INTERPOL Granted Diplomatic Immunity In the US 450
ShakaUVM writes "A couple of weeks ago without any fanfare or notice in the media, President Obama granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity while conducting investigations on American soil. While INTERPOL has been allowed to operate in the US in the past, under an executive order by President Reagan, they've had to follow the same rules as the FBI, CIA, etc., while on American soil. This means, among other things, the new executive order makes INTERPOL immune to Freedom of Information Act requests and that INTERPOL agents cannot be punished for most any crimes they may commit. Hopefully the worst we'll see from this is INTERPOL agents ignoring their speeding tickets." Update: 01/05 02:57 GMT by KD : Reader davecb pointed out an ABC News blog that comes to pretty much the opposite conclusion as to the import of the executive order.
Easy come.... easy go.... (Score:3, Informative)
This is really a change of a default assumption than freedom to do anything without penalty. If INTERPOL starts going crazy, it only takes a presidential signature to take this exception back.
So if the INTERPOL guy says "I won't, and I don't have to!" and the fed guy says "It's a matter of national security!"... all he needs to do is get the message up to the top of the chain-of-command, and suddenly that fed guy can grab whatever info he wants.
Yeah, high standard, but it's not going to change things much.
Headline is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
the headline says:
INTERPOL Granted Diplomatic Immunity In the US
The actual article [examiner.com] says: "these privileges are not the same as the rights afforded under "diplomatic immunity," they are considerably less. "Diplomatic immunity" comes from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that a "diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State." That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.
The headline seems to be wrong.
Don't be silly. (Score:5, Informative)
Come on, you're telling me that INTERPOL now has the same protection as the "International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission".
Yeapsireee, gotta watch out for those rouge Halbut operatives. Goodness me.
More seriously, remember INTERPOL actually has very little power - they're a coordination agency. They have no powers of arrest. They don't even DO investigations. What they DO is if a cop in Australia is tracking down a criminal who's fled to Los Angeles and therefore needs the LAPD assistance, INTERPOL is the agency that makes that inter-police-force connection happen. There are no "INTERPOL" officers in L.A. that do the arrest - that's for the LAPD (or FBI).
Re:How's this different from embassies? (Score:1, Informative)
Read the article.
INTERPOL has not been given diplomatic immunity.
They've been granted a very limited immunity from certain taxes and from records seizure.
They are not, as the original submitter suggests but the article refutes, immune from "most any crimes they may commit".
Just like the FBI is not under local jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
This is not diplomatic immunity. This is just protection against searches, IRS, etc. This basically allows a law enforcement officer to carry out his duties. It is identical to when the FBI comes to a local town to investigate, they can not be hindered or stopped by the local law enforcement. This is obvious and should not raise any issues.
Misleading title (Score:5, Informative)
Re:INTERPOL is a police agency! (Score:5, Informative)
You are ignorant. Interpol has no agents; it's a clearinghouse for information sharing, and it has a bunch of committees. It has never been subject to FOIA requests. Legal authorities working on behalf of Interpol are subject to the same restrictions they always have been. The RIAA has nothing to do with Interpol.
This move by the Obama administration puts Interpol on the same footing as the International Pacific Halibut Commission. Oooh, scary!
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:5, Informative)
These are the additional privileges granted to Interpol:
Section 2(c), which provided officials immunity from their property and assets being searched and confiscated; including their archives;
the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes;
Section 4, dealing with federal taxes;
Section 5, dealing with Social Security; and
Section 6, dealing with property taxes.
That's it. How exactly does that make you less sovereign?
Very common for US troops in foreign soil (Score:3, Informative)
In countries like Paraguay, Argentina and others in South America, this is pretty standard. Now (since very few years) with left governments immunity is being revoked.
From 2005 in Paraguay:
"the U.S. troops in Paraguay could not be taken before the International Criminal Court if they were accused of crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes. "
In Argentina, joint naval exercises like Unitas are cancelled because our government don't want to give immunity to US army.
Re:Insanity (Score:3, Informative)
This puts them on the same diplomatic footing as the International Pacific Halibut Commission.
Interpol is not a police agency; it has no agents, and they don't investigate and prosecute crimes. They're an information sharing/clearinghouse organization that has bureaucrats and committee members.
