from search and seizure -- "The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable."

Does INTERPOL have a file on Obama -- on his associations?

Yep this is CONFIRMED!!! Check it out on the obamafile or here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...order-amending...

[samizdat]

http://www.atf.gov/

[vector7]

Couple Interpol's UN Global Police Fusion Task Force with DHS Domestic Extremism report and Rightwing Extremism report.

Fusion Task Force
Operational investigative support

Fusion Task - what and why?
As the planning for terrorist attacks often spans countries and regions, fighting terrorism requires the same level of effort and cooperation among nations. Spearheading INTERPOL's anti-terrorism efforts is the Fusion Task Force (FTF), created in September 2002 in the wake of the alarming rise in the scale and sophistication of international terrorist attacks.
FTF's primary objectives are to:

• identify active terrorist groups and their membership
• solicit, collect and share information and intelligence
• provide analytical support
• enhance the capacity of member countries to address the threats of terrorism and organised crime.

As terrorist organisations' far-reaching activities are inextricably linked, the task force investigates not only attacks, but also organizational hierarchies, training, financing, methods, and motives.

INTERPOL has identified public safety and terrorism as a priority crime area, and countries can benefit from INTERPOL's unique position in the international law enforcement community in the fight against terrorism. The INTERPOL officials involved with the FTF are all terrorism specialists seconded from their home countries.

Regional & global efforts
Six regional task forces have been created in regions considered to be particularly susceptible to terrorist activity: Project Pacific (Southeast Asia), Project Kalkan (Central Asia), Project Amazon (South America), Project Baobab (Africa), Project NEXUS (Europe) and Project Middle East.

An immediate goal is to increase the number of officers from the above regions to develop region-specific initiatives and enhance the effectiveness of the task force in these areas. In January 2008, 119 member states were contributing to terrorism related matters.

Fusion Task Force in action
INTERPOL works closely with organizations such as the United Nations Al Qaeda and Taliban monitoring teams and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to maintain its lists of suspected terrorists. FTF also maintains a secure website for member countries which includes all information on the Fusion Task Working Group Meetings, including presentations and analytical reports; photo boards of suspected terrorists; notices and diffusion lists. In January 2008, 545 users were accessing the FTF restricted web site.

Returns on investment
FTF efforts have already reaped substantial returns: as in January 2008, there were 8479 persons suspected in database linked to terrorist activities who have no ASF restriction; the FTF team has built a contact network of nearly 200 contact officers in more than 100 member countries.

[vector7]

Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?

[Andy McCarthy]

You just can't make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.

Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. 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.

On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

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).

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why 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?

[vector7]

Obama exempts INTERPOL from search and seizure on US lands

by: Clyde Middleton posted: 2009-12-21 21:50:00
Viewed 2745 times. 11 Comments.

This post is based on a post at Brutally Honest. See also my follow-up piece here.
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.

[vector7]

Wither Sovereignty

Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next?

By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton

Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." 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.

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425 EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES
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©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
BARACK OBAMA THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.

After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.

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© 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.

Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.

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. (Emphasis added.)

Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.")
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.

Context: International Criminal Court

The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.
We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC's Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF).

29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute - the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)

President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.

President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.

President Obama's words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely "premature to commit" to signing America on.

However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.

Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.

"Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.

The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.

President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's 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 pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.

When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body who's INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.

For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.

This is the disturbing context for President Obama's quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here,
here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media.

Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.

[vector7]

Further research: INTERPOL the only police authority entity exempt from S&S under 1945 Act

by: Clyde Middleton posted: 2009-12-23 09:50:00
Viewed 268 times. 0 Comments.

See this article for background.

Here's an exhaustive list of every "international organization" given recognition under the United States International Organizations Immunities Act (1945). I have set to bold the entry for INTERPOL.

Notice that INTERPOL is the only entity remotely close to a law-enforcement agency. The overwhelming majority of entries can be viewed as humanitarian or trade. Notice further that only two entries have "limited privileges" - INTERPOL and the International Food Policy Research Institute. Of course, now, the IFPRI stands alone in that category.

TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER XVIII > § 288
The following organizations shall be considered public international organizations for purposes of this section:

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. See section 7622 of this title.

The International Development Law Institute. See section 288j of this title.

International organizations were designated by executive order as public international organizations entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act (this subchapter) as follows:

African Development Bank, Ex. Ord. No. 12403, Feb. 8, 1983, 48 F.R. 6087.

African Development Fund, Ex. Ord. No. 11977, Mar. 14, 1977, 42 F.R. 14671.

African Union, Ex. Ord. No. 13377, Apr. 13, 2005, 70 F.R. 20263.

Asian Development Bank, Ex. Ord. No. 11334, Mar. 7, 1967, 32 F.R. 3933.

Border Environment Cooperation Commission, Ex. Ord. No. 12904, Mar. 16, 1994, 59 F.R. 13179.

Caribbean Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 10983, Dec. 30, 1961, 27 F.R. 32.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Ex. Ord. No. 12904, Mar. 16, 1994, 59 F.R. 13179.

Commission for Labor Cooperation, Ex. Ord. No. 12904, Mar. 16, 1994, 59 F.R. 13179.

Commission for the Study of Alternatives to the Panama Canal, Ex. Ord. No. 12567, Oct. 2, 1986, 51 F.R. 35495.

Council of Europe in Respect of the Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO), Ex. Ord. No. 13240, Dec. 18, 2001, 66 F.R. 66257.

