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.
Re:Easy come.... easy go.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
No one is taking this exception back, it was granted in the first place.
The question might be why was this ever granted in the first place? Easy - the government wants to make it easier to hunt terrorists on U.S. soil or any other citizen not following the rules. This basically allows to the U.S. government to go and ask interpol to conduct unconstitutional activities on U.S. soil and report their findings. Clap, fail.
Re:Easy come.... easy go.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interpol is international, I know in the name right, so why would they care what ANY country asks them to do?
Well maybe because:
1. The U.S. is a member nation
2. The U.S. pays the bills (like other member nations)
3. The secretary general of interpol is an American citizen, once of the U.S. Treasury. Citizenship should be enough to suggest interest in the U.S. but throw in his treasury and government ties and now you have all sort of good conspiracy theories on top.
Like any org, self preservation is goal #1.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Recruiting Tool (Score:3, Funny)
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.
I'm sold. INTERPOL, sign me up!
but... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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: (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.
It's not a foreign organization (Score:3, Insightful)
It's an international organization.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I actually like reading right-wing stuff. As an intellectual challenge, as in "are my beliefs consistent enough, should I change them?". The linked-to article is, as I pointed out, nothing but hypotheses, strawmans and unfounded Obama-bashing. That's a very different kind of article, not a challenge but merely a waste of time.
Whether the NYT is left-leaning or not (and as a European I'd say it's far off to the right, even though it may be a leftie publication from the POV of someone in North Dakota wh
Your Rights Online? (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Er, then why do these people actually need immunity?
Re: (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.
Re:Don't be silly. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't be silly. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not worried, as long as they lack the powers of the British Dental Association. Those guys are freakin' crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Frog dropped in boiling water jumps out.
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.
This can't mean what they say it means. (Score:3, Insightful)
Right? Or am I acting like a sheeple?
Smarter than taking off our shoes and underwear. (Score:2)
Think about this in context. We just had a near-disaster of a plane exploding in Detroit and US airport screening is worthless to block this threat because the attacker boarded elsewhere. So, the response is to give INTERPOL agents here more power, and most likely the hope is that our INTERPOL guys elsewhere get the same powers so they can do their job there are we don't have to worry about who's being flown in here.
Misleading title (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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 mad
Re: (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 'diplomat
Interpol agents?? What Interpol agents?? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no such thing as an interpol agent. They delegate to national agencies (ie the DoJ) who do /not/ get immunity. What they do have is a bunch of committees and advisors, and a (shared) database of people 'of interest'.
Somebody's been watching the man from UNCLE a few too many times
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody's been watching the man from UNCLE a few too many times
You can *never* watch the Man from UNCLE too many times.
Ah, frogmen emerging from wells in Iowa . . .
Black and white images of THRUSH villains with no faces, who look like something out of a bizarre Magritte painting.
. . . and gentlemen agents in nicely dressed suits with skinny ties . . .
Print yourself an INTERPOL ID . . . ? (Score:2)
. . . there's an app for that!
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.
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.
Dawson? You logged on as someone else today? (Score:3, Funny)
More Importantly... (Score:2)
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.
I CRY FOUL! (Score:3, Insightful)
As for FOIA, they were never bound by the FOIA, since they are not a part of the US Government. If you tried to sue them and use discovery to gain access to their records, that was not possible since they were already covered by Section 2(b), which protects them from judicial processes.
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].
Never let the truth... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't the tinfoil-hat brigade even bother to read articles before deciding they confirm their worst nightmares?
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How's this different from embassies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, except an Embassy is an area of land, and its Ambassadors have very few diplomatic immunities when they leave that area of land. And even SOME restrictions are imposed on that land (meaning I can't set off a Nuke in the Canadian Embassy and think I'll be free of all American Charges in California).
Interpol however, is an Organization of international police officers, and from time to time we've observed that police officers get corrupted. They've essentially granted a Gestapo Force in the States that i
Re: (Score:2)
Embassy personnel are representatives of their countries. The diplomatic immunity is just something they threw in to benefit themselves. It also makes negotiating easier because the diplomats can't be beheaded like they used to be. If they screw up or get caught spying or kill some family in a drunk driving accident, they can be declared "persona non grata" and expelled. This happens regularly.
