Obama Signs Executive Order Giving INTERPOL More Domestic Power Than the FBI
Here we go again.
How much evidence do we Americans need to be finally convinced that our beloved president is a sellout to the international community? That he is not a patriot but is, instead, an effective tool that is being used to stomp out both our collective national and individual sovereignty? As for me, my eyes were opened ages ago. But perhaps others need a pair of toothpicks that they can insert behind their eyelids lest another fast one is pulled without their awareness.
On December 17th, the White House released amending Executive Order 12425. This grants Interpol (International Criminal Police Organization) more domestic power than the FBI and/or local police forces and it is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. A portion of the language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425 was removed in order to revise this order. Read as much as you like here.
There will surely be people reading this who will downplay the significance, if that is possible. Yet this is one more block in our society that has been torn down from the inside and replaced with the preferential treatment of those who could not only care less about us citizens, but who likely hate us.
Coupled with the recent gutting of due process (proposed by the Obama Administration and agreed to by the U.S. Supreme Court), we find ourselves in an increasingly frightening and vulnerable situation. The red carpet for governmental oppression has been laid and is rolling forward across the American landscape. It is so much easier to stick our MP3 headphones into our ears, go to our grocery stores and jobs (for those of us who still have one) and simply ignore what is happening around us. For others who choose to see and hear, many find themselves daily fending off ridicule and condescending grimaces due to the fact that they are accusing our caring, benevolent government of doing the unthinkable: reviving the kind of governance from which our ancestors escaped and died in order to stay free.
This move by our leader is possibly also an attempt to remove the logjam regarding the ICC (International Criminal Court) who many claim to be important for the U.S. to accept but, if studied more deeply, is revealed to be a behemoth that is ultimately intended to usurp all domestic law enforcement and, again, placed in the hands of foreign individuals – some who are hostile to our countrymen.
It is time that we gather together, stand up, and speak out against this assemblage of a police state. Many of the pieces are already in place but, to many, it is too late and, therefore, hopeless. I disagree, however, and strongly believe that we can still have a positive effect as long as we are willing to deliver the message – even to those who scoff at our presence. After all, the freedom and ability to pursue happiness for us and our fellow citizens are much more important than the possibility of this information being rejected.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
My God, how did this slip by me and most Americans!
This should have been given the coverage of a michael Jackson passing.
The impications of the “Order”, go far beyond even what was rightly pointed out. Another “me scared” moment. These libs are starting to FREAK ME OUT!
Wayne,
I know exactly what I’m talking about.
The fact that you rely on the NY Times for even ONE OUNCE of news is all I needed to hear. They are the Establishment’s baby and the judgement of anyone who places any credence on anything they report is just as suspect.
Erick,
My comment was referring to your original article titled “Obama Signs Executive Order Giving INTERPOL More Domestic Power Than the FBI
by Erik the Red on January 4, 2010 ”
My comment stands.
Next time, try to find all the relevant information before you open your mouth.
As an example, read the article in the NY Times about INTERPOL.
JFesta,
If you are truly so willfully (and woefully) naive as to not see any kind of underlying plot or plan over the course of our national history, that is your prerogative. But that does not automatically make me a conspiracy theorist. Since World War II you would think that something would fall in our favor, just by odds alone. We should’ve been in and out of Viet Nam within weeks but were basically forbidden to win. You could argue that we won the first Golf War but in actuality it was only chapter I of the Iraq War and was purposefully continued so that we could return to Iraq a decade later. These and many other issues are verifiable but only to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. You are obviously intelligent. But also apparently can’t see the forest for the trees.
————————————————————————————
I understand what the ICC is “supposed” to be or is “supposed” to do. This is why so many people naively support the US participation. However, I have done my due diligence and have read what many experts regarding this matter say based on their experience in international law and/or their participation at UN conventions. Though tracking down and prosecuting legitimate war criminals may be on the list, it would not end there. Many believe that it would make American soldiers who are stationed overseas more vulnerable and eventually our own citizens as well:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/1604
Terms like “crimes of aggression” are subject interpretation. Those in the UN are among the most hypocritical on earth when they talk about punishments for “genocide” and “crimes against humanity”. Do programs like “Oil for Food” ring a bell?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm
How about the UN/Congo sex scandal?
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/081zxelz.asp
Of course, since they were caught on video, the UN is going to try to save face by conducting some investigations. I could come up with several more without much effort. What it comes down to is that taking the UNs word for world peace and security would be similar to entrusting Stalin to oversee the construction of Christian churches.
Wayne,
Regarding arrests etc, you are probably talking about my follow up conversation with J Festa where I was talking about the ICC. If the US accepts the ICC, it is likely that domestic entities would be used to conduct business. If you are going to criticize me by calling me a fool, it is always helpful if you stay relevant to the context. But I suppose that to some people, personalities will always be more important than policies.
Erik,
I keep hoping that you will have read and understand a document before you write about yet another conspiracy to take over the United States.
The Rome Statute, the charter document of the International Criminal Court, gives the court a narrow scope in the cases that it may investigate and hear. Those cases are limited to the crimes of, according to Article 5 of the Rome Statute, The Crime of Genocide, Crimes against humanity, War Crimes, and the Crime of Aggression. Genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are defined specifically in Articles 6,7, and 8 respectively defining specifically what constitutes those crimes. There is also a stipulation that the Crime of Aggression will be defined as it is in the United Nations. The Court, in its governing document, limits itself to a very specific set of crimes, and cannot exceed that limited scope.