You can come out from under the bed now.
Hold the Phone, or even better Read the Article (Score:5, Informative)
Here are the sections that were addressed by the order, according to the linked article:
Section 2(c), which provided officials immunity from their property and assets being searched and confiscated; including their archives;
the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes;
Section 4, dealing with federal taxes;
Section 5, dealing with Social Security; and
Section 6, dealing with property taxes.
Whether or not they have criminal immunity (don't know offhand), there doesn't seem to be ANYTHING in the above executive order addressing such matters. Might have FOIA implications, but doesn't seem to have anything to do with punishment of crimes committed by agents. Summary is wrong.
Right-wing propaganda (Score:5, Informative)
Why are you linking to this "article"? It contains no information, only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.
If you care about facts, you can find them, a few seconds of searching revealed this [nytimes.com] for instance.
Quote:
In other words there appears to be nothing to get worked up about. Even if you believe whatever republicans do is right. Because they would have done the same.
You Americans are crazy.
Re:Right-wing propaganda (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, I meant to make this a top-level reply. I meant the article linked to in the summary. Sorry, geoffrey.landis.
Actually they already had diplomatic immunity (Score:5, Informative)
They had diplomatic immunity since Reagan's executive order. The statement in the original post that "the new executive order makes INTERPOL immune to Freedom of Information Act requests and that INTERPOL agents cannot be punished for most any crimes they may commit." is factually wrong. The infallible mr. Reagan's executive order did that ... it and not the new executive order gave Interpol the following :
"(b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located, and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract."
AND
" (a) Persons designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to international organizations and the officers and employees of such organizations, and members of the immediate families of such representatives, officers, and employees residing with them, other than nationals of the United States, shall, insofar as concerns laws regulating entry into and departure from the United States, alien registration and fingerprinting, and the registration of foreign agents, be entitled to the same privileges, exemptions, and immunities as are accorded under similar circumstances to officers and employees, respectively, of foreign governments, and members of their families.
(b) Representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as such representatives, officers, or employees except insofar as such immunity may be waived by the foreign government or international organization concerned."
Reagan gave Interpol diplomatic immunity, Obama removed their duty to pay taxes and extended their immunity to an immunity to searches.
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Actually they already had diplomatic immunity (Score:5, Informative)
I should add that Reagan obviously didn't make them immune to FOIA requests ... not being part of the United States government did that.
Re:Very common for US troops in foreign soil (Score:1, Informative)
What parent said. The USA pushes hard to get its troops immunity from local laws. If you don't want foreigns to be above the law in your own country, you shouldn't try to put yourselves above the law when you cross your borders.
Just sayin', is all.
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:5, Informative)
That sure sounds pretty cut and dried to me.
Re:Misleading title (Score:3, Informative)
>>The title and summary are pretty misleading, it appears the only thing Obama did was exempt INTERPOL from certain taxes and provided them with immunity from search and seizure. The article explicitly states that it is not the same thing as diplomatic immunity.
That's because they edited my submission and mangled it.
For the actual law in question, read this:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act [wikisource.org]
INTERPOL is already immune to suit and legal process (Section 7). This made them immune to search, seizure, and paying taxes. And their families, if I'm reading it right.
There's different kinds of diplomatic immunity, read this for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#Diplomatic_immunity_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
They now have all the entries on that table, so if you don't want to call it full diplomatic immunity, you're welcome to come up with a better term.
Re:Don't be silly. (Score:3, Informative)
Not a personal need (and not special to INTERPOL) (Score:4, Informative)
The immunity belongs to the organization, not the people (even when sometimes they attach to people because of their relationship to the organization.) Like much stronger diplomatic or consular immunities, they are not individual rights; particularly, the institution to whom they are granted may waive them, whether or not the individual affected wishes them to. The rights exist to protect the operation of the institution (particularly, for the protections granted to international institutions, they exist principally to get other countries to cooperate fully with the institution by assuring them that the host country of the institution's facilities won't either use them to seize property acquired by other nation's funding of the organization or to seize sensitive information shared with the organization outside of the scope of the information sharing carried out under the procedures of the organization.)
