I’ve received a lot of e-mails in the last week about an Executive Order that President Obama signed recently concerning the legal status of INTERPOL, an international law enforcement group. The order states the following:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words “except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act” and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
The conservative blogosphere has been in a bit of a tizzy about this executive order in the last week. As far as I know, the hubbub started here and has been racing around the conservative blogosphere since then. The controversy arises because Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act includes a statement that the “property” of covered organizations “shall be immune from search.” The thinking is that by making INTERPOL property “immune from search,” the U.S. Government is giving up U.S. sovereignty, taking a step towards a new international world order, repealing the Fourth Amendment, and the like.
A bunch of people have asked me for my reaction to this story over the last week, and I’ve told them that I have’t blogged on it because I had a vague reaction to it but nothing particularly certain. I am not an expert on INTERPOL, and I hadn’t even heard of the International Organizations Immunities Act until last week. But the e-mails keep coming, and on the theory that some readers might be interested in my vague reaction nonetheless, here’s my tentative take: I have a somewhat hard time seeing what the genuine issues are with Obama’s Executive order.
I recognize that the idea of a Democratic President yielding U.S. sovereignty to an international organization even 1 millimeter is enough to set a lot of people off: This stuff is catnip to some on the right. But I don’t even know if INTERPOL even has any property in the United States to search — and if they have no property to search, I don’t know why it matters whether there is immunity over the search of nonexistent property. The only INTERPOL office in the U.S. that I know of is the one in the DOJ run byDOJ’s Interpol-U.S. National Central Bureau. That office helps U.S. law enforcement get records from abroad and that sort of stuff. But I don’t even know if that office counts as INTERPOL’s “property.” Even if that space counts as INTERPOL property, I’m not sure why it matters if the U.S. Government can execute a law enforcement search of that one office in DOJ. The purpose of INTERPOL is to share data among governments, so I don’t know if the U.S. would need to execute a “search” to get that data. For that matter, I’m not entirely sure what it means to say that INTERPOL property is “immune from search.” That phrase hasn’t been interpreted by any courts that I’m aware of; I’m not sure if it has its Fourth Amendment meaning or some other specialized meaning.
A lot of the blogging objections I have seen to the Executive Order claim that this is a symbolic step towards U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court. But I guess I find an unadvertised executive order that no one knows about (at least until bloggers started pointing it out) that can be tied to the ICC only at a relatively abstract level a rather unthreatening step. Maybe there is more coming, in which case we can look at that when it comes. But in itself, I’m not entirely sure what the fuss is about.
With that said, if there are some experts out there who know a lot about the International Organizations Immunities Act, please do offer your thoughts. I’d be delighted to post a correction if I’m all wrong about this.
Mark N. says:
As a complete layperson (though one who’s interacted in the past with NGO people), my understanding was that the International Organizations Immunities Act basically extends something like diplomatic immunity to representatives of international organizations. Customary international law gives various immunities to accredited agents of Germany or China or Saudi Arabia, but agents of the UN or Interpol or WHO would, without domestic legislation or treaty, be treated as common tourists or business travelers. The Act (passed in 1945) is designed to treat them as something more like diplomats, at least as a matter of domestic law.
As far as New World Order goes, it seems like a fairly weak argument. If I were worried about foreign agents with immunity on U.S. soil, the diplomatic immunity enjoyed by the embassies of foreign states is already more significant (and many of those states are more hostile to our interests than Interpol is).
December 30, 2009, 2:59 amA. Zarkov says:
If this change is without much substance, then why did Obama issue the order? Did he state the rationale behind this change?
I think the problem here is the change means Americans can now be denied access to INTERPOL data that we previously had through subpoena or FOIA requests. Years ago I noticed that INTERPOL changed policy and denied the public access to the crime statistics in its online database. They had data which is normally not available from European governments. Now I can’t get to it.
December 30, 2009, 4:35 amTom T. says:
I had the same reaction as A. Zarkov; what was the stated purpose of this change?
More generally, as to both the 1983 order and the new one, how is it that the application of an Act of Congress can be either limited or expanded by Executive Order?
December 30, 2009, 6:32 amScott R. says:
Tom T., the answer to your second question is found in the section of the US Code cited in the Executive Order. The law gives the President that power:
The remainder of that section allows the President, through an Executive Order, to limit the privileges granted to (or revoke the designation of) an international organization.
December 30, 2009, 7:34 amSW says:
Has Interpol ever been subject to FOIA?
Has anyone ever subpoenaed or issued a FOIA request to them?
Tom, according to the order the Pres. authority is pursuant to Act of Congress.
December 30, 2009, 7:53 amSW says:
Also, because it is an EO it can be changed back at any time.
December 30, 2009, 7:55 amJohnF says:
I think a couple of commenters have asked the right questions; if this is no big deal, why issue the order at all? Why now? Some one cares about this, or it wouldn’t have happened; who, and why?
December 30, 2009, 8:01 amSnaphappy says:
“I’d be delighted to post a correction if I’m all wrong about this.”
I detect tongue in cheek. If it turned out that this were really a nefarious step toward a world government or whatever the conspiratists are saying, I doubt your reaction would be, “How delightful!”
December 30, 2009, 8:26 amSW says:
“if this is no big deal, why issue the order at all?”
Because its an anomaly, unlike every other country where they have personnel, they don’t get to use the diplomatic pouch? So they have to use Belgium’s pouch instead?
December 30, 2009, 8:44 amscattergood says:
My understanding is that the main issue is about FOIA. Interpol can now act in any way they want and there is no mechanism to discover such actions.
USA based government agencies are however forced to comply with FOIA or other court ordered discovery procedures. Further doesn’t Interpol act from within the State Dept. physically, complicating matters significantly?
Last, Interpol is the official investagory arm of the International Criminal Court, and thus the fear I believe is that this act gives the ICC incremental ability to act and have effective control over the USA.
December 30, 2009, 8:49 amPersonFromPorlock says:
Another vote here for “If so, why bother?” It could, of course, be a perfectly innocent political act – the Obama administration being given to such things – but the situation bears watching.
December 30, 2009, 9:01 amscatterbad says:
Scattegood,
December 30, 2009, 9:02 amICC can probably share information through the Interpol, but where do you find any basis for your claim that “Interpol is the official investagory arm of the International Criminal Court”?
erp says:
The objection I heard was that Interpol could now operate in the U.S. at will. I don’t know the legal definition, but I take it that “at will” means Interpol agents can come and go without bothering with visas, passports and other security measures we impose on foreigners traveling here.
If that is the case, it seems to me a genuine cause for concern.
December 30, 2009, 9:08 amscattergood says:
Oh, I don’t know, maybe that Interpol and the ICC have signed a cooperation agreement, as announced by Interpol:
http://www.interpol.int/Public/News/AgreementIntCriminalCourt20041223.asp
That they issue Red Notices ON BEHALF of the ICC:
http://www.interpol.int/Public/News/2006/ICCredNotices20060601.asp
That’s a quick start.
And let’s stop with the not so veiled ad homenim attacks please.
December 30, 2009, 9:10 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Executive Order 12425 and the Legal Status of INTERPOL -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by FloridaLegalBlog and Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Executive Order 12425 and the Legal Status of INTERPOL: I’ve received a lot of e-mails in the last week about a.. http://bit.ly/5KdLJx [...]