Customs Cooperation Council, Ex. Ord. No. 11596, June 5, 1971, 36 F.R. 11079.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Ex. Ord. No. 12766, June 18, 1991, 56 F.R. 28463.

European Central Bank, Ex. Ord. No. 13307, May 29, 2003, 68 F.R. 33338.

European Space Agency, Ex. Ord. No. 11318, Dec. 5, 1966,31 F.R. 15307; Ex. Ord. No. 11351, May 22, 1967, 32 F.R. 7561; Ex. Ord. No. 11760, Jan. 17, 1974, 39 F.R. 2343; Ex. Ord. No. 12766, June 18, 1991, 56 F.R. 28463.

Food and Agriculture Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 9698, Feb. 19, 1946, 11 F.R. 1809.

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Ex. Ord. No. 13395, Jan. 13, 2006, 71 F.R. 3203.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ex. Ord. No. 11059, Oct. 23, 1962, 27 F.R. 10405.

Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices, Ex. Ord. No. 13052, June 30, 1997, 62 F.R. 35659.

Inter-American Defense Board, Ex. Ord. No. 10228, Mar. 26, 1951, 16 F.R. 2676.

Inter-American Development Bank, Ex. Ord. No. 10873, Apr. 8, 1960, 25 F.R. 3097; Ex. Ord. No. 11019, Apr. 27, 1962, 27 F.R. 4145.

Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Ex. Ord. No. 9751, July 11, 1946, 11 F.R. 7713.

Inter-American Investment Corporation, Ex. Ord. No. 12567, Oct. 2, 1986, 51 F.R. 35495.

Inter-American Statistical Institute, Ex. Ord. No. 9751, July 11, 1946, 11 F.R. 7713.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Ex. Ord. No. 11059, Oct. 23, 1962, 27 F.R. 10405.

Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 10795, Dec. 13, 1958, 23F.R. 9709.

International Atomic Energy Agency, Ex. Ord. No. 10727, Aug. 31, 1957, 22 F.R. 7099.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Ex. Ord. No. 9751, July 11, 1946, 11 F.R. 7713.

International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, Ex. Ord. No. 12467, Mar. 2, 1984, 49 F.R. 8229.

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Ex. Ord. No. 11966, Jan. 19, 1977, 42 F.R. 4331.

International Civil Aviation Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 9863, May 31, 1947,12 F.R. 3559.

International Coffee Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 11225, May 22, 1965, 30 F.R. 7093.

International Committee of the Red Cross, Ex. Ord. No. 12643, June 23, 1988, 53 F.R. 24247.

International Cotton Advisory Committee, Ex. Ord. No. 9911, Dec. 19, 1947,12 F.R. 8719.

International Cotton Institute, Ex. Ord. No. 11283, May 27, 1966, 31 F.R. 7667.

International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) (limited privileges), Ex. Ord. No. 12425, June 16, 1983, 48 F.R. 28069; Ex. Ord. No. 12971, Sept. 15, 1995, 60F.R. 48617.

International Development Association, Ex. Ord. No. 11966, Jan. 19, 1977, 42 F.R. 4331.

International Development Law Institute, Ex. Ord. No. 12842, Mar. 29, 1993, 58 F.R. 17081.

International Fertilizer Development Center, Ex. Ord. No. 11977, Mar. 14, 1977, 42 F.R. 14671.

International Finance Corporation, Ex. Ord. No. 10680, Oct. 2, 1956, 21 F.R. 7647.

International Food Policy Research Institute (limited privileges), Ex. Ord. No. 12359, Apr. 22, 1982, 47 F.R. 17791.

International Fund for Agricultural Development, Ex. Ord. No. 12732, Oct. 31, 1990, 55 F.R. 46489.

International Hydrographic Bureau, Ex. Ord. No. 10769, May 29, 1958,23 F.R. 3801.

International Joint Commission—United States and Canada, Ex. Ord. No. 9972, June 25, 1948, 13 F.R. 3573.

International Labor Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 9698, Feb. 19, 1946, 11 F.R. 1809.

International Maritime Satellite Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 12238, Sept. 12, 1980, 45 F.R. 60877.

International Monetary Fund, Ex. Ord. No. 9751, July 11, 1946, 11 F.R. 7713.

International Pacific Halibut Commission, Ex. Ord. No. 11059, Oct. 23, 1962, 27 F.R. 10405.

International Secretariat for Volunteer Service, Ex. Ord. No. 11363, July 20, 1967, 32 F.R. 10779.

International Telecommunication Union, Ex. Ord. No. 9863, May 31, 1947,12 F.R. 3559.

International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT), Ex. Ord. No. 11718, May 14, 1973, 38 F.R. 12797; Ex. Ord. No. 11966, Jan. 19,
1977, 42 F.R. 4331.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Ex. Ord. No. 12986, Jan. 18, 1996, 61 F.R. 1693.

International Wheat Advisory Committee (International Wheat Council), Ex. Ord. No. 9823, Jan. 24, 1947, 12 F.R. 551.

Interparliamentary Union, Ex. Ord. No. 13097, Aug. 7, 1998, 63 F.R. 43065.

Israel-United States Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation, Ex. Ord. No. 12956, Mar. 13, 1995, 60 F.R. 14199.

ITER International Fusion Energy Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 13451, Nov. 19, 2007, 72 F.R. 65653.

Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 12997, Apr. 1, 1996, 61 F.R. 14949.

Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, Ex. Ord. No. 12647, Aug. 2, 1988, 53 F.R. 29323.

