Obama gives foreign cops new police powers in U.S.

[Intense]

Ihope seems to think laws, rules, treaties and the like should all be designed with him in mind, whereas in a democracy (a democratic Republic in our case), most laws, etc., are intended to resolve problems and conflicts that concern the greater majority of everyone by our Constitutionally elected officials. Short of polling every citizen for input, he's expecting the impossible.

Fits right in with Unalienable Rights, and Habeas Corpus. LOL

There is something wrong with Any Society that has No place for Conscience. Conscience is Rooted in the Individual, not the Group. Keep beating on it though. Locke, Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau, King, Ghandi, would have little in common with the disconnect in Your Ethics.

The Constitution and the USSC has zero to do with ethics. And I love it when one person of a particular political persuasion has the balls to accuse the opposition of being unethical. Did you just climb out from under a rock?

And btw, I had to read your short posting twice in order to absorb the context because it flows like separated sentences. You might as well know anything longer than that one will go unread by me. I don't do anything that takes twice as long these days.

Thank God You were toilet trained before middle school huh? I hope new invention doesn't cause too much hardship. I think You should have spent more effort in History and Civics, and less on grammar. Conscience is the Root of Each of us Maggie. When You deny the Individual, You deny Justice. Your machine was designed to service It's makers, not enslave Them. This is not a partisan matter, but more related to Human Rights. The end does not justify the means Maggie. When the function looses continuity with It's purpose, it becomes damaging. WTFU

 

[Annie]

Due process sometimes means extradition. That's the civilised way of doing things. It's achieved by treaties. Do you believe that a US citizen who allegedly commits a crime in another jurisdiction shouldn't be extradited to face trial in that jurisdiction?

That's been done nearly since the inception of the country. The ICC is not like Nuremberg or extradition.

What the ICC is about is UN type justice, something that has no place in US.

Of course you might feel differently if, say, Mexico decided to invade Texas and try to take it back, committing genocide of Americans in the process. After the dust settled, you wouldn't want any Mexicans tried and convicted of war crimes?

Huh? This has what to do with Interpol working on our soil? Are the British trying to take back the colonies?

 

[Annie]

I'm confused. I know there's opposition to the ICC, not sure of the various reasons for that opposition though. But this is also about Interpol is it not? And Interpol is just an info exchange body.

It's not about Interpol or cooperation with that agency per se, rather about putting them beyond the reach of FBI and police while working on US soil. Our laws are supreme, HERE, not international law. Per the eo, they do not need to comply with our FOIA. In actuality it makes a foreign agency immune from American law on American soil. It's wrong.

So are you against foreign embassies that operate independently on our soil? They provide sanctuary for criminals commiting crimes while in the United States. And then there's diplomatic immunity where even Saddam Hussein would have been untouchable if he had decided to rape and kill your daughter.

Since when is a police entity entitled to diplomatic immunity? Straw man is blowing.

 

[MaggieMae]

Fits right in with Unalienable Rights, and Habeas Corpus. LOL

There is something wrong with Any Society that has No place for Conscience. Conscience is Rooted in the Individual, not the Group. Keep beating on it though. Locke, Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau, King, Ghandi, would have little in common with the disconnect in Your Ethics.

The Constitution and the USSC has zero to do with ethics. And I love it when one person of a particular political persuasion has the balls to accuse the opposition of being unethical. Did you just climb out from under a rock?

And btw, I had to read your short posting twice in order to absorb the context because it flows like separated sentences. You might as well know anything longer than that one will go unread by me. I don't do anything that takes twice as long these days.

Thank God You were toilet trained before middle school huh? I hope new invention doesn't cause too much hardship. I think You should have spent more effort in History and Civics, and less on grammar. Conscience is the Root of Each of us Maggie. When You deny the Individual, You deny Justice. Your machine was designed to service It's makers, not enslave Them. This is not a partisan matter, but more related to Human Rights. The end does not justify the means Maggie. When the function looses continuity with It's purpose, it becomes damaging. WTFU

Non-sequitur anyone? I was under the impression we were discussing the constitutionality of police powers by foreign governments. Since there is no "ethics" clause in the Constitution, you've driven yourself over a cliff. If you want to talk about ethics, start a new thread. You might find that I agree with you.