December 30, 2009, 9:14 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
First, FOIA has never applied to an ongoing criminal investigation. Second, FOIA has never applied to Interpol, since it isn’t, and never has been, a branch of the U.S. government. Third, if FOIA were really a concern, there are far more obvious attempts to interfere with it, such as when the Bush Admin. ordered that all federal departments and agencies do as little as legally possible to comply with it.
December 30, 2009, 9:28 amCDU says:
Looks to me that Interpol is just agreeing to do for the ICC what it will do for any other police agency in the world: exchange information on criminal activity and issue notices that certain people are wanted for extradition. That’s not really enough to make it “the official investagory arm of the International Criminal Court”.
December 30, 2009, 9:45 amscattergood says:
Well, that is quite a surprise, since the the DOJ maintains a FOIA Interpol specialist according to the The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press: http://www.rcfp.org/fogg/?i=agshow&id=66
Further there are releases under the FOIA about the FBI / Interpol which contains Interpol records: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/interpol.htm
This is all because, I assume, Interpol operates out of the DOJ and thus their actions fall under FOIA requests.
December 30, 2009, 9:52 amgenerallyscattered says:
For what it’s worth, Interpol has also signed cooperation agreements with a host of other international institutions besides the ICC. There’s a list here that runs a couple of pages and includes, among many others, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the World Maritime Organisation.
Interpol also issues red notices on behalf of states. For example, there are currently nearly 600 red notices issued by Interpol on behalf of the United States – search by country and other criterion here. The same search will return only 7 red notices on behalf of the ICC.
Interpol is not, however, the official investagatory arm of the United States, the World Anti Doping Agency or the World Maritime Organisation. It is also not the official investigating body of the ICC, an institution that has an Office of the Prosecutor to run investigations.
Fears of a NWO takeover are almost certainly misplaced though, at the same time, it would be interesting to know why the order was issued at all.
December 30, 2009, 9:56 amSW says:
Scatter – Those documents are subject to foia because they are given to the FBI. Any documents given to the FBI or US government will remain subject to foia (under its restrictions).
BTW – The US is a founding member of Interpol in 1923.
December 30, 2009, 9:56 amscattergood says:
But the difference is that while other countries have their own investagatory and apprehension arms, the ICC does not except through such agreements.
If Interpol isn’t who is acting in this way for the ICC?
December 30, 2009, 9:58 amDan says:
I love the conspiracy nut standard, “I’m just asking questions! Why this? Why now?” As though the most sensible inference is something deep and nefarious rather than a routine granting of a request of a foreign agency that regularly provides useful information to the DOJ and FBI in major transnational investigations. “Why does President Obama hate the Smurfs?” http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/1313/?
December 30, 2009, 10:00 amfishbane says:
Orin,
Don’t you understand that unless we can FIOA these one-world-government types, they and their black helicopters can kidnap citizens and scurry over the border with impunity? European atheist police-ninjas will be coming through windows on zip lines, bagging patriots right and farther right, and there’s not a thing we can do about it!
And ask yourself: why now? It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
December 30, 2009, 10:04 amGramarye says:
I’m with Dan on this. This is an executive order, so a future executive can undo it. If there is no immediate and identifiable reason for concern, then this discussion is pointless. There are dozens of other issues that are more pressing and do raise identifiable concerns. The arguments against this order on this thread so far seem, on their face, to be nothing but reflexive hostility towards any action the president takes. That kind of bias cannot support a rational argument against this order.
December 30, 2009, 10:09 amfishbane says:
Scatter -
But the difference is that while other countries have their own investagatory and apprehension arms, the ICC does not except through such agreements.
This is flatly incorrect. The Office of the Prosecutor is the investigatory division of the ICC. Read the FAQ.
December 30, 2009, 10:10 amWilliamP says:
As far as the “if its insignificant, why bother?” question goes, while I’m not entirely convinced that this is the case, I can think of at least one plausible explanation. One of the things that new leaderships do, regardless of their context, is flex their muscle and tweak all the little things they want to tweak. This often means that policies change for baffling reasons, that insignificant rules are altered because someone, somewhere, is doing an update and has some (often irrational or idiosyncratic) preference. Case in point: when my building incorporated we were putting together a new list of bylaws. An argument nearly came to blows over whether the building would limit dog ownership to “two dogs, each weighing no more than 150 pounds and totaling no more than 300 pounds” or “two dogs, each weighing no more than 160 pounds and totaling no more than 300 pounds.” The only real difference between these two lines was that they were suggested by people who liked to get their way, any argument or perceived disagreement had much less to do with what was being argued and more to do with who was arguing. Why bother? Because human beings often aren’t governed by rationality. Bureaucracy tends to compound that existing problem.
December 30, 2009, 10:12 amDave N. says:
I’d like to know the rationale behind this executive order, too. However, I am not alarmed. I am more concerned about what North Koreans, Cubans, Iranians, and Venezuelans with diplomatic passports are doing in and around New York City than I am about Interpol being allowed to have its own diplomatic pouch.
December 30, 2009, 10:22 amCDU says:
The ICC has it’s own investigatory arm, the Office of the Prosecutor. The apprehension function is delegated to the law enforcement agencies signatories.
December 30, 2009, 10:35 amA. Zarkov says:
I’m going to guess that INTERPOL asked Obama through State to issue that order. I’m going to further speculate that INTERPOL has asked presidents to do this before and got turned down. Someone should file a FOIA requesting all documents that relate to INTERPOL and 22 U.S.C. 288 and all communications to and from INTERPOL on immunities for international organizations.
Obama might have issued the order just to cooperate and promote good relations between the US and INTERPOL seeing no harm. This would also be in keeping with his philosophy of closed and opaque government. Of course he campaigned for the opposite and that make perfect sense– that’s the way politicians act.
December 30, 2009, 11:00 amOrin Kerr says:
A. Zarkov,
What are your guesses and speculation based on? Af for your claim that Obama has a “philosophy of closed and opaque government,” that effort at criticism seems particularly ill timed in light of this morning’s news.
December 30, 2009, 11:03 amJaimeInTexas (Jam) says:
So, Interpol has no police authority to arrest?
December 30, 2009, 11:20 amHas Interpol ever arrested (snatched?) someone?
Because of this EO, if Interpol were to arrest and transport someone out of these uS, what is the remedy?
Adam J says:
A.Zarkov- Wow, your speculation is more entertaining then that of a 9/11 truther. How exactly does this promote a “closed and opaque government”? If the US government were to execute a search warrant against Interpol (something I suspect has never happened in the history of the organization), the public would in no way be privy to the information gained during that search.
December 30, 2009, 11:22 amSW says:
So, Interpol has no police authority to arrest? Not in the US and they still don’t have that authority under this EO.
December 30, 2009, 11:25 amHas Interpol ever arrested (snatched?) someone? Not in the US
Because of this EO, if Interpol were to arrest and transport someone out of these uS, what is the remedy? Blowing it up and going down from there (also the EO does not give them this authority.)
youdontknowJack says:
You want answers and reason for concern? Here you go:
Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an “International Organization.” In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2? and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).