Multinational Force and Observers, Ex. Ord. No. 12359, Apr. 22, 1982, 47 F.R. 17791.

North American Development Bank, Ex. Ord. No. 12904, Mar. 16, 1994, 59 F.R. 13179.

North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission, Ex. Ord. No. 12895, Jan. 26, 1994, 59 F.R. 4239.

North Pacific Marine Science Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 12894, Jan. 26, 1994, 59 F.R. 4237.

Organization for European Economic Cooperation (now known as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), Ex. Ord. No. 10133, June 27, 1950, 15 F.R.4159.

Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Ex. Ord. No. 13049, June 11, 1997, 62 F.R. 32471.

Organization of American States (includes Pan American Union), Ex. Ord. No. 10533, June 3, 1954, 19 F.R. 3289.

Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, Ex. Ord. No. 12669, Feb. 20, 1989, 54 F.R. 7753.

Pacific Salmon Commission, Ex. Ord. No. 12567, Oct. 2, 1986, 51 F.R. 35495.

Pan American Health Organization (includes Pan American Sanitary Bureau), Ex. Ord. No. 10864, Feb. 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 1507.

Preparatory Commission of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ex. Ord. No. 10727, Aug. 31, 1957, 22 F.R. 7099.

Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe (now known as the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration), Ex. Ord. No. 10335, Mar. 28, 1952, 17 F.R. 2741.

South Pacific Commission, Ex. Ord. No. 10086, Nov. 25, 1949, 14 F.R. 7147.

United International Bureau for the Protection of Intellectual Property
(BIRPI), Ex. Ord. No. 11484, Sept. 29, 1969, 34 F.R. 15337.

United Nations, Ex. Ord. No. 9698, Feb. 19, 1946, 11 F.R. 1809.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 9863, May 31, 1947, 12 F.R. 3559.

United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 12628, Mar. 8, 1988, 53F.R. 7725.

United States-Mexico Border Health Commission, Ex. Ord. No. 13367, Dec. 21, 2004, 69 F.R. 77605.

Universal Postal Union, Ex. Ord. No. 10727, Aug. 31, 1957, 22 F.R. 7099.

World Health Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 10025, Dec. 30, 1948, 13 F.R. 9361.

World Intellectual Property Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 11866, June 18, 1975, 40 F.R. 26015.

World Meteorological Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 10676, Sept. 1, 1956, 21 F.R. 6625.

World Tourism Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 12508, Mar. 22, 1985, 50 F.R. 11837.

World Trade Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 13042, Apr. 9, 1997, 62 F.R. 18017.

Public International Organizations Formerly Entitled To Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities

Executive orders designating international organizations as public international organizations entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act (this subchapter) were revoked as follows:

Caribbean Commission, Ex. Ord. No. 10025, Dec. 30, 1948, 13 F.R. 9361; revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 10983, Dec. 30, 1961, 27 F.R. 32.

Coffee Study Group, Ex. Ord. No. 10943, May 19, 1961, 26 F.R. 4419; revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 12033, Jan. 10, 1978, 43 F.R. 1915.

Inter-American Coffee Board, Ex. Ord. No. 9751, July 11, 1946, 11 F.R. 7713; revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 10083, Oct. 10, 1949, 14 F.R.6161.

Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees, Ex. Ord. No. 9823, Jan. 24, 1947, 12 F.R. 551; revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 10083, Oct. 10, 1949, 14 F.R. 6161.

Interim Communications Satellite Committee, Ex. Ord. No. 11227, June 2, 1965, 30 F.R. 7369; revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 11718, May 14, 1973, 38 F.R. 12797.

International Refugee Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 9887, Aug. 22, 1947, 12 F.R. 5723; revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 10832, Aug. 18, 1959, 24 F.R. 6753.

International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium, Ex. Ord. No. 11277, Apr. 30, 1966, 31 F.R. 6609; revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 11718, May 14, 1973, 38 F.R. 12797.

Lake Ontario Claims Tribunal, Ex. Ord. No. 11372, Sept. 18, 1967, 32 F.R. 13251; revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 11439, Dec. 7, 1968, 33 F.R. 18257.

Organization of African Unity (OAU), Ex. Ord. No. 11767, Feb. 19, 1974, 39 F.R. 6603; revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 13377, § 3, Apr. 13, 2005, 70 F.R. 20263.

Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, Ex. Ord. No. 10866, Feb. 20, 1960, 25 F.R. 1584; revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 12033, Jan. 10, 1978, 43 F.R.1915.

United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, Ex. Ord. No. 9698, Feb. 19, 1946, 11 F.R. 1809; revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 10083, Oct. 10, 1949, 14 F.R. 6161.

Revocation of Executive Order Nos. 9721 and 10103
Ex. Ord. No. 9721, May 10, 1946, 11 F.R. 5209, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 10103, Feb. 1, 1950, 15 F.R. 597, which provided for the transfer of Federal
Government personnel to public international organizations, was revoked with certain savings provisions by section 2 of Ex. Ord. No. 10804, Feb. 12, 1959, 24 F.R. 1147, and subsequently revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 12553, Feb. 25, 1986,51 F.R. 7237.

[vector7]

WTF?? Obama gives Interpol powers American cops don’t have?

The Obama administration last week rescinded restrictions on the operation of Interpol agents on US soil, giving them privileges US law enforcement doesn’t have and placing it above the US Constitution:

You just can’t make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.

Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. 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.