Also of note is reciprocity. America grants diplomatic immunity but also receives it at embassies abroad. Whe
Re: (Score:2)
My first reaction is WTH, but on the other hand don't embassy staffers have pretty much the same deal?
Yes, but embassy staffers aren't law enforcement agents. They don't have the job mandate or inclination to go around arresting people and removing them to foreign jurisdictions. With diplomatic immunity what's to stop Interpol agents from arresting U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and taking them off to the Hague to stand trial?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Classic slashdot summary (Score:5, Insightful)
How fucking classic is it that the submitter linked the words "granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity" to an article that explicitly states in caps and everything that this is NOT a granting of diplomatic immunity?
According to the article titled "Just What Did President Obama's Executive Order regarding INTERPOL Do?", what it didn't do is grant diplomatic immunity, and what it did do is grant a limited amount of immunity mostly related to taxes and document seizure. The idea seems to be to to allow international organizations like Red Cross, IAEA, IMF, and now INTERPOL to do their work without participating nations worrying that the U.S. will spy on them by reading these organization's records.
Now I'm not sure I like granting a police force any more immunity of any kind, but that's a hell of a lot less than diplomatic immunity and not as hard to revoke. Maybe other countries were getting concerned about the U.S.'s nosiness and this will enhance international cooperation. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I do know the summary was classic bullshit.
No, it's not full diplomatic immunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the Slashdot editors mangled my entry. There was no link to the ABC News article in what I submitted, but I did have a link to the story on unpaid UN parking tickets.
Ah, so a slashdot editor actually managed to improve a submission by linking to accurate information? I'm honestly shocked.
What really irks me is that this actually is a granting of full diplomatic immunity. If you go through the list of all the possible options for diplomatic immunity (it comes in different kinds), INTERPOL now has them all. So, yeah, I called it full diplomatic immunity.
No, it isn't, as your own links state.
Either you don't understand the difference between "immune to prosecution" and "immune to prosecution for official acts", or you don't understand what INTERPOL's official business is in the U.S. Or you somehow think "immunity for some actions" is the same as "full" immunity.
FULL diplomatic immunity means free from prosecution for any and all acts.
Let me spell it out for you.
If I was the French Ambassador to the U.S., and I was caught in L.A. snorting cocaine from from the ass crack of a dead 12 year old boy who I'd just raped and killed (not necessarily in that order), then the worst that the U.S. or local governments could do to to me would be to kick me out of the country -- unless of course France revoked my immunity, which you can certainly imagine happening in this case, but you get my point.
Now if I were an employee of INTERPOL, I would be prosecutable under U.S. and local law. As in NOT full immunity.
Unless you can explain how rape, murder, and drug use are official actions,
And you know what INTERPOL's official business is in the U.S.? Handing information provided by other nations' police forces over to U.S. police forces. That's it. That doesn't cover a very wide variety of actions, thus doesn't provide immunity for a very wide variety of actions, and thus only someone either completely foolish or deliberately stirring shit would call that "full immunity".
If you weren't wrong, I'd agree with you.
If you were any judge of right and wrong, you wouldn't have written such a shitty summary to begin with.
Re:No, it's not full diplomatic immunity (Score:4, Insightful)
By full immunity, I meant they have attained some form of immunity in all six categories of diplomatic immunity.
So by "full" immunity, you meant "partial" immunity in some categories.
Yeah, that's not bullshit. It's blatant bullshit.
Huh, I guess they don't maintained databases of criminals, child abusers, ensure secure communications between police agencies, help track down fugitives, assume crisis management of developing situations, or police training.
Yes, they're an information coordinator. They don't actually track down fugitives, they pass information from one nation's police force to another so that they can track down fugitives. They assist communication between police agencies. Yes. That's all they do.
Any actual investigation or arrest performed by a law enforcement agent, even if that agent is assigned as a representative to INTERPOL (i.e. has the privileges mentioned), would not be protected because it would not be official INTERPOL business. INTERPOL does not have that authority.
Do you even know what you're talking about, or do you just parrot what you read in other comments?
Why don't you learn WTF you're talking about [interpol.int], eh? Notice how even their INTERPOL Response Teams [interpol.int] (under Operational police support services) only deals with providing information and advice? Not actual law enforcement activity?