And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.
Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.
Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)
Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens’ Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery (“unless such immunity be expressly waived.”)
Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets – Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.INTERPOL officers would therefore have immunity for any lawbreaking conducted in the US–a policing agency literally “above the law.” In addition, Americans arrested by INTERPOL agents in the US will not be guaranteed access to documentation normally accessible during the US legal process. “
December 30, 2009, 11:35 amJacob LaRow says:
If we were talking about US agencies here there is the exemption 7 (law enforcement) for FOIA requests. How would that apply to INTERPOL here?
December 30, 2009, 11:36 amCDU says:
Except for the fact that Interpol doesn’t actually arrest people. They just pass information to law enforcement agencies in member states and let them handle it.
December 30, 2009, 11:42 amA. Zarkov says:
A speculation is just that– a hunch based on prior experience and judgment. Governments make requests to each new administration in hope they will get what was previously denied. For example back in the 1970s the Soviet Union wanted to buy precision ball bearing fabrication equipment from a particular company in Mass. But this company was embargoed from selling their products because of the obvious strategic implications for ballistic missile accuracy. The SU had asked every prior administration to waive the embargo and were repeatedly refused. But Carter gave permission, which was really a stupid move on his part. I see parallels between Carter and Obama.
Now on to part II of your question. The Federation of American Scientists has been trying to get SRD information declassified for many decades. This has little to do with open government. It’s their particular fetish, and I can say that with some confidence because I know some of those guys personally. They are anti-nuclear activists who are generally against nuclear testing, the Earth Penetrator, the X-Ray Laser program etc. This declassification move is another Obama gift to the left. However, I should add that I am in general agreement with declassification, but for different reasons. In a word some of these people are simply anti-American.
December 30, 2009, 11:44 amSW says:
You Don’t Know:
1) Just because they get diplomatic status (which they were given by Reagan) does not mean they get to enter the US. They cannot enter without permission, even today. And they have no power to arrest or take things that do not belong to them in the US, even today.
2) Assets are not even “conceivably” “human assets.”
December 30, 2009, 11:47 amPer Son says:
But, but, but . . . in The International . . . Interpol arrested people.
December 30, 2009, 11:58 amyoudontknowJack says:
Fine, Interpol cannot affect arrests, this can only be done by law enforcement officials within the Interpol member countries. But why, then, should Interpol be exempt from our search & siezure laws? Our very own FBI, and all other US law enforcement agencies aren’t exempt. I’ll quote, again, for you nit-pickers: “Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.
December 30, 2009, 12:00 pmProperty and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)
Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens’ Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery (“unless such immunity be expressly waived.”)”
Floridan says:
“Americans arrested by INTERPOL agents in the US . . . ”
My understanding is that Interpol does not have agents running around the United States arresting people — rather it relies on American law enforcement agencies.
In any case, how did Interpol become the bad guys?
December 30, 2009, 12:00 pmyoudontknowJack says:
…narrow-minded, lame-brained, this is the real world, not your personal version of it.
December 30, 2009, 12:02 pmChris Travers says:
Airport anti-drug searches in Quito, Ecuador are apparently run by Interpol. I got asked a few questions by them due to an odd luggage mixup over the summer travelling back from there. I simply informed them that the bag in question was not mine and answered a few related questions. It was just an honest mixup probably by the airlines. My wife, waiting for me to return to the gate, was pretty freaked out though.
Fortunately, they don’t seem to have law enforcement power here, though the difference may have to do with how credible and politicized the police may be in developing countries.
I am NOT sure I would rather deal with the Ecuadorian police or army than with Interpol.
December 30, 2009, 12:06 pmA. Zarkov says:
Obama’s EO cuts off the public from learning about INTERPOL through the FOIA. How does this EO promote open and transparent government? Search warrants are a different matter. If INTERPOL has diplomatic immunity how could the US government issue a warrant?
BTW the preamble to your question is extremely offensive, and in the future I’m going to ignore you if you do that again. Evidently you have trouble expressing yourself without flinging a gratuitous insult.
December 30, 2009, 12:21 pmGuest14 says:
This thread is hilarious. You better hope INTERPOL doesn’t read it, though, or you guys are screwed! Into the sack and on to the black helicopters with the lot o’ ya.
December 30, 2009, 12:31 pmNickM says:
IMO this EO means that an American fighting extradition to another country no longer has Brady or other discovery rights to information held in Interpol’s files.
I’m having a hard time caring about that.
Nick
December 30, 2009, 12:36 pmAdam J says:
A. Zarkov – Sorry, it’s just that I find many of your speculations quite implausible. Still, you’re right that I should have refrained. However, Interpol was never subject to FOIA requests- they only apply to documents controlled by the United States Government- and Interpol isn’t the US government.
December 30, 2009, 12:39 pmJaimeInTexas (Jam) says:
How does this EO affects uS citizens accused of breaking uS laws while in a foreign country? Does these uS employ Interpol?
December 30, 2009, 12:58 pmLe Messurier says:
Orin Kerr said:
The article in the NYT sounds like the biggest benifiaries of this new “openness” will be historians and novelists. It also won’t let congress hear testimony from Obama’s social secretary :)
December 30, 2009, 12:59 pmA. Zarkov says:
How the new EO affects FOIA requests for INTERPOL is an unsettled question at the moment. We would need to know what documents INTERPOL is required to give the US and if the EO changes that.
December 30, 2009, 1:01 pmSnaphappy says:
Whoeeee-ooo!
This thread led me to check the calendar — yep, full moon December 31, so this discussion is right on schedule.
December 30, 2009, 1:09 pmSteve P. says:
Snaphappy – it’s not just a full moon, but a blue moon, so here’s to hoping this thread keeps on growing.
December 30, 2009, 1:38 pmpc says:
I wasn’t curious about what Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh were talking about today, but now I know. Thanks!
December 30, 2009, 1:43 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Those are not “Interpol records,” as even a cursory review of them reveals. Those are DoJ records about Interpol. (e.g., the FBI issues a fugitive alert, and transmits it to Interpol.)
December 30, 2009, 1:43 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Correct.
The same as the remedy if the Fijian embassy security staff arrested and transported someone out of the U.S.
December 30, 2009, 1:47 pmSigivald says:
I’m pleased to see someone finally addressing this from a serious legal perspective, and without just assuming that the ThreatsWatch people knew what they were talking about.
I’ve posted comments at probably half a dozen places in the last week pointing out that INTERPOL is not a police agency in any normal sense, doesn’t arrest people, and that, no, “people are not assets” under any sort of vaguely relevant US law I can comprehend.
(It doesn’t help that companies far too often Bullshitte(tm) their way into calling people “assets”…)
December 30, 2009, 1:48 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Yes, also in this documentary.
December 30, 2009, 1:51 pmAdam J says:
A. Zarkov-
“How the new EO affects FOIA requests for INTERPOL is an unsettled question at the moment.”
No its not, interpol didn’t have to accept FOIA requests before & doesn’t have to now.
“We would need to know what documents INTERPOL is required to give the US and if the EO changes that.”
Why would we need to know this? It doesn’t change the relationship except that Interpol records now can’t be subject to a warrant. If Interpol has the record exclusively it can’t be FOIA’d. If the US government has received an Interpol record it must turn it over during a FOIA request unless its subject to an exemption, same as before.