The immunities at issue that INTERPOL was previously specifically excluded from that apply to international organizations are:
* Immunity to search and confiscation of the organizations premises, property, and archives
* Freedom of customs duties for baggage of staff
* Immunity from various taxes (Social Security, property taxes, federal income taxes)
(Note, all of this is laid out in TFA)
The personal immunities that apply to international organization staff (exemption from immigration controls, and immunity to suit based on official acts) already applied to INTERPOL, because the Reagan Administration order that added INTERPOL to the list of organizations getting the standard set of protections set out for such organizations in US law didn't exclude those personal protections, just some of the institutional protections. All the Obama order did is remove the special limitations that were applied to INTERPOL (and which were irrelevant at the time of the Reagan order, since INTERPOL didn't have offices in the US at the time.) No special privileges beyond those usually granted to international organizations that the United States participates in (and some that it doesn't!) have been granted to INTERPOL.
Snopes says this is an exageration as does NYTimes (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't give them universal immunity to do as they will within our borders. Interpol has no police force. It's just an administrative organization that basically acts as a go-between between countries.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/interpol.asp [snopes.com]
Should have RTFA (Score:4, Informative)
This modification specifically allows INTERPOL the ability to enter into contracts, own and dispose property and has some ancillary language regarding taxes and immigration.
The real provision that is possibly dangerous is Section 7. (b) Representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity ... http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act#Title_I [wikisource.org]
If an agent of INTERPOL is "just doing his job" then he can do whatever he wants. Fortunately for us INTERPOL is very limited in what it can do.
INTERPOL's constitution is very clear as Article 3 states: It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/legalmaterials/constitution/constitutiongenreg/constitution.asp [interpol.int]
Thus, we are safe from the administration asking INTERPOL to conduct operations on US soil. If that charter were to change though... it would be a different story.
Also, Obama's actions have had no change on their status in this regard. They have always had this status.
INTERPOL isn't a police agency! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:3, Informative)
>>This summary is flat out WRONG. It's phrased to start a flamewar. Click the news link, and see what it says
I'm the submitter, and I'd recommend not clicking on the news link. Not only is it wrong, but the Slashdot editors added it in to my submission, which just had a link to the Executive Order and to the UN Parking Ticket Scandal.
>>FOIA might be affected, but they are not immune to crimes.
Incorrect. They are immune (technically, they were already immune - this extends their immunities further). ABCNews is further wrong when it says INTERPOL does not have full diplomatic immunity. If you look at all the categories of possible immunities here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#Diplomatic_immunity_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org], INTERPOL agents (and their families to a certain extent) have them all now. There's more kinds of diplomatic immunity than the immunities diplomats have.
They're immune to search, seizure, suit, legal proceedings, taxes, and their families too. Just what I want from a law enforcement agency, eh?
If you don't believe me, read the law yourself. All the source is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425 [whitehouse.gov]
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12425 [wikisource.org]
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act [wikisource.org]
Re:Don't be silly. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Snopes says this is an exageration as does NYTi (Score:5, Informative)
If these agents work for INTERPOL, doesn't this order (and it doesn't really matter whether it was Reagan or Obama who authorized it) give those INTERPOL members immunity?
Re:How's this different from embassies? (Score:3, Informative)
Interpol "agents"? No such fucking thing (Score:5, Informative)
Interpol is an organisation whose member are nations and their police. They coordinate information sharing between member states. They don't do police work themselves. The only Interpol employees stricto sensu are administrative staff. That's it. The only "agents" are those of the FBI in the US, or the RMCP in Canada, and so on and so forth for other members. Nobody's going to show up at your door with an Interpol badge -- ever. Or maybe as a joke or a fraud.
That slashdot falls for this right wing scaremongering bullshit is disheartening. Goddamn it, it's not that hard to look shit up on Wikipedia, morons [wikipedia.org].
Re:How's this different from embassies? (Score:5, Informative)
No, I was correct, and you're the moron.
No, they're not. You may have been thinking of Europol, or you may be lost in your own delusional fantasy. Either way, you're wrong. Interpol has a staff of around 600 people, and a budget of $60 million; the FBI has 32,700+ employees, and a $7 billion budget.
This is, in fact, correct. They are national law enforcement police who are subject to national laws. An FBI agent on loan to Interpol's office in New York receives no immunities or privileges he didn't have as an FBI agent. Obama's order is regarding the organization itself, the Interpol General Secretariat.
