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

[P F Tinmore]

"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," they wrote.

"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 whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement," they said.

Anthony Martin at the Examiner noted the international agency now can operate in the U.S. will "full immunity" from U.S. laws and "with complete independence from oversight from the FBI."

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

 

[Diuretic]

Guess what? Here's something even worse. In the United States it has been approved by the Supreme Court that a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation and evidence produced from that lie is admissible. In my jurisdiction that would be sufficient cause for judicial discretion to excise any evidence from the interview and investigation due to misleading the suspect.

And you are getting your knickers in a twist over this?

And are you aware that the NYPD has intelligence operatives working in various countries around the world and that they are doing so because various national governments approve of that?

Does it occur to you and anyone else that cooperation is good, that we should back each other up against these nutters?

We are on the same side.

 

[Annie]

Guess what? Here's something even worse. In the United States it has been approved by the Supreme Court that a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation and evidence produced from that lie is admissible. In my jurisdiction that would be sufficient cause for judicial discretion to excise any evidence from the interview and investigation due to misleading the suspect.

And you are getting your knickers in a twist over this?

And are you aware that the NYPD has intelligence operatives working in various countries around the world and that they are doing so because various national governments approve of that?

Does it occur to you and anyone else that cooperation is good, that we should back each other up against these nutters?

We are on the same side.

I think cooperation between friendly governments regarding terrorism is a good thing. I don't think opening the door to the International Courts is however. That is the problem.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Guess what? Here's something even worse. In the United States it has been approved by the Supreme Court that a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation and evidence produced from that lie is admissible. In my jurisdiction that would be sufficient cause for judicial discretion to excise any evidence from the interview and investigation due to misleading the suspect.

And you are getting your knickers in a twist over this?

And are you aware that the NYPD has intelligence operatives working in various countries around the world and that they are doing so because various national governments approve of that?

Does it occur to you and anyone else that cooperation is good, that we should back each other up against these nutters?

We are on the same side.

"a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation"

Not only that but they can lie on the witness stand. They do it all the time.

 

[Claudette]

Guess what? Here's something even worse. In the United States it has been approved by the Supreme Court that a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation and evidence produced from that lie is admissible. In my jurisdiction that would be sufficient cause for judicial discretion to excise any evidence from the interview and investigation due to misleading the suspect.

And you are getting your knickers in a twist over this?

And are you aware that the NYPD has intelligence operatives working in various countries around the world and that they are doing so because various national governments approve of that?

Does it occur to you and anyone else that cooperation is good, that we should back each other up against these nutters?

We are on the same side.

I think cooperation between friendly governments regarding terrorism is a good thing. I don't think opening the door to the International Courts is however. That is the problem.

I agree with the cooperation but the international court can take a damned hike. I sure don't want some international court making the legal decisions for me in this country.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Guess what? Here's something even worse. In the United States it has been approved by the Supreme Court that a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation and evidence produced from that lie is admissible. In my jurisdiction that would be sufficient cause for judicial discretion to excise any evidence from the interview and investigation due to misleading the suspect.

And you are getting your knickers in a twist over this?

And are you aware that the NYPD has intelligence operatives working in various countries around the world and that they are doing so because various national governments approve of that?

Does it occur to you and anyone else that cooperation is good, that we should back each other up against these nutters?

We are on the same side.

I think cooperation between friendly governments regarding terrorism is a good thing. I don't think opening the door to the International Courts is however. That is the problem.

I agree with the cooperation but the international court can take a damned hike. I sure don't want some international court making the legal decisions for me in this country.

yeah, cooperation is a one-way street.

 

[Diuretic]

Guess what? Here's something even worse. In the United States it has been approved by the Supreme Court that a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation and evidence produced from that lie is admissible. In my jurisdiction that would be sufficient cause for judicial discretion to excise any evidence from the interview and investigation due to misleading the suspect.

And you are getting your knickers in a twist over this?

And are you aware that the NYPD has intelligence operatives working in various countries around the world and that they are doing so because various national governments approve of that?

Does it occur to you and anyone else that cooperation is good, that we should back each other up against these nutters?

We are on the same side.

"a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation"

Not only that but they can lie on the witness stand. They do it all the time.

Not all the time, that's an exaggeration.