December 30, 2009, 1:56 pmJ Burns says:
Looking at INTERPOL’s and the USNCB’s web sites, it just doesn’t seem like this has much practical impact. At the same time, given that the US likely is sending its agents (CIA, DEA, etc.) into foreign countries a lot more than other countries are sending theirs here, and given the recent disputes over foreign governments bringing criminal charges against U.S. agents, it seems far more probable that this was issued as part of a negotiation relating to the treatment of U.S. agents overseas than some back-door method of getting the whole NWO off the ground. At least I’m willing to go with that unless somebody can give some hard information otherwise.
December 30, 2009, 1:59 pmA. Zarkov says:
If the EO changes the records it must give State or DOJ, then records which we could reach before the EO would not be reachable after the EO.
Call Alison Tanaka at the INTERPOL FOIA desk.
December 30, 2009, 2:03 pmFloridan says:
If . . .
December 30, 2009, 2:50 pmAdam J says:
“If the EO changes the records it must give State or DOJ, then records which we could reach before the EO would not be reachable after the EO.” I think you’re confused, the DOJ’s relationship with Interpol is one of cooperation, it cannot demand records from Interpol. DOJ asks, and Interpol gives, not because it must, but because it’s dedicated to improving law enforcement against international criminals.
“Call Alison Tanaka at the INTERPOL FOIA desk.” Well, actually it’s the Interpol-United States National Central Bureau FOIA desk- part of the DOJ, not Interpol. And there’s a helpful link regarding FOIA requests to USNCB. It clearly states “The USNCB searches only its own records to respond to FOIA requests.” It doesn’t search Interpol’s records, only the records that have passed thru USNCB. The DOJ does not enact search warrants to fulfill FOIA requests.
December 30, 2009, 2:57 pmLeo Marvin says:
Then Obama’s curious failure to say a word about Fiji, the day he plants that smokescreen about classified documents, puts Fiji number two on my list. This thing just keeps getting bigger.
December 30, 2009, 2:58 pmerp says:
… Interpol isn’t the US government.
Yet.
December 30, 2009, 2:59 pmLeo Marvin says:
As if it’s a coincidence Fiji is in Indonesia.
December 30, 2009, 3:05 pmwlpeak says:
Yes the President has “signaled that the government should try harder to make information public if possible”. And a lot of this new EO seems to go in that direction, but I don’t think clearing up secrets of other administrations can really be considered translucency in the current one.
December 30, 2009, 3:06 pmA. Zarkov says:
The telephone number at the website is Tanaka’s number and she’s not answering. You could very well be right, but with details we can’t be sure the EO does not have some affect on the information available. Calling that desk is one place to start.
December 30, 2009, 3:09 pmA. Zarkov says:
From the AP
But read the whole thing. According to this article his record is mixed, but not thrilling.
[OK Chimes in: A Zarkov, I can't think of a President who has a "thrilling" record of openness --- nor am I sure that that would be a good thing. I'm curious, how would you characterize the Bush Administration's views on whether government should be closed and opaque versus open and transparent?]
December 30, 2009, 3:18 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Other kinds of speculative input aside, my reaction is the same as the first ones. I’m not a legal analyst by any stretch, but it seems odd that of all the untold hundreds of pieces of paper on the President’s deck regarding every gripe and bill and question and sticky-notes’ postings imaginable, why and how did this one float a little further to the top?
If it makes not a smidgeon of differnce, then why the bother when so much else is pending to get around to?
December 30, 2009, 3:28 pmDave N. says:
Also, this funny thing called the Thirteenth Amendment might come into play.
December 30, 2009, 3:38 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Orin Kerr (11:03 AM post) said, in part:
..that effort at criticism seems particularly ill timed in light of this morning’s news.
Yes, but in light of the fact we’re mostly talking national security documents in regards to that link you refernced, some of the variety now joyfully being poured over by al-Quaida operatives in their caves on some days, this new loosey-gooseyness is indeed ill-timed, but perhaps not for what some think.
The bills and other shenanigans from this administration being pushed under the dark of night, and containing all manner of various activist shakedown glop that few know about or will ever see is perhaps what your interlocutor Zarkov was mentioning.(info the makes NO strategic contribution to our enemies plans, for example)in the New Opacity.
Which one guesses works quite well with the New Transparency and reductions of lobbyists in ObamaWorld as well..
December 30, 2009, 3:42 pmDave N. says:
Since Rush Limbaugh is taking the week off, the only way you could have heard his views was by talking to him personally. Thank you for trolling, though (lumping Limbaugh with Jones, who is an absolute crank, was a nice touch and worthy of extra points).
December 30, 2009, 3:50 pmAdam J says:
“The telephone number at the website is Tanaka’s number and she’s not answering. You could very well be right, but with details we can’t be sure the EO does not have some affect on the information available. Calling that desk is one place to start.”
I’m shocked, shocked, to hear that one of the government’s public contact #s isn’t being answered. You let me know how that goes. I for one, have to get paid to be willing to deal with government bureaucrats… are you willing to give me my hourly rate?
December 30, 2009, 3:51 pmSarcastro says:
Thank god we got the inside connections of Mr. Tolbert to let us know what is really going on, or we’d have to let our prejudices run wild with speculation!
December 30, 2009, 4:10 pmPaul Horwitz says:
I agree with the commenters above. There is something deeply suspicious about the President signing this piece of paper when there are so many other hundreds of pieces of paper on his desk. Granted, now that I think about it, he has probably signed many of those pieces of paper as well — which also makes you think, doesn’t it? Still, why THIS one — along with, um, all the other hundreds of pieces of relatively routine business any chief executive deals with every day and that slowly make their way through the bureaucratic process? And why NOW, as opposed to, say, two weeks ago or next Thursday? Coincidence? Perhaps….And while we’re at it, is it just a “coincidence” that the President signed an executive order on December 11 declaring a half-day closing of executive departments and agencies on December 24 of this month? What happened during that half-day? Were recording devices placed in those offices by the administration, in cooperation with UNESCO and agents of the Malawi government? It seems unlikely, but without more information I am unwilling to rule out the possibility.
December 30, 2009, 4:20 pmPaul Horwitz says:
Incidentally, can anyone reasonably blame Ms. Tanaka for not answering every phone call from every interested citizen? I mean, just on a physical impossibility basis? Is the idea something like, hey, maybe if four or five thousand more of us call and ask whether orders tangentially affecting records requests involving Interpol are actually the thin edge of the wedge of a shadowy plan for one-world government, she’ll be less likely to decide that this would be an excellent time to take all her available vacation days and unlist her home phone number?
December 30, 2009, 4:23 pmSarcastro says:
If this sort of stuff is what Obama is doing in public, imagine what super-secret evil things he’s doing in private! We could all be UN slaves and not know it! I mean, more slaves than paying taxes makes us already.
December 30, 2009, 4:25 pmSW says:
Good try Paul but you need more run on sentences and unique tenses. Good use of question marks!
