Posted on 01/08/2010 9:51:41 AM PST by opentalk
While our "Constitutional Scholar" president insists on full Constitutional rights for terrorists, he has at least attempted to repeal the 4th Amendment protections for Americans, with particular impact on the men and women in the U.S. military.
An Executive Order dated December 17 grants full diplomatic immunity to INTERPOL, the International Criminal Police Organization. This Obama Order immunizes INTERPOL from "search and seizure," from all tax laws, from the Freedom of Information requirements, and puts INTERPOL above the jurisdiction of American Law Enforcement, American Courts, and the Constitution itself.
INTERPOL was originally formed in 1923 as an information clearinghouse service for nations responding to the threats from globalized crime syndicates. INTERPOL agents were available to requesting nations to assist in efforts to fight organized crime.
But this limited role is changing fast.
In 2008, Jordan requested that INTERPOL apprehend 12 Europeans that Jordan had charged with "blasphemy" (a crime under Jordanian law) in connection with the 2005 publication in Denmark of the "offensive" cartoons about Muhammed.
Last week, Israeli military officers, scheduled to visit the U.K. on official business, canceled the trip for fear of being arrested for a "war crimes" charge brought by Iran in a British court arising out of the Israeli invasion of Gaza.
Should Americans worry that INTERPOL will start arresting Americans in America who have blasphemed the Prophet, defended America against radical Islam, or otherwise run afoul of foreign law?
On December 31, the New York Times ran a story that conservative concerns about INTERPOL were baseless. The story quotes White House spokesperson Christina Reynolds "There's nothing newsworthy here." The story explains that "If a foreign country issues an arrest warrant for a person inside the United States, it is up to the United States government, based on its own laws, to decide whether to apprehend the suspect."
Well, let's peel that onion back a few more layers.
First, the Secretary General of INTERPOL is an American, Ronald Noble. Mr. Noble led the Treasury Department review of the 1983 siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. The review concluded that (to use Janet Napolitano's phrase) the system worked. Or, to adopt a Bushism, heck of a job, guys!
INTERPOL has been linked up with the International Criminal Court. Twenty-five Israeli government officials now fear leaving Israel for any reason for fear of INTERPOL arresting them on the Iranian charges brought in a British Court!
British citizens are now subject to the EU court in Brussels and are subject to EU law and INTERPOL arrest for violating EU law regardless of British law.
Similarly, the International Criminal Court member states use INTERPOL to enforce criminal indictments brought in one country against the citizens of another member country.
The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees, in part, that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons (hear that TSA?), houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...". INTERPOL is the only law enforcement agency now allowed to operate in the U.S. with "diplomatic immunity" i.e. without the restraints of the 4th Amendment.
Think about what that means. INTERPOL -- immune from any U.S. courts’ orders, including any protecting the privacy of American citizens -- can now tap your phone, look at your tax returns or medical records and you can’t do anything about it.
All of the protections afforded you under the 4th Amendment can now be short circuited by INTERPOL, which by the president's order, is immune from these "negative" rights (as Obama once described them).
But the New York Times piece objects, saying that INTERPOL has no agents of its own--it must work through American law enforcement agencies. But that’s only if they are going to use evidence against you in an American court. But what if they want to haul you in front of an international “court?”
Recently, Italy convicted American CIA officers in absentia for the kidnapping of an Al Qaeda leader on Italian soil who was taken to Egypt for questioning. Before last December 17's Executive Order, it was clear that those CIA officers were beyond the jurisdiction of the Italian Court. Not any longer.
Recently, 3 SEAL team members were arrested by the U.S. military and face court martial for giving an arrested terrorist a fat lip. Will this nonsense now be raised to the level of "war crimes" to be tried in the ICC?
Another Obama order gives a hint of the answer to that question. Executive Order 13489 authorizes the Obama administration to order presidential records to be made public now instead of waiting 12 years minimum as previous Orders required. Which means they want to expose whatever they can find in George Bush’s records.
Should Obama carry through on his campaign promise to recognize the ICC, American military personnel could be arrested by INTERPOL and tried in the ICC without the protections of the Constitution or even the protections of American military justice.
In her book, The People v. Bush, leftist crusader Charlotte Dennett explains the potential legal process available to bring the former President (and Dick Cheney too) into criminal court.
President Obama has demanded the protections of the U.S. Constitution be expanded to the enemy. At the same time, he is working to deprive American citizens (including an ex-president?) of those same rights.
--typo--
Not in my book.....in my world, blue helmets, sissy looking French and other EU badges and IDs ALL have a big-ass cross-hair on them....
Does it make em' bullet proof....
SS109s and 30’06 black tips,followed up with multiple DRTs
I would consider it highly likely that the Obama thugs would ask Interpol to spy on U.S. citizens within our own borders who speak out against the Messiah....
Can this be challenged in the Supreme Court? It’s an executive order and not a law (passed by the legislature), and I don’t know if that can also be the subject of a constitutional challenge.
The sad thing is that there are people who honestly believe this EO only protects INTERPOL from FOIA requests and doesn’t do anything to harm US citizens.
When I ask them how a law enforcement agency can have such protections and it not be used against us, they have no answer. They usually just say INTERPOL must abide byour laws. So, I respond that if INTERPOL must abide by our laws, then why do they need diplomatic immunity?
My thoughts also, the constitution was written to protect people from the government. Does not make sense that one man in government can bypass some of the rights provided by it. Interesting that the author points out , Obama studied the constitution.
All I can say is the first time an Interpol agent busts down a door in Texas without a warrant and gets blown away, the local judge is going to pat the shooter on back and say nice shootin, case dismissed under the castle doctrine.
I’d day Rule 308 trumps any EO any day.
just something to remember...
your rights were bestowed upon you at birth, by your creator.
the US Constitution only recognizes this, it does not bestow any rights itself.
neither 0bama nor congress can remove your rights, as they are not as powerful as the creator. the best they can do is DENY your rights, which is unconstitutional.
Obama studies the constitution the way a burgler studies a building plan.
His ultimate aim is to dominate an international government entity. He's systematically subjugating us in anticipation of assuming that power himself.
He's always passed himself off as a cosmopolitan who wants us more 'engaged' with the rest of the world. But the ruthless ambition he concealed beneath his open and cooperative persona, his nebulous statements and obscurity is now emerging. This man is after power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.