 

[Intense]

Guess what? Here's something even worse. In the United States it has been approved by the Supreme Court that a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation and evidence produced from that lie is admissible. In my jurisdiction that would be sufficient cause for judicial discretion to excise any evidence from the interview and investigation due to misleading the suspect.

And you are getting your knickers in a twist over this?

And are you aware that the NYPD has intelligence operatives working in various countries around the world and that they are doing so because various national governments approve of that?

Does it occur to you and anyone else that cooperation is good, that we should back each other up against these nutters?

We are on the same side.

First, You Know that Interrogators can lie to You, Second, You know to have Your Lawyer Present.
I know that the Constitution is an Obstacle to the Liberal Mind, Yet do You ever consider that it is such by design?

 

[Diuretic]

Guess what? Here's something even worse. In the United States it has been approved by the Supreme Court that a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation and evidence produced from that lie is admissible. In my jurisdiction that would be sufficient cause for judicial discretion to excise any evidence from the interview and investigation due to misleading the suspect.

And you are getting your knickers in a twist over this?

And are you aware that the NYPD has intelligence operatives working in various countries around the world and that they are doing so because various national governments approve of that?

Does it occur to you and anyone else that cooperation is good, that we should back each other up against these nutters?

We are on the same side.

First, You Know that Interrogators can lie to You, Second, You know to have Your Lawyer Present.
I know that the Constitution is an Obstacle to the Liberal Mind, Yet do You ever consider that it is such by design?

Allowing police to deceive a suspect in an interview isn't acceptable to me, if you're okay with it then fine.
One piece of advice - say nothing until you have your lawyer with you. That advice will not be heard by some.
What has the Constitution got to do with these issues?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Guess what? Here's something even worse. In the United States it has been approved by the Supreme Court that a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation and evidence produced from that lie is admissible. In my jurisdiction that would be sufficient cause for judicial discretion to excise any evidence from the interview and investigation due to misleading the suspect.

And you are getting your knickers in a twist over this?

And are you aware that the NYPD has intelligence operatives working in various countries around the world and that they are doing so because various national governments approve of that?

Does it occur to you and anyone else that cooperation is good, that we should back each other up against these nutters?

We are on the same side.

We are not talking about cooperation here. What we are talking about is that INTERPOL can now operate within the USA without any oversight from any US legal departments or Law Departments. They may make an arrest and remove the suspect from the country without any of our legal protections. And you see nothing wrong with this? And that's only one instance. They do not have to follow US law......DUH

 

[Brubricker]

We are not talking about cooperation here. What we are talking about is that INTERPOL can now operate within the USA without any oversight from any US legal departments or Law Departments. They may make an arrest and remove the suspect from the country without any of our legal protections.

Interpol does not have jurisdiction in the United States. They cannot make arrests here. The International Criminal Court only exercises jurisdiction in nations that have freely agreed to allow it. The United States has never agreed to anything of the sort and this executive order does not do so either. All that's happened here is that we've chosen not to search their offices or arrest their agents. That's it. We have not granted them any powers. We've given them immunity. There's a difference.

 

[SFC Ollie]

We are not talking about cooperation here. What we are talking about is that INTERPOL can now operate within the USA without any oversight from any US legal departments or Law Departments. They may make an arrest and remove the suspect from the country without any of our legal protections.

Interpol does not have jurisdiction in the United States. They cannot make arrests here. The International Criminal Court only exercises jurisdiction in nations that have freely agreed to allow it. The United States has never agreed to anything of the sort and this executive order does not do so either. All that's happened here is that we've chosen not to search their offices or arrest their agents. That's it. We have not granted them any powers. We've given them immunity. There's a difference.

Not the way I read it. But then I'm just a simple old Sergeant.

 

[MaggieMae]

Guess what? Here's something even worse. In the United States it has been approved by the Supreme Court that a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation and evidence produced from that lie is admissible. In my jurisdiction that would be sufficient cause for judicial discretion to excise any evidence from the interview and investigation due to misleading the suspect.

And you are getting your knickers in a twist over this?

And are you aware that the NYPD has intelligence operatives working in various countries around the world and that they are doing so because various national governments approve of that?

Does it occur to you and anyone else that cooperation is good, that we should back each other up against these nutters?

We are on the same side.