December 30, 2009, 4:30 pmFlashman says:
Since INTERPOL databases have information ref. possible terrorists and the organizations with which they operate, especially their international criminal components, maybe all this is an effort to protect INTERPOL’s files and assessments from the prying eyes of FOIA enthusiasts, or at least clarify their status. Given there’s been much public ado and rightful indignation about the failure of US intelligence agencies to properly share information on Abdulmutallab, this may well be an effort to help protect whatever information that should / will be provided to the IC (and not just filtered through the specially assigned DOJ office) via INTERPOL. No need for bi-lateral or multi-lateral intelligence exchange agreements if you can raise INTERPOL’s protections through an EO, which can change should the relationship prove dysfunctional or politically untenable. Why no press release? Because it’s possibly intelligence related?
This may be a policy decision with legal implications or even a legal decision with policy ramifications. In either case it will be interesting to watch the administration deal with the blowback. Remember, you can probably find a DOJ attorney that will write and say anything. Just ask John Yoo.
Speculative? Absolutely! Based on my nearly 22 years working in the IC. I hope it’s nothing more.
December 30, 2009, 4:43 pmDB says:
Hey, did anyone notice that the Vatican became a member of interpol just last year! Holy, Dan Brown! Why now? Talk about a one world government!
December 30, 2009, 5:03 pmElmer Stoup says:
I’ve read all the previous comments. I still don’t understand the rationale for this EO.
Would appreciate it if the folks making the black helicopter jokes about us rubes would just come out and tell me what’s going on.
December 30, 2009, 5:07 pmCrunchy Frog says:
In all seriousness: What exactly makes you think you have the right to know?
December 30, 2009, 5:17 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Well Elmer, late night talk radio conspiracy theories aside about aliens living at Area 51, I would agree that these guys doing the mock are welcome to spill the beans on all this at any moment.
Indeed, feel free to tell us chaw-chewin’ rednecks what the real McCoy is here–and we’ll get back to pickin’ up girls at family reunions.
In the meantime, it might be all a load of steaming bull, but the closet to even the realm of the semi-plausable we have yet is the above missive from Flashman.
Interesting notion, but I’ve not seen a statement to that effect anywhere else.
Though I’ll add that since it’s nifty that FOIA carries no weight with INTERPOL, it seems that in this age of transparency, more secretive info that under the Horror of Things Bush could potentially be put under lock and key. Cool. I note that INTERPOL’s Keystone Kops inadequacey to stanch the blood of terror before now is noteworthy, so perhaps this will change with the singing of an E.O.
Let’s all have a pow-wow about this after the next bombing or headnipping, shall we?
To Sarcasto: Thanks for the elevated snark-factor. We now stand at Snark-Con-2, brother!
December 30, 2009, 5:23 pmADF Alliance Alert » Obama gives Interpol free hand in U.S. says:
[...] Orin Kerr at The Volokh Conspiracy: “The only INTERPOL office in the U.S. that I know of is the one in the DOJ run by DOJ’s Interpol-U.S. National Central Bureau. That office helps U.S. law enforcement get records from abroad and that sort of stuff. But I don’t even know if that office counts as INTERPOL’s ‘property.’ Even if that space counts as INTERPOL property, I’m not sure why it matters if the U.S. Government can execute a law enforcement search of that one office in DOJ. The purpose of INTERPOL is to share data among governments, so I don’t know if the U.S. would need to execute a ’search’ to get that data.” [...]
December 30, 2009, 5:23 pmPaul Horwitz says:
I apologize for the black helicopter jokes; who can resist them? But I thought both Orin and many commentators actually did a fairly good job of going through things. The point as I saw it was that not every government action — even one that leaves questions in its wake, which seems an inevitable by-product of both the contingency of government action and scheduling and the imperfection of legal (or any other) language — necessarily warrants the conclusion that any left-over questions should give rise to the conclusion that the action is not only imperfect but nefarious. Of course, if one assumes that the government is engaged in a massive conspiracy, then concluding that some action is the result of a conspiracy is the simplest explanation. But Occam’s Razor ought to be wielded with at least some knowledge of human nature, the available facts, and the bureaucratic and unexceptional nature of most government actions. None of which means a policy can’t be a bad policy, including this one. But it does counsel against conclusions of the “I don’t know why he signed the memo now, so it must be part of a plot to place us under the governance of the United Nations” variety.
December 30, 2009, 5:26 pmwolfefan says:
Hi Elmer –
There have been a couple of explanations of what’s going on along the same general line, starting with the very first comment. If you don’t think they’re right that’s fine, but what’s your basis for disagreeing? What’s your alternative theory that doesn’t involve conspiracies and ignorance of what FOIA requests cover and what INTERPOL does (which is what gives rise to the helicopter jokes?)
December 30, 2009, 5:32 pmElmer Stoup says:
wolfefan: As Wakefield Tolbert noted, agree that Flashman gave a plausible rationale for the EO.
I don’t “disagree” with anyone, but I have good reason to wonder about the judgment of this Administration, beginning at the top, when they issue EO’s without providing a justification. [Remember the chest-thumping about how "transparent" they promised to be?]
In any event, national sovereignity doesn’t seem to be much of a concern with this bunch.
December 30, 2009, 6:44 pmMartinned says:
Hang on, did I fall asleep for a decade and was the president suddenly elected by the people of Canada? How is an executive order from the president of the United States anything other than an exercise of national sovereignty? It would be a different story if Interpol itself promulgated this rule, but (for now) they don’t have the power to do so.
December 30, 2009, 6:51 pmElmer Stoup says:
Martinned: Granted that a future president can presumably rescind this EO, the effect of the EO is to surrender our rights with respect to an international organization.
December 30, 2009, 7:03 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » More on the INTERPOL Executive Order says:
[...] INTERPOL story I blogged about yesterday hit the MSM today. You can read the New York Times’ coverage of the story here and ABC News [...]
December 30, 2009, 7:17 pmSarcastro says:
No longer being a dick to international organizations is the first step to dissolving the US!
December 30, 2009, 7:19 pmMartinned says:
What rights? Whose rights? The rights of the American people? Surely not. Just like it isn’t a violation of my right to free speech for me to sign a confidentiality agreement, it isn’t a violation/limitation of state sovereignty for a state to sign an international treaty. On the contrary, it is an exercise of sovereignty to do so. (Just like it is an exercise of my autonomy as a person for me to sign a contract.) In this case, there isn’t even a treaty/contract, only a unilateral decision that can be rescinded at any time. Whose rights are being surrendered?
December 30, 2009, 7:20 pmDB says:
ELMER; Other international organizations recognized under the Act with the same privileges. UN, ,International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the International Committee of the Red Cross, International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
President Reagan bestowed these privileges to the African Development Bank, the International Boundary and Water Commission, and the World Tourism Organization, among others. He did not do it at the time fully for INTERPOL because in 1984 it had no persons or property in the US
President Bush through Executive Orders covered the European Central Bank, the African Union, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Bush’s State Department recommended this change, which no one got around to until December.
December 30, 2009, 7:28 pmA. Zarkov says:
“OK Chimes in: A Zarkov, I can’t think of a President who has a “thrilling” record of openness — nor am I sure that that would be a good thing. I’m curious, how would you characterize the Bush Administration’s views on whether government should be closed and opaque versus open and transparent?”