The Rome Statute also limits the Court jurisdictionally by providing, “…the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where: The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution; The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute; The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3; The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.” Basically, if a country is already investigating or prosecuting a crime that falls under the Courts jurisdiction, a lower court has found insufficient evidence for trial, or the person, or persons involved have already been tried, or is not large enough in scope (i.e. cases handled by local, state, district and Federal courts not dealing with genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes )the ICC will not take up the case.
In the event that the ICC does take up a case under pre-trial rules, the accused is informed of the crimes they are charged with, and the evidence that will be used against them. The accused is allowed to challenge the charges and present his own evidence during pretrial. The ICC also guarantees the following rights to the accused; “To be informed, prior to being questioned, that there are grounds to believe that he or she has committed a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; To remain silent, without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence; To have legal assistance of the person’s choosing, or, if the person does not have legal assistance, to have legal assistance assigned to him or her, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by the person in any such case if the person does not have sufficient means to pay for it; and, To be questioned in the presence of counsel unless the person has voluntarily waived his or her right to counsel.” Any of this sound familiar? It should. These would be the rights to a writ of Habeas Corpus, and the rights read to any criminal suspect under the Miranda warning before being questioned. The rights that are extended to the accused under, the Bill of Rights.
The Rome Statute also provides that should any state signer wish to withdraw from the ICC, and thus remove their state from the Courts Jurisdiction, they may do so in a written notification to the Secretary – General of the United Nations. Said withdrawal to take place one year from the date of notification. Not much of a worldwide take over when you are free to withdraw when you wish.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
Wayne,
Interpol stands for the INTERNATIONAL Criminal Police Organization. This means that though there may be a division in the US, it is an international entity. This doesn’t have to do with taxation only. Feel free to read the links I provided. Also, I mentioned Reagan in the above article. Why don’t you re-read the entire thing since it is apparent you didn’t the first time.
People should know what they’re talking about before they open their mouths and make fools of themselves.
Interpol is an organization of 188 countries that co-ordinates requests between national police departments. Interpol does not have boots on the ground. Interpol does not do investigations. Interpol does not make arrests. Belonging to Interpol does not give away any rights or protections that any countries individual citizens have.
Interpol in the US is US officials. Interpol in France is French officials. Interpol in Spain is Spanish officials. And the same is true for the other 185 countries who belong to Interpol.
All Obama did was exempt any material possessions of Interpol from taxation. Ronald Reagan was the man signed our entry into Interpol and co-operation with it’s other members.
JFesta,
If the ICC were accepted by the US, it likely wouldn’t end with the scenarios you mentioned. It would likely trickle down onto the private citizen as well. If it were able to be confined to trying war crimes, then that may be ok, emphasis on “may”. But if you do more research, you will find that the ICC wants absolute power over the citizenry of the world – particularly us – and it would eventually get to the point where they could go into our homes and arrest us (for basically anything they choose) without being required to tell us why, could hold us for an indefinite amount of time (months or years) and would not have to guarantee us a fair trial as we are given by the Bill of Rights. This would be a disaster. They are simply using the war crime thingy as a ram post to get into the door.
Erik,
I can’t say you’ve hit the bulls eye on this one, but you aren’t far off. What this amounts to is cold, calculated political maneuvering. The Executive Order gives Interpol agents the same cover we give to agents of our intelligence services. Usually they are attached to embassy’s as diplomatic aids, what have you, and the full rights, and immunities of diplomats are extended, the same as was done by this executive order.
Now, take the Supreme Counts decision not to hear the case of the four British nationals you referred to. If the high court hears this case, and reverses the lower court’s ruling the flood gates open. Every detainee held at Guantanamo as an enemy combatant can bring suit against the federal government to seek redress for unlawful confinement or torture. If that happens, everyone, from the guards in cuba, to any CIA officers involved, to the Deputy Director for Operations (CIA), to the Director of Central Intelligence, to the Secretary of Defense, or the President of the United States, can be named as a criminal co-conspirator. No one in the administration wants this. It would mean going into Federal Court and invoking State Secrets in order to keep all the information required for such a trial secret. They don’t want to have to defend the actions of the past administration, and they really don’t want to have to invoke State Secrets and look like crimes were committed and they are covering them up.
Enter the ICC. The offences detainees would seek redress for are also covered under the ICC Charter. By signing onto the ICC the administration would clear the way for charges to be filed internationally. The left has been screaming for criminal prosecutions of Bush administration officials since information about the detainee program started coming out. This is where the politics comes in.
The left wants prosecutions. They believe, as I do, that crimes were committed, and that those who committed them should have to answer for them. The right, while they too believe that those who commit crimes should have to answer, would never forgive a Democratic administration for allowing perceived terrorists to bring criminal suit against high ranking member of CIA, the Department of Defense, and possibly the former President and Vice President of the United States.
Interpol now has all the authority to investigate within the United States. It can be argued that within a year to two years, Obama will sign the U.S. onto the ICC. The left gets their prosecutions, and the right gets to see abuses of the Constitution corrected without a perceived terrorist making indictments against the United States in a federal courtroom.
Politics, cold, calculated Politics. Nothing more, nothing less.
{ 3 trackbacks }