First, You Know that Interrogators can lie to You, Second, You know to have Your Lawyer Present.
I know that the Constitution is an Obstacle to the Liberal Mind, Yet do You ever consider that it is such by design?

Allowing police to deceive a suspect in an interview isn't acceptable to me, if you're okay with it then fine.
One piece of advice - say nothing until you have your lawyer with you. That advice will not be heard by some.
What has the Constitution got to do with these issues?

That was just one of my questions, too. I'm already confused as to just what the subject of this thread is. That we shouldn't cooperate 100% with Interpol? Since when? And what does that cooperation have to do with the International Criminal Court and our membership therein?

 

[SFC Ollie]

First, You Know that Interrogators can lie to You, Second, You know to have Your Lawyer Present.
I know that the Constitution is an Obstacle to the Liberal Mind, Yet do You ever consider that it is such by design?

Allowing police to deceive a suspect in an interview isn't acceptable to me, if you're okay with it then fine.
One piece of advice - say nothing until you have your lawyer with you. That advice will not be heard by some.
What has the Constitution got to do with these issues?

That was just one of my questions, too. I'm already confused as to just what the subject of this thread is. That we shouldn't cooperate 100% with Interpol? Since when? And what does that cooperation have to do with the International Criminal Court and our membership therein?

Under Reagans executive order we cooperated with Interpol, But the FBI oversaw all their operations within the USA to make sure that they followed US law and that our citizens received all due protections under our laws. Obama has changed that to give Interpol free reign in the USA. At least that's the way I read it.

 

[MaggieMae]

Guess what? Here's something even worse. In the United States it has been approved by the Supreme Court that a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation and evidence produced from that lie is admissible. In my jurisdiction that would be sufficient cause for judicial discretion to excise any evidence from the interview and investigation due to misleading the suspect.

And you are getting your knickers in a twist over this?

And are you aware that the NYPD has intelligence operatives working in various countries around the world and that they are doing so because various national governments approve of that?

Does it occur to you and anyone else that cooperation is good, that we should back each other up against these nutters?

We are on the same side.

We are not talking about cooperation here. What we are talking about is that INTERPOL can now operate within the USA without any oversight from any US legal departments or Law Departments. They may make an arrest and remove the suspect from the country without any of our legal protections. And you see nothing wrong with this? And that's only one instance. They do not have to follow US law......DUH

But but but I thought it was conservatives who so strongly object to alleged terrorists being tried in the United States. Seems to me all that's doing is giving them over to Interpol instead of a civil trial here.

I think the purpose of the EO was to eliminate the layers of bureaucracy involved when Interpol happens to beat the CIA and/or FBI to the punch by discovering terror cells here, and the US would thereby be free to round 'em up and act quickly, rather than the usual dragged out legal procedures (or indefinite jail time while waiting).

And for all those confusing the International Criminal Court with what this Executive Order intends, the EO is simply clearly defining what I.N.T.E.R.P.O.L means. The ICC is an independent judicial body.

"The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) — a permanent international criminal court, founded in 2002 to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes."

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

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.

 

[rightwinger]

Anthony Martin at the Examiner noted the international agency now can operate in the U.S. will "full immunity" from U.S. laws and "with complete independence from oversight from the FBI."

Interesting rant. Do you have any sources other than a right wing paranoid blog?

 

[Brubricker]

Under Reagans executive order we cooperated with Interpol, But the FBI oversaw all their operations within the USA to make sure that they followed US law and that our citizens received all due protections under our laws. Obama has changed that to give Interpol free reign in the USA. At least that's the way I read it.

In 2002, President Bush rescinded the USA's signature on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In so doing, he voided ICC jurisdiction over the United States. The same year, the American Servicemembers Protection Act was passed. It prohibits any U.S. government personnel from being brought to trial by the ICC. The law also authorizes the president to use military force to free any American detained by the ICC.

Obama's action changes none of those things. No president can overturn a federal law by executive order. He has simply modified the conditions of Interpol's immunity so that we cannot put THEM on trial. He has not granted any powers to them at all. The federal law shielding Americans from the ICC remains in full effect.

 

[rightwinger]

Under Reagans executive order we cooperated with Interpol, But the FBI oversaw all their operations within the USA to make sure that they followed US law and that our citizens received all due protections under our laws. Obama has changed that to give Interpol free reign in the USA. At least that's the way I read it.