In my opinion the Bush administration was not thrilling either. But Bush did not run on a platform of open and transparent government. Obama told us bills would posted for 72 hours on the Internet. He told us we would get to see the sausage being made right on C-SPAN. Instead we got the same old opaqueness. Obama said health insurance bill needed to be passed immediately, or the economic health of country would suffer. This for legislation that won’t take effect until 2013. Instead of C-SPAN we got closed meetings where the opposition was not welcome. He’s doing what Bush tried to do with the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill– write it in secret and ram in through Congress in a hurry.
If you’re trying to argue that Obama is no worse than his predecessors, I say wait because you haven’t seen anything yet. At least Bush released all his personal records. Obama gives us nothing. Why can’t we see his senior thesis or his grades? With respect to his personal past Obama is the most secretive president I have ever experienced. He’s a black hole (no pun intended) where no information can escape.
[OK Responds: A Zarkov, I find your analysis wholly unpersuasive if not entirely delusional. But thank you for responding.]
December 30, 2009, 7:30 pmDB says:
Also Elmer, the President can revoke it at any time.
December 30, 2009, 7:38 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
We can take what Zarkov mentions (and I agree with much of it) two differing ways:
1) There’s about 3/4 of this administration left, unless the allegedly wacked-out (and constantly noted) mostly white middle class Teabaggers and Townhall terror lords–as the lovely Rachel Maddow has annointed them–and other alleged right wing crazies and madhatters, totally lose it and go (literally) ballistic.
Barring this, there’s ample time for trouble from administration. Or, at least, more head-scratching moves from an administration that has under its wings and staff people who praise Chairman Mao and pretend that’s good clean jest, and wish forced sterlization, or for that matter want carbon to be the new currency of a global version of creative financing of the type that gave us the housing crises and accompanying meltdown.
2)There’s about 3/4 of this administration left, and he can choose to reverse course after throwing a provisional bone to his leftist compadres to shut them up for a while, and make the government run in a more transparent fashion, as Zarkov noted was the grand advertisement.
December 30, 2009, 7:42 pmSarcastro says:
Word, Wakefield Tolbert! Either Obama keeps bein’ dumb and liberal and secretive or he starts being good and conservative and transparent!
December 30, 2009, 8:05 pmEcon_Scott says:
Well U.S. law does still seem enforceable. It’s just that if Interpol commits fraud, crime, Felony Impersonation of a “legal” law enforcement officer, or whatever in the U.S.
Once your cousin in the Sheriff’s Dept. arrests them, and the Local D.A. Charges them and has a news conference on four networks and cable and radio,
Then the State Dept. get’s to walk in, claim diplo immunity in the Bail hearing, and then put them on their private Pelosi 1 jet back to Euroland without prosecution.
I think that’s when airport security will have to go out about 3-5 miles in all directions. (tough to do at LAX)
As far as Interpol “files” or computers on U.S. soil, possibly available by FOIA or Subpoena in a lawsuit, this for sure puts them beyond reach.
It may have just been a make work project for someone in Justice just out of Georgetown Law, or Harvard Law. I’m still of the school of thought “Never attribute to Malfeasance what can readily be explained by sheer incompetence”.
It is still a puzzlement never the less. If the enabling law goes back to 1945, why have Presidents Truman thru Clinton their State Depts and Justice Depts not needed this change ?
December 30, 2009, 9:30 pmLeo Marvin says:
Haven’t you heard? Occam was gunned down by airport security for refusing to put the razor in his checked luggage.
December 30, 2009, 9:40 pmGuy says:
I think you forgot that Obama was born in Kenya.
December 30, 2009, 10:31 pmTom Cuddihy says:
You only need to get about halfway down the comments to see what the lefty meme about this is: “INTERPOL was never subject to FOIA anyway, so your paranoia is unjustified…”
Wrong, red herring. The issue is not INTERPOL’s FOIA response but our governments. Now that INTERPOL has diplomatic immunity, the federal government’s communications and actions with INTERPOL would be subject to INTERPOL and the DOJ’s willingness to reveal them, whereas previously the DOJ would have been legally required to release them absent specific confidentiality concerns.
While it may not herald an immanent UN police force in the US, it does as ThreatsWatch suggest present the DOJ and the administration with the opportunity to avoid any public knowledge of their dealings regardless of scope.
December 31, 2009, 12:29 amjukeboxgrad says:
zarkov:
You seem to be saying that Bush voluntarily released his college transcript. Wrong. It was leaked. See here. And with regard to his National Guard records, there were a great many that were mysteriously missing.
Kerry did eventually release his transcript, as part of releasing his military records. Candidates Bush and Kerry did not voluntarily release their college records. With Bush, it wasn’t voluntary, and with Kerry, it only happened after he was no longer a candidate. By the way, have you seen McCain’s transcript? Or Palin’s?
Why are you asking Obama to do something these other candidates did not do, and were not asked to do?
December 31, 2009, 2:16 amNoFilibuster says:
The fact that folks are having this debate underscores the need to rethink the constitutionality of the EO. This EO could be unconstitutional in that it could take away a Citizen’s rights to due process. If you are accused of a crime by Interpol, would they be required to give up their supporting information or source?
Can Interpol prosecute and enforce international law here in the US? If so, who is going to protect a US citizen when discovery has been taken away from the defendant?
Also, if an agency of the US gives sensitive information, such as social security numbers to Interpol or if Interpol hacks your passwords and bank account numbers and those numbers end up in the hands of Nigerian nationals to be used against us, who is responsible? How do we protect our citizens from foreign governments and others who would do harm to our citizens with our sensitive information? Is there is no recourse under the ammendment?
Did Obama just hand our enemies the power to do us harm, with no recourse, and the only thing we can do is watch?
Has he weakened our country by taking another check and balance away?
December 31, 2009, 6:08 amNoFilibuster says:
It seems obvious to me that Obama just gave the worlds largest Mall Cop the right to gather information about our citizens without any limits on how that information can be used or how it is obtained. Neither the US or its Citizens can defend itself. The President can repeal the entire amendment but not for an individual case. I think there is a good argument that the subversion of individual liberties of US Citizens is evident in the execution of this EO.
December 31, 2009, 6:39 amDB says:
If the State Dept. “get’s” to do this its because of President Reagan’s order not the current one.
You can’t be accused of a crime by interpol in the US. They will, according to treaty obligation, forward warrants from other countries, and the US government will extradict according to treaty.
No.
and
Communications from the US government are still subject to discovery, under FOIA or otherwise. And the US government would be responsible for those communications, as always.
December 31, 2009, 8:43 amliamascorcaigh says:
The very existence of this thread concerning a single Executive Order is a sign of how healthy American democracy still is. A group of ordinary (and ornery) citizen-invigilators scrutinize the actions of the President even unto an obscure EO and force those who are unconcerned to justify their complacency. There follows a discussion which clarifies, tho’ does not resolve, the issue. Alexis de Tocqueville would be pleased but hardly surprised.
Those who adopt a sarky tone, “full moon” etc, should ease off. A modicum of paranoia, this side tinfoil hats, is a necessary tho’ hardly sufficient resource in a free citizenry, for only a fool or a knave takes any politician at face value.