Get a clue.
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: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: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:4, Insightful)
By "this" i think you mean the US of A.
What about the 'sovereignty' of other countries? Our founding tribes would run amok if they knew their ancestors would bow for the pressure of the US.
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:5, Informative)
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:5, Funny)
There you go again, ruining a perfectly good flamewar with your fancy schmancy facts and logic and whatnot. We don't take kindly to your kind around here..
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:5, Funny)
sudo release me
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:5, Informative)
That sure sounds pretty cut and dried to me.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's cut and dry ... Reagon was an illuminati selling us out to the UN.
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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]
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. If you look at the quote, it states, "The NCB is the designated contact point for the General Secratariat, regional offices and other member countries..." There's nothing there that says that the officers at the NCB work for Interpol. In fact, most likely, they don't.
To analogize, Interpol does for warrants what a hub does for network packets. It handles the logistics of ensuring that all member nations of Interpol receive the warrant for an international fugitive. In this analogy, t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: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: (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 furthe
"Technically"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically they were already immune? That's a rather important technicality ... because you explicitly blamed Obama for giving them immunity from prosecution. In actuality 12425 is the executive order which gave them that ... the one with Ronald Reagan's signature below it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apology not accepted. It's a huge bias and polarizes the entire debate. The courts, legislature, and president can still order seizure of files. Every American has access to this redress through their congressperson, senator, and federal courts.
So I guess it just boils down to Interpol not paying taxes that you're so pissed off about.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They're immune to search, seizure, suit, legal proceedings, taxes, and their families too.
I want to be immune to my family, too!
Yes, read for yourself to see the BS (Score:5, Insightful)
As WP and the law itself clearly states, agents of International Organizations are immune from prosecution for official acts only.
That is nothing like "full diplomatic immunity", which is immunity from all prosecution.
INTERPOL's official business in the U.S. is one of information coordinator between the police forces of various nations, NOT anything related to actual investigation or law enforcement. They do not arrest. They do not investigate.
So to answer the salient question raised by the summary: Can INTERPOL agents now violate due process or other Constitutional protections within the United States with impunity, is a big fucking NO because any such action would not be an official act and thus not protected.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>INTERPOL's official business in the U.S. is one of information coordinator between the police forces of various nations, NOT anything related to actual investigation or law enforcement. They do not arrest. They do not investigate.
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.
>>Can INTERPOL agents now violate due process or other Constitutional protections within the United States with impu
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.
Damn are you doing this on purpose? (Score:3, Insightful)
The two things you quote mean the same thing.
You're quibbling over the meaning of "actual investigation". Interpol does not perform investigations. They collate the information resulting from investigation. I don't know how it could be clearer. Want an analogy? Google Maps does not make maps nor do they operate satellites. They collect maps and satellite pictures and display them. Want a car analogy? Ok. Ebay is not involved in car making. However you can buy a car on eBay. But they won't even deliver it to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They hold international crime databases, among other things. If you'd actually read up on it, there's a whole list of things they do, including training, crisis response, secure international police communications, etc.
Why is this problematic? Let's say, for example, you're wrongly added to a list of international child molesters, and when you get to Thailand, they arrest you. You ask to see the database that holds your name. Right here, I'd imagine there would normally be no problem. But if they decide to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How is Interpol (or another international organization) going to harm an ordinary citizen ...
When you can't bring them to justice? Any way they want.
Just like any other police functionary in a situation where he is himself beyond the reach of the law.
There are LOTS of examples of such behavior, historical and current, domestic and foreign. Most of the laws and legal precedent put in place to stop or redress this behavior are exactly what just got waived. ... in the course of their official duties?
How do y
Re: (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
Mod the article flamebait? I think not. (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, the article has diplomatic immunity.
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, and that immunity isn't going to impede on your rights in any substantial way anyway. No matter what the whitehouse does, you've still got the full protections of the courts in a manner that the constitution guarantees. If stuff is used against you in a trial, you CAN challenge how it was obtained, if wiretaps happen, you CAN assert your constitutional rights to privacy, and if one of these suits tries and grabs you (They can't) you can damn well have them charged on deprivation of liberty if they havent gone through all the due processes to get a judge to agree on terms compatible with American justice.
