The 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 coverage here.
-
Contact
-
Search
Stuff From Us
Categories
Archives
Blogroll
- 3 Jews, 4 Opinions
- Agoraphilia
- Althouse
- Andrew Sullivan
- Bainbridge
- Balkinization
- Becker-Posner
- Best of the Web
- Betsy's Page
- Blue Mass. Group
- C-K Faculty Blog
- Cal. App. Report
- Cal. Punitives
- CalPundit
- Cathy Young
- Chequer-Board
- Chicago Faculty Blog
- Concurring Opinions
- Conglomerate
- Copyrights & Campaigns
- CrimLaw
- Dan Drezner
- Dave Kopel
- David Frum
- Day by Day
- Deep Glamour
- Discourse.Net
- ecitsuJ
- Election Law
- Emmanuelle Richard
- Empirical Legal Studies
- Eric Muller
- Fed Soc Debates
- Former Chef
- Gavel to Gavel
- GeekPress
- Gideon's Trumpet
- Gil Milbauer
- Hit & Run
- How Appealing
- InstaPundit
- Joanne Jacobs
- Jotwell
- KausFiles
- Knowledge Problem
- Language Log
- LawCulture
- Lawrence Solum
- Legal Planet
- Liberty & Power
- Lileks
- Marginal Revolution
- Marquette Faculty Blog
- Matt Welch
- Matt Yglesias
- Michael Barone
- Michael Dorf
- Neuroethics & Law Blog
- NoodleFood
- Opinio Juris
- OpinionJournal Federation
- Overlawyered
- OxBlog
- Point of Law
- PrawfsBlawg
- Reality-Based Community
- Reason
- Religion Clause
- Right Coast
- Room for Debate
- Rosenbergs
- ScrappleFace
- Secular Right
- Sentencing Law & Policy
- Sonia Arrison
- Stuart Buck
- Technology Liberation Front
- The Opening Brief
- The Torch
- Tom Palmer
- Truth on the Market
- U Chicago Law Faculty Blog
- Virginia Postrel
- Wonkette
- WSJ Law Blog
Meta
-
Forgeddabaddit says:
Off topic..............The Chicago/Oak Park brief was due today. Does anyone know if they filed it?
Thanks
Quote
December 30, 2009, 7:37 pmBski says:
If the administration doesn’t want this order to be misinterpreted, then they should explain why they made the executive order.
Quote
December 30, 2009, 7:44 pmDB says:
Because Bush’s State Dept. recommended it.
Quote
December 30, 2009, 7:49 pmh2u says:
DB, I hardly think that’s a justifiable explanation considering the reputation of the GWB administration’s State Department.
And, as a side note, Go Bowling Green!
Quote
December 30, 2009, 7:59 pmorca says:
I think the Obama admin. works hard to provide the silly Right with their outrage of the day. They’re probably the ones who leaked the info to the crazies.
Quote
December 30, 2009, 8:10 pmCDU says:
The ABC story does answer one of the questions I had about this matter: why President Regan exempted Interpol from some parts of the International Organizations Immunities Act in the first place.
It sounds like the real question we should be asking here is why it took five years for this executive order to catch up with the facts on the ground.
Quote
December 30, 2009, 8:52 pmSteve says:
Money quote:
Hoo boy!
Quote
December 30, 2009, 9:04 pmBleepless says:
Interpol began as a clearinghouse for information between police agencies. This mostly involved telling member authorities when one agency was looking for a suspect. The organization had no independent powers of search or arrest. Does anyone know how it stopped being what it was and why?
Quote
December 30, 2009, 9:24 pmSammy Finkelman says:
Because there are almost no practical consequences — all this is is dotting i’s and crossing t’s.
This does raise an interesting question: Suppose a presidenet makes an arrangement with a foreign country and hires
“plumbers” or the like to work for him and gives them diplmatic immunity..outsources constitutional violations.
Well a President could also give a pardon to U.S. citizens, so at least for federal law the situation is identical.(A President can only issue a pardon for violations of federal law but dilomatic immunity covers everything)
It would seem like the only remedy would be impeachment or the threat of it or some kind of political consequences.
This raises another question — is diplomatic immunity really the law of the land? Or just a custom agreed to by the states? Maybe yes because it is covered by a treaty, but maybe something like that would not fall under any treaty. Maybe there’s also a limit as to who can be granted diplomatic immunity.
Well, if a few more Saudis misbehave the limits of who can be granted diplomatic immunity may be found. And if anything liketheabove scenario happened, the courts might find such a limitation.
Quote
December 30, 2009, 9:42 pmwolfefan says:
Hi Bleepless —
Based on the NYT article and my (very limited) professional experience with INTERPOL, your description is pretty accurate. I don’t think they have independent powers of search and arrest, except in movies and in Andrew McCarthy’s imagination. What makes you think things have changed?