If I ever see a transparent government – hasn’t happened yet – I’ll say to myself “Now, what are they hiding behind all this transparency?”
December 31, 2009, 10:09 amAdam J says:
liamascorcaigh – And the first apologist arrives on the scene. You’d be correct if it weren’t for the fact that the “citizen-invigilators” as you call them then made a number complete fabrications and lies about the scope of executive order. Thanks to them a number of people are now completely misinformed about what Interpol can do in this country and the scope of the EO.
December 31, 2009, 11:09 amPaul Horwitz says:
I agree on the Obama thesis question. Wasn’t Obama’s thesis — still mysteriously unreleased — actually titled: “I Am SO Going to Use Regulations Concerning Interpol to Destroy American Sovereignty in Accordance with the Wishes of Bill Ayers”? And, if I recall correctly, Clinton’s thesis was titled “Problems with Ambiguity in Ordinary Language.” And Bush 43′s was titled “An N-Space Solution for Hexagonal Problems in Quantum Physics.” Although I might have that last one wrong. It might have been “The Cliff Notes for ‘Paradise Lost’: An Unrecognized Classic.”
December 31, 2009, 11:22 amconscientious observer says:
What are the deeper implications of this? Is there any possibility that this opens the doors for international investigation into the previous administration for possible ‘war crime’ charges where the current administration has promised not to prosecute? On the other end, does this provide the current administration greater scrutiny of terror suspects within our country through the use of Interpol that our current laws prohibit?
December 31, 2009, 12:38 pmconscientious observer says:
I guess I am basically asking, is this Washington Examiner article accurate in its assessment? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obama-gives-Interpol-free-hand-in-U_S_-8697583-80291137.html
December 31, 2009, 12:42 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Hmmm…
Well, to continue the delicious parody of late, and to balance out the tales of guys with guns hiding in the Colorado Rockies or hiding in their icky trailer parks for the next shipment of tea bags to dump into the nearest pond, it seems we have even more hands going up from the ever-widening audience about what this all means.
Thus for example, Jesse Taylor over at left wing poop-toss festival site
PaddywagonPandagon, offers the following:“Short version: INTERPOL employees are no longer liable for American taxes. That’s about it.
Of course, if there’s one thing we know about the great body of conservative bloggers, it’s that their collective vocabulary is about 75 words, and roughly a third of those are synonyms for ‘Sharia’.”
Thus sayeth Jesse…
___________________________________
Two things off the bat, though I’m sure some will think of more:
1) We’ll see if the limitations of this are about taxes. Wonder why the issue never floated to the surface before? Perhaps the Europeans already burdened with Swedenic rates thought the better of enriching the old US of A all of a sudden and tapped Obama on the shoulder to make him knock it off on behalf of social justice?
Oh well..
2) I know that visitors to V.C. are of varying opinions, but I never got the distinct impression that it’s slightly conservative-leaning writers are limited to 75 words or that everything is about Jihad and the Sons of Allah, etc. I think we can tell Jesse that V.C. does not reside in the dumbunny zone. Of course, Jesse prevaricated by adding “the great body of”….
plus ca change…
December 31, 2009, 12:48 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
..its…not it’s, possessive….grief..
December 31, 2009, 12:56 pmjukeboxgrad says:
liamascorcaigh:
The very existence of this thread is a sign of how irrational Republicans are. Consider, for example, that we lost track of hundreds of tons of cash, amounting to billions of dollars (link, link, pdf). This led to the following number of posts at VC: zero. (And did you ever hear about this in the press? Probably not. That darn liberal media.)
Is this “single Executive Order” more consequential than hundreds of tons of cash? I don’t think so. Yes, bloggers can write about whatever they choose. But when they are curiously selective, it tends to create an impression of bias.
December 31, 2009, 1:23 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Yes, amounting to a scandal that indeed is still widely available for the viewting on the Net. SOMEONE reported, eh?
Welcome to Memories Bush–or just memories overbearing asinine burdens of bureacracy?
And, by default, shall we then suppose that given the legendary and historic nature of losing money (and I note that trend has not suddenly stopped like a derailed train with the mere passing of the Bushian/Rovian Dark Night of Terror and Illegality in International Law) the best thing is to promote losing money to the tune (now) of some trillions in broad daylight as being a moral brownie and smiley face scribbled on Obama’s report card?
There’s an old saying, courtesy the re-popluarization from Richard Pipes in a nifty book titled Survival is Not Enough, that “even the paranoid have real enemies.”
Big government is in itself a type of “rouge” state, pace Mark Steyn, and in the long run far more dangerous to the safety and security and economic well-being of the commonweal than the terror lords, and via all manner of mechanisms saps the will of the nation with chicanery and pure humbug pronouncements.
Pills laced with both cyanide and sugar will taste better, but kill you nontheless.
Euro-socialist fetish and glop is not made better for the fact people are told to shut the hell up due to the books gettin’ cooked by experts and our alleged elite betters, in alleged open air governance–and saddling generations to come with debt.
December 31, 2009, 1:46 pmPaul Horwitz says:
Um…what?
December 31, 2009, 1:52 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Wakefield, when you post text generated here, you should at least give credit.
December 31, 2009, 3:32 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Jukebox hero:
I’m sure you’re right, but then, this administration and its amen choir in Glenn Greenwald and Paddywagon outlets get far too much laud as it is. I love it when the Statist Officio-Speak gets handed back to to Lefties. Then, and only then, they wet their pants over Grammarian anal retention issues.
December 31, 2009, 4:08 pmWakefield Tolbert says:
Besides, nobody in power really cares all that much what any of us say anyhow…
December 31, 2009, 4:22 pmJagermeister says:
Prof. Kerr:
I would suggest that such activities as the administration’s stonewalling on the decision to drop charges against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation, and the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin may have something to do with a M. Zarkov’s perception of the current administration being possessed of a “philosophy of closed and opaque government”. It appears to many that Obama’s decision to “Curb Secrecy of Classified Documents” is a cynical ploy to selectively disclose derogatory information about previous administrations, as part of his ongoing soliloquy that “it’s all Bush’s fault!”
Now, I don’t expect you (or anyone) to accept that explanation as the sole gospel truth, but it ill becomes you to pretend surprise that others may come to a contrary conclusion. Surely sufficient evidence exists that can be construed in support of M. Zarkov’s claim, and a respect for the habits of honest debate would demand that his assertions be refuted with logic and fact rather than dismissed out of hand.
And really, you must admit an appeal to authority using the New York Times as source is surely ironic in this case.
December 31, 2009, 5:12 pmJagermeister says:
ROTFLMAO! If this isn’t the pot calling the kettle black!
December 31, 2009, 5:16 pmJagermeister says:
P.S. To Prof Kerr: Less my earlier comments seem hostile; I only hold you to a higher standard than most posters since I have previously found your arguments especially persuasive as a result of their erudition, consideration of opposing views, and general clarity and superior logic. In short, I have come to expect only the best from you.