Generally its pretty unlikely an American will ever face an international court for stuff done at home, the US govt has been adamant on that, but even if you did, the european courts have a very modern set of evidence laws that make the US ones look draconian. (Ie afaik, American courts seem to permit entrapment by undercover agents for some reason)
I'd not be too worried about this, its just the right blowing fear trumpets again. Where where these people when Bush was rolling out the patriot act anyway?
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:5, Funny)
Political party X screwed us, vote Y!
Seems like we've only got two valid choices here. Which is the one we hate and the one we like again?
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?
Re:About time to arm ourselves (Score:4, Insightful)
This is major tinfoilhatism on your part.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny this is flamebait. (Score:3, Insightful)
If George Bush would have signed the exact same executive order, this post would be modded +5, insightful, and with that said, the very people who are heading for the hills because Obama signed it would be trying to defend Bush in that onslaught.
So really, all that is changed is that we substituted one guy for another, but the erosion of liberty continues at pretty much the same or even accelerated pace.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Relax, the posting is just a troll. Read the article.
--dave
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Reading a bit much Ayn Rand, have we?
1) RTFA, and read the rest of the comments in this thread. The overall effect of this executive order is essentially nil. Also read up on what INTERPOL's actual function is -- it hardly threatens our sovereignty (direct these complaints toward NATO, the UN, and any other alliances that we have entered)
2) The "founding fathers" set up a pretty decent government. However, they were not infallible, and provided avenues to amend their documents for that very reason. I im
Re:I wouuld say Unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is why you should not pretend to be a lawyer. Ready?
Interpol has no police force. It conducts no investigations. It doesn't arrest anyone. As an international organization it was not subject to FOIA requests anyway, because it's not a department of the federal government.
As a previous poster noted, this is NOT DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY. This is immunity from attachment of any property that Interpol may have in the USA. Any employees of Interpol, if any, stationed in the USA can and would still be arrested for crimes they commit. In summary, both the original submitter and basically every comment I've seen so far are not just wrong, they are comically wrong.
Holy shit, you're dense (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost all of what Interpol does is send info around. So if it sends info to the US, it's for the US DOJ. When it's in the DOJ's hands, it's in the DoJ's hands, and it's not magically tainted as immune to laws or something just because it was sent through Interpol -- that's just retarded.
No, what it protects is that if information sent by Interpol to a third member transits through the US for some reason (say, an Interpol employee or, more likely, a member states' delegate transits through the US with a bag
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!
INTERPOL isn't a police agency! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Nevermind, this is more evidence the Alex Jones crowd blows things out of proportion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you shitting me? Are you really so ignorant of 1) what Interpol is, and 2) what Obama signed that you're actually believing Alex Jones now?
Obama granted Interpol the same diplomatic status as the International Pacific Halibut Commission. Interpol has no agents; they investigate no crimes and bring no charges. They're an information sharing/clearinghouse staffed by international bureaucrats, and nothing else.
Now, go change your underwear, and quit listening to Glenn Beck, and to your coworker who repe
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as an "Interpol Cop". They have no police agents; they make no arrests and don't investigate crimes. They're an information sharing clearinghouse with a bunch of bureaucrats and a nationally designated committee members.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it just keeps their records from being seized and they don't have to pay some taxes/duties. The privileges granted to them have absolutely nothing to do with immunity from the law, or having a license to kill.
Re: (Score:2)
If International Organisation Immunity were actually diplomatic immunity, which it isn't, it wouldn't be a "license to kill". It would be a license to be expelled from the country and tried by your own country, possibly for treason (or whatever your own country does to people who cause international incidents) as well as whatever you d
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Means they can break into people's houses to conduct illegal searches without recourse?
And kidnap Americans, to take them across the border, for interrogation, also without judicial recourse?
Doesn't it?
Yes, that's right. It also gives them special X-Ray Vision, which allows them to see hot chicks nekkid in their clothes, as well as giving them their own drive-through lane and allowing them to bowl free on Wednesdays.
But that's not all it does. President Obama has also exempted them from the laws of thermodynamics, so it won't be long before mustachioed INTERPOL agents in their secret mountain lair will be aiming their death ray at the Pentagon while anti-grav ships hover menacingly overhead.
But wait! Ther
Re: (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?
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.