 

[MaggieMae]

That's been done nearly since the inception of the country. The ICC is not like Nuremberg or extradition.

What the ICC is about is UN type justice, something that has no place in US.

Of course you might feel differently if, say, Mexico decided to invade Texas and try to take it back, committing genocide of Americans in the process. After the dust settled, you wouldn't want any Mexicans tried and convicted of war crimes?

Huh? This has what to do with Interpol working on our soil? Are the British trying to take back the colonies?

Don't bitch to me--I wasn't the one who got the topic derailed into whether or not the ICC performs a necessary function. I just gave an example for the naysayers to chew on.

 

[MaggieMae]

It's not about Interpol or cooperation with that agency per se, rather about putting them beyond the reach of FBI and police while working on US soil. Our laws are supreme, HERE, not international law. Per the eo, they do not need to comply with our FOIA. In actuality it makes a foreign agency immune from American law on American soil. It's wrong.

So are you against foreign embassies that operate independently on our soil? They provide sanctuary for criminals commiting crimes while in the United States. And then there's diplomatic immunity where even Saddam Hussein would have been untouchable if he had decided to rape and kill your daughter.

Since when is a police entity entitled to diplomatic immunity? Straw man is blowing.

Do try to follow, Annie. See red highlight, to which I was responding.

 

[Intense]

The Constitution and the USSC has zero to do with ethics. And I love it when one person of a particular political persuasion has the balls to accuse the opposition of being unethical. Did you just climb out from under a rock?

And btw, I had to read your short posting twice in order to absorb the context because it flows like separated sentences. You might as well know anything longer than that one will go unread by me. I don't do anything that takes twice as long these days.

Thank God You were toilet trained before middle school huh? I hope new invention doesn't cause too much hardship. I think You should have spent more effort in History and Civics, and less on grammar. Conscience is the Root of Each of us Maggie. When You deny the Individual, You deny Justice. Your machine was designed to service It's makers, not enslave Them. This is not a partisan matter, but more related to Human Rights. The end does not justify the means Maggie. When the function looses continuity with It's purpose, it becomes damaging. WTFU

Non-sequitur anyone? I was under the impression we were discussing the constitutionality of police powers by foreign governments. Since there is no "ethics" clause in the Constitution, you've driven yourself over a cliff. If you want to talk about ethics, start a new thread. You might find that I agree with you.

You are limited by your perception, as are the rest of us. By your own argument, the Constitution means and says what the Court claims It to possess. So much for Ethics. I am of a different school. I am first Governed by Reason, not spoon fed. It's good that You have an appetite for Higher Truth though.

The Constitutionality of Police Powers by foreign governments seem to trump those of our domestic police powers, who are limited by the Constitution, where the foreign powers are not. You would have flipped if this happened under Bush. I regret it happening at all.

 

[Diuretic]

That's been done nearly since the inception of the country. The ICC is not like Nuremberg or extradition.

What the ICC is about is UN type justice, something that has no place in US.

I'm confused. I know there's opposition to the ICC, not sure of the various reasons for that opposition though. But this is also about Interpol is it not? And Interpol is just an info exchange body.

It's not about Interpol or cooperation with that agency per se, rather about putting them beyond the reach of FBI and police while working on US soil. Our laws are supreme, HERE, not international law. Per the eo, they do not need to comply with our FOIA. In actuality it makes a foreign agency immune from American law on American soil. It's wrong.

It does? That would seem to be quite foolish indeed. I'd certainly be opposed to that if it were to happen in my own country.

 

[MaggieMae]

Thank God You were toilet trained before middle school huh? I hope new invention doesn't cause too much hardship. I think You should have spent more effort in History and Civics, and less on grammar. Conscience is the Root of Each of us Maggie. When You deny the Individual, You deny Justice. Your machine was designed to service It's makers, not enslave Them. This is not a partisan matter, but more related to Human Rights. The end does not justify the means Maggie. When the function looses continuity with It's purpose, it becomes damaging. WTFU

Non-sequitur anyone? I was under the impression we were discussing the constitutionality of police powers by foreign governments. Since there is no "ethics" clause in the Constitution, you've driven yourself over a cliff. If you want to talk about ethics, start a new thread. You might find that I agree with you.