December 31, 2009, 5:26 pmliamascorcaigh says:
Adam J/jukeboxgrad – Your vigorous dissent from what I said proves my point. Here we are, free citizens, arguing back and forth, hackles raised, well, yours anyway. As regards the merits of my comment: Adam J, you say “a number of people are now completely misinformed” because of the post/thread, but how can that be when you can unmisinform them by means of your own comments? That’s why this is healthy. Opposing ideas, viewpoints, interests clash in the daylight of democracy, doncha know.
jukeboxgrad, you find evidence of bias in the blog. Of course, there’s bias. There’s always bias in a person’s musings on any topic – and indeed, as you say, in his choice of topics. This is called a person’s personal view. That’s why we read blogs like this, to get an individual blogger’s read on what he chooses to share with us. And of course, there are more important issues. So what? It’s a blog, not a government statement of policy priorities. And to judge by the comments – and their intensity – it is a topic that interests quite a lot of readers. As for Republicans’ supposed “irrationality”, that’s you expressing your bias, and that’s what’s wonderful about democracy: you know that I’m a bonehead, and I know that you can’t do a damn thing about it but gnash chose Democrat choppers of yours. Guilty as sin, free as a bird. Ain’t America grand!
December 31, 2009, 5:50 pmjukeboxgrad says:
wakefield:
If I said you had a tenuous grip on reality, I would be giving you way too much credit. Greenwald has been highly critical of Obama (example, example, example, example, example).
A) My pants are dry.
B) The issue isn’t your grammar. The issue is that your sentences are roughly as coherent as Sarah Palin’s. It takes more than just bad grammar to achieve incoherence.
====================
jagermeister:
Walpin is a joke. A Bush-appointed prosecutor determined that he was making accusations not backed by evidence. See here, and my other comments in that thread. Walpin has a serious credibility problem. If you are going to attempt to use Walpin as some kind of a club, you should realize he’s a pretty limp club.
I’ve posted many comments critical of Democrats. So what exactly is my alleged bias?
====================
liamascorcaigh:
‘Bias’ means ‘unfair prejudice.’ Everyone is unfair? Really? Speak for yourself. And please show evidence that I have been unfair.
Only if you think that this EO is more important than hundreds of tons of missing cash. Is that what you think?
December 31, 2009, 7:14 pmjukeboxgrad says:
In fairness to Kerr, I should point out that he made it clear that he doesn’t necessarily view the EO as important, but is merely noting that other conservatives are treating it as important. Fair enough. It would be wrong for me to criticize him for writing this post, and I apologize for expressing that criticism. That was careless on my part. I should have expressed a different, broader, criticism, which is that the conservative blogosphere generally ignored those missing billions, and is nevertheless “in a bit of a tizzy” (to borrow Kerr’s apt phrase) over this minor EO.
December 31, 2009, 7:26 pmLeo Marvin says:
I wonder what happened to Michael B.
December 31, 2009, 9:18 pmkknight says:
I believe that “unauthorized executive orders that no one knows about”, wether they seem to be “unthreatening” or not, should not be taken so lightly. The American people need to do everything they can to find out about Obama’s amendment to EO 12425, and any other information the government seems to be hiding from the nation. While researching such topics we also need to ask questions like “Why is the government trying to hide this from us?” “Did they hide it because if it had been discussed beforehand Americans would have done everything in their power to stop it?” “Why was the government so earnest that this new law be put into practice?” “Why was it hushed so that the people of the United States of America, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, had no say in it until it was too late?”
January 1, 2010, 4:56 pmDanadude says:
It seems that all of this discussion could be laid to rest if Obama would just tell us why he did this. You know, it seems really weird that the conservatives don’t like Obama, he is looking more and more like Bush every single day.
I remember when Bush repealed those parts of the Posse Comitatus Act that prevented the US military from operating on American soil everyone on the left freaked, but nothing came to pass. This is probably just typical political BS, Obama trying to scratch someones back in DC.
January 2, 2010, 12:45 amWakefield says:
Danadude:
So far this whole thing dosen’t appear to have much meat on it.
But while hysterics are not the answer, it appears that just as some folks had semi-legit justification for furrowed brows over wiretapping, so too some have have at least semi-legit legit concerns over Interpol’s mysterious, newfound immunity to US law that popped out of the sky like lightning, with little forewarning other than the charged political climate of Hopey Changemas.
January 2, 2010, 4:36 pmMichael Stone says:
What about civil litigation? If an INTERPOL agent goes up to Rodney King and beats him upside the head, could he sue them? Could he invoke 42 USC 1983? Could he obtain their documents or deposition testimony through civil discovery?
January 3, 2010, 4:49 amKadah says:
All one needs to do to realize how “far out” the claims being made are, is to go read the actual documents involved. The IOIA, International Organizations Immunities Act, concerns diplomatic immunity afforded foreign entities. It does not give any organization, afforded diplomatic immunity, INTERPOL included, police powers, policing powers, or police state powers within the United States. People are trying to wring something out of this that simply is not there.
January 3, 2010, 3:46 pmNobama says:
Andy McCarthy asks the fundamental questions:
Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?
At least one answer to these questions is very clear. A coup is underway in the United States of America, the goal of which is to establish complete, unquestioned authority over the citizens–a ‘fundamental change’ to the United States where citizens have no legal recourse against an authoritarian central government.
January 4, 2010, 4:42 pmTruthful James says:
Let us all join hands and remember that at the founding date in 1948 of the organization fondly called the Christians in action, acronymed CIA, it was only supposed to be a coordinating body and repositoryfor national intelligence.
Let us pray that in future when the Office of the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court decides to empower and fund Interpol to act as an international FBI, the then president of the United States has steady nerve to revoke this Executive Order in its entirety, if he is so politically inclined
January 4, 2010, 4:59 pmRon says:
Hey All,
The trick about this one is that it isn’t important… in a vaccum.
I did a history & explanation of this over @ my place (got here from there via long and circuitous route) – Go HERE and you’ll see that, like so many things Obama has done that’s left people shaking their heads, this act wasn’t ‘overt’ so much as ‘set-up’… and the Devil is in the details.
– Ron
January 6, 2010, 12:24 amvenusstarlite says:
hi,i am a cnn ireporter..i have open a can of worms there.i am venusstarlit’s there,i have taken some of your comments and used them without your names.just quotes,to state facts,which i, checked on to be true.i am researching this to the end.i have a gut feeling.i personally think we are into the beginnings of a new world order.someone needs to find out why? why, now ,is it because mr. obama got worried another 9-11 was going happen,because of the baby bomber?
January 11, 2010, 2:59 pmHWS says:
Some other organizations that have been designated as public international organizations covered by the Act (although perhaps not as innocuous a list to some as DB’s list in post 93, above) include the Inter-American Investment Corporation (Executive Order 12567, President Reagan), the Multinational Force and Observers, peacekeeping force monitoring terms of treaty between Egypt and Israel (Executive Order 12359, President Reagan), and the International Development Association and International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, both part of the World Bank(Executive Order 11966, President Ford, on his last full day in office.)
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php
Presidents Reagan and Ford put these organizations beyond the reach of the law, at least for purposes of this Act. Why? What were they doing within our borders that these Presidents felt needed such protection? Did Presidents Reagan and Ford compromise our sovereignty without our even knowing it?
January 12, 2010, 4:31 pmSimon Boudain says:
great article, it couldn’t be more specific…
September 8, 2010, 3:27 am