On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

The author, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, asks some very good questions, among them why we need to elevate a foreign police service above our own legal protections and why does Interpol need an untouchable repository for documents? Essentially this means that someone arrested under an Interpol warrant in the US can be denied the right to see the evidence used to swear out the warrant against him (presumably at an extradition hearing), a discovery process that’s considered a fundamental protection against tyranny under our Anglo-American system.

Steve Schippert and Clive Middleton at Threats Watch think they see a reason: this amendment of the Reagan-era order may be preparatory to once again subjecting the United States to the International Criminal Court and surrendering sovereignty:

In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama’s 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 pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.

When the paths on the road map converge – Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States – it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body who’s INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.

For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with “inviolable archives” from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.

I don’t know if Middleton and Schippert’s analysis is correct, but I do find it more than a bit disturbing that a foreign law-enforcement agency would be allowed to operate on American soil and not be subject to the same constitutional restraints as the FBI or DEA. That’s an unacceptable slight to American sovereignty. And, to give my inner-conspiracy theorist full sway, isn’t it convenient that there’s now an archive within the Justice Department that’s protected by diplomatic immunity, so that no documents in it are available to Congress or a US court? What a perfect place to lose embarrassing documents Obama and Attorney General Holder would rather never see the light of day.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, Obama thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. So what’s the problem with giving extra-constitutional privileges to a foreign police agency?

Is it November, 2010, yet?

[American Patriot]

Interpol kicks in my door there's going to be a short, lively firefight. I might go down, but so will they.

I'm an AMERICAN CITIZEN. Interpol has NO RIGHT or BUSINESS in my home.

Of course, I'm also a law abiding citizen.... unless they try to ban my guns. Then they can kiss my ass, they will learn the meaning of PIRATE then.

[Beetle]

Interpol kicks in my door there's going to be a short, lively firefight. I might go down, but so will they.

I'm an AMERICAN CITIZEN. Interpol has NO RIGHT or BUSINESS in my home.

Of course, I'm also a law abiding citizen.... unless they try to ban my guns. Then they can kiss my ass, they will learn the meaning of PIRATE then.

Interpol? You know the saying you don't bring a knife to a gun fight? Well, you don't bring frenchies to American fight.

Apporte il allume' fillette!!!

[zenbudda]

Ironic. America is about to become Russia with all of it's small "countries" it cannot control being called Rebels.

[vector7]

The UN and Interpol How the UN will gain power

By Barry Napier Wednesday, December 30, 2009



It is interesting that the man who cast aside the US Constitution like a rag, and imposes his own laws without consent, has agreed to allow an international police authority to overrule the US government.

Barack Obama signed an Executive Order giving express permission for Interpol to supersede the laws and police authorities of the USA.
Some have seen this as heralding loss of sovereignty. The truth is, the USA already lost it when it voted for Obama. Before the election he promised to hand over sovereignty to the UN, and this will indeed occur if the people allow him to carry on implementing his own Executive Orders without the consent of Congress or the people!

Interpol

Interpol operates with the consent of 188 member countries (so far). Its aim is to combat international crime and seek cross-country police cooperation. This is based on the “limits of existing laws in different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (which has itself caused more mayhem than it is worth). Its constitution prohibits being involved in political, military, religious or racial conflict. Tell that to the fairies!

In 2005, Interpol briefed members of the UN’s Security Council Counter Terrorism Committee on its work to combat terrorism and its “growing cooperation with the UN in a range of anti-crime areas”. But, what is considered to be ‘crime’? Whatever the UN decides it will be.

Interpol has an office in the UN’s New York building. The links between Interpol and the UN are very strong, if not interwoven. Interpol spokesmen say that Interpol can give “teeth and real impact to Security Council Resolutions”.

According to Interpol’s Article 2, Interpol is looking for “new opportunities” to expand its operations within the UN. In other words, Interpol is to be the police eyes and ears of the UN worldwide. Doesn’t this sound rather familiar? (If it doesn’t, read up on Soviet KGB operations). Remember, too, that anti-environmentalism is being called ‘terrorism’.

Interpol has a worldwide anti-terrorism network. Yet, Obama is nestling up to terrorist organisations and countries. This means that the central theme of ‘terrorism’ will change dramatically under Obama. Also, Obama is planning to make the owning of small arms illegal, effectively making US people defenceless, not just before criminals but also before government. Interpol will be used to discover and arrest those who own small arms.

Another aim of Interpol is to provide support for UN peacekeeping missions. Anyone who knows the truth recognises that these UN peacekeeping missions are anything but! They are killing sprees, with UN troops at the helm, making sure Marxist regimes stay in power, or gain power. How can Interpol claim neutrality when it assists UN troops in murderous ‘peacekeeping’?

This is of prime importance when Interpol says that another area of crime it wishes to obliterate is “Genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity”. Yet, the UN Charter includes the notion of genocide, its troops are guilty of war crimes, and the UN says that anti-greens are acting against humanity!

Anti-Greens are ‘Criminals’

According to Interpol, “Environmental crime is a serious and growing international problem… it is not limited to criminals polluting the air, water and land and pushing commercially valuable wildlife species closer to extinction; it can also include crimes which speed up climate change… and exhaust essential natural resources.” What did Interpol say about not being involved in politics?

Very clearly, Interpol is working behind the scenes to identify ‘criminals’ who oppose climate change plans by the UN! Can’t you see what is going on? Can’t you see that we are seeing the creation of a Marxist regime far greater than the Soviets could have dreamt of? Far greater than the one now existing in China?