You are limited by your perception, as are the rest of us. By your own argument, the Constitution means and says what the Court claims It to possess. So much for Ethics. I am of a different school. I am first Governed by Reason, not spoon fed. It's good that You have an appetite for Higher Truth though.

The Constitutionality of Police Powers by foreign governments seem to trump those of our domestic police powers, who are limited by the Constitution, where the foreign powers are not. You would have flipped if this happened under Bush. I regret it happening at all.

If you go back and actually read the Executive Order, it is nothing more than validating the authority of Interpol if and when it acts in concert with US agencies on US soil. So no, I would not have flipped if Bush had done it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

To sum up:

President Obama signed an EO that did changed a previous EO by Reagan.

His changes were

1. Protecting INTERPOL files, offices, etc from search and seizure.
2. Protecting INTERPOL from import taxes.


And...

That's it.

No allowing them to violate Civil Rights, no allowing them to act independant from the FBI.

All of that is just fearmongering by the hysterical right.

Besides, I guess they don't teach this in school any more, but INTERPOL is an information sharing agency, not a law enforcement organization. They cooperate with local law enforcement in all of the member countries, which the US is one. INTERPOL itself employs less than six hundred people.

 

[Intense]

With the signing of an under-publicized amendment to Executive Order 12425, President Barack Obama has fundamentally altered your constitutional rights. His actions are undermining your rights to protect personal privacy from a foreign internationalist police agency named Interpol. A one-paragraph executive order may seem inconsequential to many, but this action has far reaching implications and threatens the sovereignty of America.

Obama's secretive executive order amended an order issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. Reagan's order recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it privileges and immunities commonly extended to foreign diplomats.

Reagan opened the door to allow Interpol to operate in partnership with the U.S. but with significant constitutional safeguards. Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained subject to search and seizure by American law enforcement, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Interpol had to answer to the FBI and U.S. courts under Reagan's order.

These safeguards were stripped away by Obama's action the week before Christmas without debate or explanation. Obama picked the holiday season to make this radical change to minimize media coverage.

This order marks a significant change in federal policy and usurps the constitutional power of our government by yielding it to an international organization. Michael van Der Galien writes, "This foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse. Property and assets, including the organization's records, cannot now be searched or seized. Their physical operational locations are now immune from U.S. legal and investigative authorities."

Obama has given an international organization unsupervised freedom to investigate Americans on our own soil without recourse or the supervision of our own government.

Andy McCarthy writing for the National Review asks some very significant questions: "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?"

Interpol is the enforcement arm of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The United States never signed onto the Rome Treaty which created the ICC because of the potential for abuse by foreign interests. Obama has signaled he may sign the treaty over these objections and subject Americans to prosecution overseas in the ICC. This is harmful for two reasons.

First, the U.S. Constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of our land and allowing the ICC to supersede the Constitution violates America's sovereignty. Second, the war on terror is unpopular with Europeans and the ICC may attempt to prosecute heroic American soldiers with trumped up war crimes. Obama is putting brave American men and women at grave risk.

An added wrinkle to this executive order is that Interpol's operations center for the United States is housed within our own Justice Department. Many of the agents are Americans who work under the aegis of Interpol. This order has potentially created the new civilian security force that Obama proposed during his campaign. This group of law enforcement officials is no longer subject to the restraints enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

The order guarantees that Interpol officers have immunity from prosecution for crimes they may commit in the United States. Ironically, some Interpol nations are attempting to try American intelligence agents for their work abroad in the war on terror.

This order shows blatant disregard for the Constitution. While Obama is extending due process rights to terrorists, he is weakening those same rights for American citizens. If a citizen were to be prosecuted by Interpol, their newly granted immunity would interfere with the discovery process. Since Interpol files are immune to disclosure, a citizen could be denied his right to see the information used to prosecute him or her.

Obama's executive order has done more to weaken civil liberties than the much maligned Patriot Act. The silence in the mainstream media on this issue should scare all freedom loving Americans. Obama just signed away parts of our precious legal protections.

Obama grants unprecedented powers to Interpol on U.S. soil | Opinion | eastvalleytribune.com

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/91217-the-dream-police.html