From the Wikipedia page on Interpol:
Read that closely: When two police agencies need to co-operate across borders, they go through Interpol. Interpol doesn't investigate and arrest them; national law enforcement does, with Interpol acting as the co-ordinating agency. They don't originate investigations, and they don't make arrests on their own authority--that's the whole point of each country setting up an NCB staffed by locals with the authority to be police officers.
And to be perfectly clear, a national law enforcement officer in the NCB receives no benefit from the order Obama signed, which doesn't confer diplomatic immunity anyway--it's a lesser form of organizational immunity granted to international organizations that applies to Interpol's records and bureaucratic operations, not to their personnel.
Got that? Interpol doesn't have diplomatic immunity, they have International Organizations Immunity:
In other words, if someone from the general secretariat works in the NY office, they don't have to pay NY taxes and their paperwork can't be searched. If they jerk off on the subway, they can still be arrested for indecent exposure.
Thanks for playing, though.
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:3, Informative)
Relax, the posting is just a troll. Read the article.
--dave
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:2, Informative)
Section 2 (b) as quoted above does apply to Interpol, but that was given by Reagen. Obama just modified what Reagen did to add these sections:
Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act.
Section 2(c), which provided officials immunity from their property and assets being searched and confiscated; including their archives;
the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes;
Section 4, dealing with federal taxes;
Section 5, dealing with Social Security; and
Section 6, dealing with property taxes.
Interpol is not a police force (Score:3, Informative)
For fuck's sake, you people are so fucking ignorant.
Interpol. Is. Not. A. Police. Force.
It's not a force.
And they don't do police work, any more than the World Postal Union carries letters. They help various member states coordinate police work. They have people's phone number, basically, that's about it. They also have a "most wanted" list or something. Scaaary.
There are no "interpol agents" (Score:5, Informative)
That does not exist. Just like the Universal Postal Union will not deliver letters to your home, nor will you ever be able to lease a phone line from the ITU.
Goddamnit, you people are so fucking stupid, it's unconscionable.
Re:Yes, read for yourself to see the BS (Score:5, Informative)
Go to Interpol.int and read up a bit. They do more than coordinate agencies. My previous question was rhetorical - they actually do all of those things.
Oh believe me I already have. And the last thing I would do at this point is take your word for the information contained in some document.
They do not arrest. They do not conduct primary investigations. They are information coordinators/managers. As their web site clearly states. They provide access to databases and expert advice, they assist communication between law enforcement agencies. They make information obtained by other organizations investigations available. That's what they do. That's what their website says they do.
You suggest they perform actual law enforcement activity within participating countries, and ergo continue to be full of shit.
You're confusing legal-under-American-law acts and acts-done-as-part-of-their-job acts, which may or may not be the same thing.
No I'm not. I'm saying that they cannot possibly have immunity from the provision of unreasonable search and seizure, because search and seizure is not one of their official capacities. Legal or not, it's not one of their official activities. Ergo the immunity cannot protect them if it is illegal.
If you think about all the espionage that has gone on under the umbrella of diplomatic immunity, you'll see where your error lies.
Yes, under actual, FULL diplomatic immunity.
Re:Clever (Score:3, Informative)
I understand the "our country" probably referring to the USA. What is the other country in the "both countries" that you're referring to? You are aware, I hope, that INTERPOL is an organization comprised of 188 nations... including the USA?
Re:Snopes says this is an exageration as does NYTi (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the supplied Snopes [snopes.com] link, it will tell you that the local governments have the right to decide upon the legality of warrants passed on by Interpol, meaning they are allowed only as much latitude as the states deign to grant. The local governments decide on the legality, the local governments send law enforcement if needed, etc. Interpol does not of those things. Interpol doesn't even issue warrants, it requires one of the member countries to do so. They simply pass them on to the necessary recipient.