Interpol speaks of these ‘crimes’ as being harmful to the economy and security… blatant political propaganda dressed up in police uniforms! What has a police organisation got to do with the economy? The economy is to do with politics!

The organisation says that organised crime is behind anti-green activities. This tells us which way Obama and the UN are moving to silence their foes. “In this way we can contribute to the ongoing conservation of the world’s environment, biodiversity and natural resources.” This is nothing but police being used as the strong-arm men of the UN to silence anti-green activity. What has a police organisation to do with ‘conservation’ and ‘natural resources’? Nothing! But, under the UN, Interpol will make very sure people like me are eliminated. (Of course, before that, they will ensure that our names are ridiculed and our protests are muffled, which works just as well).

One must ask Interpol why it doesn’t investigate the CRU at East Anglia University, or other scientists about their fraud, or Greenpeace about its sabotage… or Obama and Brown taxing the people fraudulently.
“Corruption undermines political, social and economic stability”. In which case, why isn’t Interpol investigating every country involved in the recent Copenhagen Summit, or that imposes tax based on fraudulent green claims? It is evident that Interpol is not genuine!

UN and ‘Natural partners’ (un.org 11th October, 2009)

The UN already has its own police force (UNPOL) – did you know that?

But, Interpol will take precedence. The UN’s Secretary General says that the “only way to succeed is to join forces.” Succeed at what? The UN has no place in the world, but it acts anyway! Wherever it goes it creates, not reduces, conflict, often to the point of murder, rape and pillage… and I am taking here about UN troops.

The UN Security Council, supposed to look after peace and reduce tensions, is dominated by Islamic countries that hate Israel. Every meeting starts with hateful statements against Israel. Every meeting begins with demands to sanction Israel. Therefore, Interpol is part of this hate campaign against the Israeli nation, by siding with Islamic extremist governments who make their own ‘laws’ against Israel! What you think of Israel is not the issue. The real issue is that if the UN gets away with this, the next one to suffer could easily be YOU.

Singapore Summit

On 11th October, 2009, Interpol’s Secretary General met with the UN’s Secretary General in Singapore. In the meeting praise was given to police forces joining together to fight organised crimes worldwide. This is fine. But, they don’t need the UN for this! The UN is a Marxist organisation, corrupt and trouble-making.

The opening speech spoke of a new era when Interpol will work with the UN by “entering into a strategic partnership to promote state stability, and, in turn, global law and order.” Police forces can do this on their own – they don’t need the sticky fingers of the UN.

Law officers are seconded to Interpol for particular operations, so, in theory, there are no actual ‘Interpol officers’. But, with the USA being handed over to the UN by Obama, it makes no real difference – the UN will control what local officers, FBI, etc., do. UN Dispatch.com (23rd December) says that all this is just ‘fear mongering’. Is it? Given Obama’s lamentable record in his first year of office (assuming he is there legitimately, of course), we have every right to be concerned.
The Norwegian UN mission (Norway-un.org 16th April 2009) states: “the role of the police is considered pivotal in consolidating peace and building sustainable security.” Perhaps Norway should go back a few years and remember how this worked when Hitler decided to make his land-grab! In every country Hitler took, the ‘pivotal’ force was the national and local police forces. They made sure Nazi plans were adhered to, and arrested anyone who didn’t make the grade, often leading to their deaths. Fear mongering?

No, it is a step closer to “common goals of global security and peace”. The best peace we can have is to retain national borders and national policing. The worst move is to bring in the UN and its notion of Marxist world government.

Secretary General of Secrecy

It is no coincidence that this joining of the UN and Interpol should come under the Secretary-Generalship of Ronald K Noble. He is a tenured professor of law at New York University, and previously worked as the US Dept of Treasury as First Undersecretary for Enforcement. He has held many law-related positions in the US and has Obama’s right hand.

This man is complicit in the aim of Obama to keep documents from the sight of Americans, by claiming protection for Interpol officers who are now able to work with diplomatic immunity. Thus, any documents Obama wants hidden can simply be given to Interpol! In this way Obama jumps over the head of the Constitution, and Interpol are not held to the Freedom of Information Act. This is all going on underneath your noses! I wonder if this is where Obama’s birth certificate will be going?

During Hitler’s time, Interpol was under the command of the SS.

(Freedomswings.wordpress.com). The FBI sought membership of Interpol in 1938, despite it being riddled with, and ruled by, the SS. Thus, today, only the type of socialism has changed… Interpol is now under Marxist rule. The continued membership of the USA in Interpol, and the new status of Interpol as diplomatic, with immunity, means that Obama can operate under the radar as much as he likes, by placing documents with Interpol. And Interpol can be used as the bully-boys of state, with no come-backs.

Interpol will work alongside the UN’s stormtroopers, as enforcers of UN laws and whims. It has immunity in the USA – no doubt it will gain immunity in many more countries as they mimic Obama’s duplicity. They will investigate and arrest any who dare to oppose UN policies, whether social, criminal or economic, including anti-greens. Watch for it, because it is bound to come.

[vector7]

Just in case any forgot...
Obama to seal US-UN relationship

By Harvey Morris at the United Nations
Published: September 8 2009 19:59 | Last updated: September 8 2009 19:59

Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.

The topic for the summit-level session of the council on September 24 is nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament – one of several global challenges that the US now wants to see addressed at a multinational level.

“The council has a very important role to play in preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons, and it’s the world’s principal body for dealing with global security cooperation,” Susan Rice, US envoy to the UN, said last week.