In 2002, President Bush rescinded the USA's signature on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In so doing, he voided ICC jurisdiction over the United States. The same year, the American Servicemembers Protection Act was passed. It prohibits any U.S. government personnel from being brought to trial by the ICC. The law also authorizes the president to use military force to free any American detained by the ICC.

Obama's action changes none of those things. He has simply modified the conditions of Interpol's immunity.

Thanks

That clarifies the right wing rant

 

[MaggieMae]

Allowing police to deceive a suspect in an interview isn't acceptable to me, if you're okay with it then fine.
One piece of advice - say nothing until you have your lawyer with you. That advice will not be heard by some.
What has the Constitution got to do with these issues?

That was just one of my questions, too. I'm already confused as to just what the subject of this thread is. That we shouldn't cooperate 100% with Interpol? Since when? And what does that cooperation have to do with the International Criminal Court and our membership therein?

Under Reagans executive order we cooperated with Interpol, But the FBI oversaw all their operations within the USA to make sure that they followed US law and that our citizens received all due protections under our laws. Obama has changed that to give Interpol free reign in the USA. At least that's the way I read it.

It reads to me like the EO was merely a technicality to make sure all our ducks are in a row in case some hothead decides to make waves over US supremacy in fighting the global war on terror. I for one am delighted that Interpol appears to be more heavily involved in surveillance than we are, and that it doesn't hesitate to share their information, ever. Remember the plane a year or so ago that would have carried some AQ suspects on a transAtlantic flight from the UK to the US (around Christmas as I recall). It was Interpol who first discovered the plot and alerted the US authorities, although the flight never took off. (I'm working purely from memory here, so if someone has the facts about that incident it might be helpful to understand the complete cooperation we have always had with the Brits with regard to country-to-country threats.)

If only we could get the CIA and FBI to stop being so territorial and start sharing information with each other, too. In spite of what emerged from the 911 Commission report over that being part of the reason US agencies didn't foresee a 911 disaster and better prepare for it, they continue to bypass each other for some unknown reason.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Guess what? Here's something even worse. In the United States it has been approved by the Supreme Court that a police officer can lie to a suspect during an interrogation and evidence produced from that lie is admissible. In my jurisdiction that would be sufficient cause for judicial discretion to excise any evidence from the interview and investigation due to misleading the suspect.

And you are getting your knickers in a twist over this?

And are you aware that the NYPD has intelligence operatives working in various countries around the world and that they are doing so because various national governments approve of that?

Does it occur to you and anyone else that cooperation is good, that we should back each other up against these nutters?

We are on the same side.

We are not talking about cooperation here. What we are talking about is that INTERPOL can now operate within the USA without any oversight from any US legal departments or Law Departments. They may make an arrest and remove the suspect from the country without any of our legal protections. And you see nothing wrong with this? And that's only one instance. They do not have to follow US law......DUH

But but but I thought it was conservatives who so strongly object to alleged terrorists being tried in the United States. Seems to me all that's doing is giving them over to Interpol instead of a civil trial here.

I think the purpose of the EO was to eliminate the layers of bureaucracy involved when Interpol happens to beat the CIA and/or FBI to the punch by discovering terror cells here, and the US would thereby be free to round 'em up and act quickly, rather than the usual dragged out legal procedures (or indefinite jail time while waiting).

And for all those confusing the International Criminal Court with what this Executive Order intends, the EO is simply clearly defining what I.N.T.E.R.P.O.L means. The ICC is an independent judicial body.

"The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC) — a permanent international criminal court, founded in 2002 to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes."

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

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.

Sec 2 C 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.
Sec. 3.

Pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Commissioner of Customs with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, the baggage and effects of alien officers and employees of international organizations, or of aliens designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to such organizations, or of the families, suites, and servants of such officers, employees, or representatives shall be admitted (when imported in connection with the arrival of the owner) free of customs duties and free of internal-revenue taxes imposed upon or by reason of importation.

Sec 4 is lawyer-speak about income taxes and i don't have a clue what it means.

Sec 5 is Social Security taxes

Sec 6 is property taxes.

Now I ask you all, is he trying to tax Interpol or making sure they are not taxed? And why after 25 years did this need to be changed? I really don't understand what the hell he is doing now. I had previously read 2 summaries which appear to be wrong. I really need to learn more lawyer-speak.