Interpol does NOT have a police force, it does not conduct criminal investigations, and it does not make arrests. It acts as a data manager of sorts, for any member nations, coordinating information, passing warrants as needed from one member country to another, etc. They are basically an administration/secretarial service on an international scale. Whatever odd idea of Interpol people may have gotten from the Bond flicks or whatnot, are not quite accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol [wikipedia.org]
For those that don't want to read through all of the Snopes/NYTimes information:
These are the same standard rights that are granted to some 70+ other international organizations. These additional rights were not granted to Interpol because it did not have a local office on US soil at the time. This was submitted prior to Bush leaving office and the State Department suggested approving it so that Interpol had the same legal status as other international organizations. It was not completed before Bush left office however. This is a bit of house cleaning to complete the request.
Re:Easy come.... easy go.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:5, Informative)
I know it's a little complicated, but basically in 1983 Reagan signed an executive order granting Interpol international organization status, which just means they get certain (mostly tax- and customs-related) protections and privileges [wikisource.org]. Section 2(b) of the act defining those privileges is what you quoted above, and is what Reagan gave them. Now, Reagan excepted Interpol from certain protections, viz Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 [wikisource.org]. These exceptions are what Obama has just withdrawn [whitehouse.gov]. Go ahead and read them, they pertain partly to taxes and social security, and also protect the property of international organizations (all of them, not just Interpol) from seizure and search.
So either you don't really understand what's going on or you're just fearmongering. As to the whoever started this, well, that was pure FUD.
Re:Snopes says this is an exageration as does NYTi (Score:3, Informative)
Don't need no stinking FBI to do this. DHS (dept. homeland security) already has that authority granted under the Patriot Act. It's called Suspension of Habeous Corpus and the only agency granted that suspension was DHS. So they already have the right to grab you without warrant or charges and hold you as long as they like for any reason so long as the grab is done by DHS or under the Order plus they have to right to tell you to shut up or they can grab you.
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:2, Informative)
The principle of diplomatic immunity is ancient and absolute.
Other countries grant the same to select organizations, including diplomatic staff, on their soil, and have for thousands of years.
Doing so for INTERPOL is really unremarkable to all but the tinfoil hat crowd. And, of course, to the teabaggers.
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:3, Informative)
>>I felt it was pretty obvious that my point was that people should make up their own damn minds after reading multiple sources of information, including primary sources.
And my point was that if you're going to add in secondary sources, the editors should at least make sure they're not, you know, wrong.
>>After just a quick glance, that ABC article offers links to twelve primary sources. So I hate to break it to you, but that article wins the battle of primary sources.
Holy hell! 12! Obviously a hyperlink to the trout commission lets them win the battle.
I hate to break it to you, but the three references I gave you are the entire bit of law in question.
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:1, Informative)
This country soverignty has been slowly eroded over the years. The founding father's effort is now all lost. Time to fight the 2nd Independence war in 2012.
Ha ha, it's going to be fun watching crack pots like you get arrested while you realize that you are the minority.
Re:Snopes says this is an exageration as does NYTi (Score:1, Informative)
Actually .... it mostly does. Jurisdiction is based on national boundaries. Except for very few crimes, you cannot be punished for comitting a crime outside of the U.S. by a U.S. court (or a court of any of it's states). Diplomatic immunity provides you with a blanket exception to getting sued by the only court that has jurisdiction. Ironically this exception is the result of muslim pressure (ottoman pressure to be exact), as they wanted to be able to violate for example divorce law, and have the ability to forcibly repatriate the ambassador's wife if she attempted to divorce him (happened in London).
This jurisdiction thing is e.g. why the RIAA put up such a big fight to make the court declare downloading from Holland as an act that at least partially took place in the U.S. (and why the UN pushed through that sending a byte from the U.S. to Europe only involves US and EU law, even if that byte passes through Iceland, or China and Russia (the backup connections))
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:4, Informative)
What? I'm a whackjob that believes in the Illuminati as a secret, nefarious society because I can read and quote the act?
You apparently failed to read beyond the part you emphasized, as the next words show how silly this whole affair is: "as is enjoyed by foreign governments." All your quote says is, INTERPOL is to be treated the same as every foreign government that has an embassy in the US. There is literally nothing to get excited about here.
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Misleading title (Score:3, Informative)
Seems like that pretty explicity states that this is not diplomatic immunity. Also, there is nothing in that law that says anything about immunity to local prosecution - which is the main thing that most people think of when they hear 'diplomatic immunity'. This act only grants immunity from suits or civil actions "relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as such representatives, officers, or employees".