Her remarks were the latest by the Obama administration to emphasise a shift from the strategy of the previous Bush administration, sometimes criticised by its UN partners for seeking to use the world body principally to endorse its own unilateral policies. The US currently holds the month-long rotating presidency of the Security Council.

Mr Obama will join other heads of government in New York during the week of the nuclear summit for the opening of the 64th session of the UN General Assembly. The annual meeting of world leaders is this year raising expectations on a number of fronts.

UN officials hope a climate change debate on September 22 will give fresh impetus to the search for a global climate deal at Copenhagen in December. There are also hopes a possible meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, that Mr Obama would host, could lead to a breakthrough about a timetable for Middle East peace.

Heads of state are also likely to consider how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mr Obama gave Tehran a September deadline to reply to his offer of negotiations. Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad will attend the General Assembly “to encourage Iranian views in managing the world,” an aide said.

US officials are concerned Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi might try to steal the limelight during his first visit to New York. A public outcry at the Libyan leader’s visit after he last month welcomed home Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the freed Lockerbie bomber, has already stymied his plans to pitch his tent in Central Park.

“How President Gaddafi chooses to comport himself, when he attends the General Assembly and the Security Council in New York, has the potential either to further aggravate those feelings and emotions or not,” Ms Rice said.

The State Department has not ruled out the possibility that Mr Obama and Colonel Gaddafi would cross paths. They are both due to address the General Assembly on the same day, and the Libyan leader, whose country is a temporary member of the Security Council, is entitled to attend the nuclear summit session that Mr Obama will chair.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

[samizdat]

Dont worry be happy. I actually like interpol. I'd consider working for them, except for the funky rules. No smoking, no machetes with big holsters on airplanes. ATF will quell any rebels. I am not a quarreling folk, yet I would not squabble with atf.

[vector7]

Dont worry be happy. I actually like interpol. I'd consider working for them, except for the funky rules. No smoking, no machetes with big holsters on airplanes.

These nice religious folks probably don't smoke either and would be happy to put away their machetes during the flight over to help restore order.

ATF will quell any rebels.

Yes they've been previously known for that.

The 1993 Waco Siege

Waco: The Rules Of Engagement – Part 1

Waco: The Rules Of Engagement – Part 2

[vector7]

SHOCKING REPORT: Rand Corp Tells US Army Its Time For a National Stability Police Force

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

This has to be the scariest thing I have read in a very long time. The Rand Corporation was asked by the US Army to prepare a report recommending whether or not the US Needed a National Stability Police force. Basically a call for American "Brown Shirts" Rand's answer was a resounding yes.

Our analysis clearly indicates that the United States needs an SPF or some other way to accomplish the SPF mission. Stability operations have become an inescapable reality of U.S. foreign policy. Establishing security with soldiers and police is critical because it is difficult to achieve other objectives—such as rebuilding political and economic systems—without it.

The cost of not fixing this gap is significant. The United States will continue to experience major challenges in stability operations if it does not have this policing capacity. These challenges include creating the ability to establish basic law and order, as well as defeat or deter criminal organizations, terrorists, and insurgents. In some cases, allied countries may be able to fill this gap. Allies did this effectively in Bosnia and Kosovo, both of which were successful in establishing security. In other cases, the United States may not be able to count on allied support. The United States should not depend on allies to supply these capabilities, because doing so would limit U.S. freedom of action on the international stage. Consequently, the United States should seriously consider building a high-end police capacity.

The report recommends that these police would not only have a role in foreign lands but also in the United States:

The ability of SPF personnel to act in a law –– enforcement capacity while in the United States. One important aspect of the return on investment from an SPF option is what SPF personnel do when not deployed. Given that an SPF will be deployed one out of every three years at most for active duty options and one out of six for reserve options, whether its members can perform law enforcement functions and so contribute to domestic tranquility and homeland defense when not deployed will have a major impact on whether an option is cost-effective. Two categories of options—military units and contractors—cannot do so under current statutes and regulations.

In particular, for the MP option to be as cost-effective as possible, relief from the Posse Comitatus Act [which forbids the US Army from being used in law enforcement in the United States] would be required to permit its members to perform domestic law enforcement functions. The issue of contractors performing law enforcement functions is moot (our only “contracting” option does not consider a standing contract force, but rather one hired as needed) and would probably be insurmountable if it was not. Furthermore, as noted in our DOTMLPF discussion, working as police officers would greatly contribute to the state of training and readiness of SPF personnel. MPs can do this on military installations, but contract personnel would not so act at all.

The report goes on to say that this Stability Police Force should be placed under the US Marshal Service because that will make it easier for it to have domestic US responsibilities.

Given that it is unlikely that MPs would be permitted to perform civilian policing tasks in the United States, the USMS, despite its capacity and management shortfalls, is the agency best suited to take on the SPF mission under the assumptions of this study. Placing the SPF in the USMS would place it where its members can develop the needed skills under the hybrid staffing option. Furthermore, the USMS has the broadest law enforcement mandate of any U.S. law enforcement agency and many of the required skills, though it would need to increase its capacity significantly. Furthermore,the Department of Justice stands at the center of the rule-of-law effort, with lead roles in policing, judiciary, and corrections efforts.

I wonder what kind of Domestic Role the Stability Police can have, controlling Tea Parties? "Fixing" Fox News? A national police under the control of this or any president will do nothing less than signal the end of freedom in the United States. Any movement toward this force must be voted down.

The document can be found here.

[vector7]

Obama's International Police Order

Written by Andrea Lafferty
Friday, 08 January 2010 06:56

By TVC Executive Director Andrea Lafferty

January 7, 2010 - On December 16, 2009, President Obama secretly signed an Executive Order 12425 (EO) that gives Interpol unprecedented access in America to pursue and prosecute "criminals." We may as well have given Interpol a badge with 666 on it.

The EO exempts Interpol (International Criminal Police Organization) from being accountable to our own law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI.

Interpol is an international police organization that investigates crime and refers defendants for trial in foreign lands. The Interpol website describes its purpose as follows:

... it facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.

INTERPOL aims to facilitate international police co-operation even where diplomatic relations do not exist between particular countries. Action is taken within the limits of existing laws in different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Nearly 200 countries work with Interpol, including some of the most ruthless Communist and Islamic tyrannies on earth.

The Obama EO removes the protections put into place by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 to protect Americans from being pursued by a foreign law enforcement agency within our borders. With this Obama EO, Interpol will operate outside of the constraints of the U.S. Constitution.

The current Secretary General of Interpol is Ronald Noble. He is an American who oversaw the Treasury Department's review of the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. That massacre left nearly 80 people dead. Interpol has a history of being staffed by numerous Nazis from 1930 even into the 1970s.

Interpol's new powers within the U.S. could be used to enforce arrest warrants for Americans who are charged with "war crimes" - including former Bush officials who prosecuted the war on Islamic terrorism. This could include American soldiers as well. Last year, TVC warned that Democrats were going to attempt to try President Bush for "war crimes."

Interpol could refer individuals for arrest and facilitate their extradition to foreign courts for trial. One internationalist goal within the Obama Administration is to have America come under the authority of the International Criminal Court (ICC) headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. (In February, 2009, the Obama Administration began signaling that it was open to having America come under the authority of the ICC.) Former President George W. Bush made certain America did not come under ICC authority.

This is not just a theoretical possibility. Interpol went after 25 Israeli government officials at the request of the terrorist state of Iran. Interpol actually issued arrest warrants for 15 Israeli over their Gaza offensive several years ago.

While the Obama Administration is seeking to give terrorists constitutional rights in American prisons, he is working to strip Americans of those constitutional rights by giving Interpol police powers within our borders - powers that can be used to violate the protections of American soldiers and Bush officials who prosecuted a war against Islamic terrorism.

What Does Snopes Say?

Snopes is a web site devoted to debunking urban legends that are circulated on the Internet. One of the more recent postings is about the Interpol issue. Snopes has reacted to a memo about Obama's Executive Order (EO) circulating on the net that is clearly a fake. The memo quotes the EO and then adds additional comments not in EO 12425. It then ends the memo with "Barack Obama" as though he had signed the entire statement. While the memo is not true, the threat from Obama's Interpol EO order does create a real and present danger.

What Are Conservatives Saying?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was on "The O'Reilly Factor" on January 4 and discussed the Interpol issue. He noted: "Freedom of information acts don't apply. All the constraints that you as a citizen could use against an American police force, based on a recent Obama signed executive order, give Interpol - which has relationships with Syria, Libya, with Iran - it gives them all sorts of extra legality in the United States in a way that has never, ever before been offered to Interpol."



Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor for the conservative Washington Examiner is deeply concerned about the Interpol Executive Order:

If there is nothing newsworthy involved [about the Interpol story], then why won't the White House answer these basic questions regarding the EO?

* Every other international organization granted such exemptions
deals with mundane issues like fish - the International Pacific Halibut Commission - or disaster aid - the Red Cross. But Interpol is a law enforcement operation. Why does President Obama think it appropriate to give such exemptions to an international law enforcement operation, and what does he want Interpol to do here in the U.S. in the future with the exemptions that it cannot do now without the exemptions?

* Does the search and seizure exemption extend to the activities and documents created by U.S. Department of Justice employees working with and for Interpol in New York and Washington, D.C.? If these employees and activities were already exempt from coverage of the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), why have FOIA requests concerning them been previously answered?

These are serious questions that the White House ought have no hesitation about answering, if indeed "there is nothing newsworthy here."

Andy McCarthy (formerly a federal prosecutor in the New York City blind sheik case) with National Review is also alarmed about the Interpol Executive Order. He has written:

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).

Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why 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.

What Can Be Done?

The President has authority to issue Executive Orders, but these EOs can be nullified by Congress through legislation. An EO that violates a congressional law is illegal and must be rescinded. In addition, courts have determined that EOs are unconstitutional and have struck them down.

A lawsuit could result in the Obama Interpol EO being declared unconstitutional. The House and Senate could pass legislation ordering the repeal of the EO, but this would have to be signed into law by President Obama who wants international control over America.

The elections in November 2010, could change the balance of power in the House and Senate and give constitutionalists power once again to block liberal legislation - and to send a strong message to Obama that national sovereignty is not something to be given away to Interpol or the International Criminal Court - nor through climate change treaties or cap and tax schemes being pushed by liberals in Congress.

[vector7]

Obama and the Global Police: More Friendly Fascism?

By John W. Whitehead
1/8/2010

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse."-- James Madison

Over the course of his first year in office, Barack Obama has shown himself to be a skillful and savvy politician, saying the things Americans want to hear while stealthily and inexorably moving forward the government's agenda of centralized power. For example, in one breath, Obama pays lip service to the need for greater transparency in government, while in another, he issues an executive order that will result in even more government secrecy.

He is aided in this Machiavellian mindset by a trusting populace inclined to take him at his word and a mainstream media seemingly loath to criticize him or scrutinize his actions too closely. A perfect example of this is the media's relative lack of scrutiny over Obama's recent transformation of Executive Order (EO) 12425 from a document that constitutionally limits the International Criminal Police Organization's (Interpol) activities domestically to one that establishes it as an autonomous police agency within the U.S.

Those who have voiced their concerns about this domestic empowerment of Interpol by President Obama--and that's exactly what it is--have been soundly criticized for fomenting political hysteria. But there is legitimate cause for concern. This presidential directive could undermine civil liberties and render the Fourth Amendment null and void.

First, some background on EO 12425. Issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, EO 12425 recognized Interpol as an international organization with certain privileges and immunities afforded to foreign diplomats. However, Reagan structured his executive order to ensure that Interpol, like every other law enforcement agency in this country, was accountable to the rule of law.

Aided by some crafty legal editing, Obama has manipulated Reagan's directive in such a way as to remove those restrictions so that Interpol now stands apart from domestic law enforcement agencies, its actions and records effectively immune from legal scrutiny. It was a shrewd move on Obama's part, so shrouded in a legal parsing of semicolons and redactions that it is barely comprehensible to the average citizen (unless you happen to have a few attorneys on hand who can sift through the historical record to make sense of the changes). But when you compile all the changes, the amended text of the Executive Order reads:

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.

The key here is the word "inviolable," which means that Interpol assets, records and other property are no longer subject to the search and seizure provisions of the Fourth Amendment, nor are they subject to public scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act.

It should come as little surprise that when the White House issued the amended executive order on December 17, 2009, it issued no press releases and thus generated little in the way of media attention. It must be said, however, that had George W. Bush attempted to slip something like this through a week before Christmas, he would have and should have been soundly lambasted by the media.

Frankly, we should be hearing more about Obama's EO 12425--from the White House, from Congress, from the media. In fact, Congress should be holding hearings on the ramifications of allowing Interpol to operate with complete autonomy outside the strictures of the Constitution and above the rule of law in this country.

Operating in 188 countries, Interpol supposedly deals with crimes that overlap various countries such as terrorism, organized crime, war crimes, piracy, drug trafficking, child pornography and genocide. The agency maintains a bureau in each member country and channels information and requests to the appropriate law enforcement agency in each country. It also works closely with international tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court, to locate and detain alleged fugitives.

In the U.S., Interpol is headquartered at the Justice Department in Washington, DC, one of the most powerful of the government agencies and the one responsible for overseeing all law enforcement within America. All law enforcement agencies that fall under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, including the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Agency, are subject to the rigorous safeguards of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the laws passed by Congress.

These safeguards no longer apply to Interpol, whose records cannot be obtained through FOIA requests--which act as an important safeguard against governmental abuse--nor are they subject to investigation by other federal agencies or the courts (unless Interpol itself consents).

It's hard to know exactly what the fallout from this executive order will be, but the ramifications for the American people could be ominous. For instance, if Interpol engages in illegal and/or unconstitutional activities against American citizens, it will be impossible for U.S. citizens to obtain information--via subpoena or other commonly used legal methods--regarding its records or activities.

Additionally, any information shared by the FBI or other American intelligence agencies with Interpol could also be exempt from FOIA and Fourth Amendment protections. At this point, the rule of law breaks down completely. American intelligence and police agencies, when and if they share information, would also be above the law.

This could also pave the way for a global police state--one in which information made available to Interpol by American agencies can and most likely will be shared with global police agencies around the world. In other words, foreign intelligence agencies could eventually spy on Americans.

Clearly, there are enough concerns about the impact of EO 12425 on our civil liberties to warrant further discussion. It must be remembered that James Madison, the "father" of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the fourth president of the United States, advised that we should "take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."

Whether or not you consider President Obama's Interpol executive order to be cause for alarm, one must agree that this is far from the first experiment on our liberties. In fact, we've seen all this before. It's Bush redux. Slowly, more Americans are waking up to the fact that civil liberties violations that began under the Bush presidency are continuing under the Obama presidency.

Even the ACLU, which embraced Obama a mere year ago, has recently condemned his record on civil liberties. "We're increasingly disappointed and alarmed by the current administration's stance on accountability for torture," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, during a conference call with reporters. "On every front, the [Obama] administration is actively obstructing accountability. This administration is shielding Bush administration officials from civil liability, criminal investigation and even public scrutiny for their role in authorizing torture."

The bigger danger, however, is that a shift toward authoritarianism is underway and only small pockets of Americans realize it. Certainly, the mainstream media is not reporting on it, nor do they primarily function as watchdogs, guarding against encroachments of our rights. Yet it is unmistakable--we have been creeping towards fascism for some time now, as Bertram Gross foretold some thirty years ago. Writing in his insightful book Friendly Fascism, he predicted, "The new fascism will be colored by national and cultural heritage, ethnic and religious composition, formal structure, and geopolitical environment." He continues:

Anyone looking for black shirts, mass parties or men on horseback will miss the telltale clues of creeping fascism. In America, it would be supermodern and multi-ethnic--as American as Madison Avenue, executive luncheons, credit cards, and apple pie. It would be fascism with a smile. As a warning against its cosmetic façade, subtle manipulation, and velvet gloves, I call it friendly fascism. What scares me most is its subtle appeal.