Quote
December 30, 2009, 10:31 pmGuy says:
Does this mean that the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission was the first crucial step in establishing a world government? Damn those Illuminati are clever.
Quote
December 30, 2009, 10:37 pmGuy says:
Sovereign immunity (of which diplomatic immunity is a part) is inherently assumed within the Constitution as an implicit jurisdictional limit on the Federal Jurisdiction deriving from pre-existing international law, this is why the Eleventh Amendment was ratified — people were outraged at the idea that the Constitution might have implicitly abrogated the sovereign immunity of the states, and they wanted to clarify the question.
Quote
December 30, 2009, 10:42 pmTom T. says:
The coverage provides a reasonable explanation, and I’m not going to think any more about Interpol. It does strike me as interesting, though, that both articles seem to proceed from the premise that the press’s job is not to question the Administration itself, but rather to convey the Administration’s explanations when other people are crass enough to ask questions.
Quote
December 30, 2009, 11:46 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Illuminati? What about the tuna? Those guys are really sneaky.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 1:25 amA. Zarkov says:
The Times says:
Thus the problem traces to the tone deafness of the White House. If they were more sensitive and provided information this whole flap would have been much more attenuated. The White House needed to explain the reason for the EO and why it would not change FOIA requests. In my opinion an administration really committed to open government would not be so tone deaf.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 1:26 amOrin Kerr says:
A. Zarkov,
Just so I follow, the new Administration is still to blame, but now they are to blame because they failed to predict that people such as yourself would misunderstand them?
Quote
December 31, 2009, 1:43 amA. Zarkov says:
That’s a funny way of expressing their failure to communicate well. For example when Janet Napolitino said the “system worked,” she meant it worked ex post, not ex ante. That meaning did not come through clearly. If one wishes to communicate effectively, it’s not enough to be technically correct, you must make sure you are not misunderstood. Effective communication is part of good leadership, and I don’t think this White House is good at it.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 2:17 amEcon_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 ?
Quote
December 31, 2009, 2:23 amGuy says:
I don’t see how the White House could be expected to anticipate that a routine bureaucratic determination of diplomatic immunity would generate a hurricane of paranoia just because it related to an international organization headquartered in Europe, you can never tell what kind of little things will be latched onto for wild speculation and rumor-mongering by folks on the internet.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 2:27 amGuy says:
And as far as the whole “the system worked” thing, that wasn’t ineffective communication per se, that was spin.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 2:37 amWayne says:
Sometimes the only thing up the sleeve is an arm.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 4:33 amGuy says:
I’ll meet you halfway and say the Itunanati were responsible.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 6:23 ampireader says:
Some people insist on being damn fools in public, dragging down the level of public discourse. The only solution is to remember what they’ve said and bring it up the next time they start bloviating.
So let’s remember this round of crackpottery the next time we hear from Andy McCarthy at NRO or the Washington Examiner’s editorial page about some threat to the nation’s safety.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 8:09 amegd says:
The problem with this rationale is that most people still enthusiastically refuse to apply it to people on their own side of the political aisle.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 8:50 amDB says:
If the State Dept. “get’s” to do this, it’s because of President Reagan’s order, not the current one.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 8:53 amAnonymous says:
Of non-domestic law enforcement officers? That’s not routine.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 8:56 amMartinned says:
...sigh...deep breath... one more time: They’re not law enforcement officers.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 9:02 amSteve P. says:
Oh my God, it’s the gift that keeps on giving! I love how, in Zarkov’s world, the administration is still to blame. “Predicting conspiracy theories” should be a job requirement in the WH press office.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 9:52 amSecond history says:
Don’t you know everything Obama says or does is in furtherence of the conspiracy?
Quote
December 31, 2009, 10:24 amAnonymous says:
Based on a naive reading of their status implied by Orin’s post yesterday, they are exactly LEOs, and they have absolutely no jurisdiction other than some desk at the DOJ or something.
Or is taking “investigator” as “law-enforcement officer” going too far, and don’t you think that’s too fine of a line to ignore when national sovereignty makes the difference of propriety?
Quote
December 31, 2009, 10:53 amArthurKirkland says:
Perhaps the Examiner, Andrew C. McCarthy and others are merely attempting to help our national conversation move past left-wingers’ fetish about some differences in constitutional interpretation that preceded Brown v. Board of Education.
Some people are tired of sitting here listening to a bunch of lefties badmouth the United States of America*!
*h/t Eric Stratton
Quote
December 31, 2009, 11:01 amSarcastro says:
Because Second History failed to mention that everything Obama refrains from doing or saying is also in furtherance of The Conspiracy, I can only assume he is one of Them!
Quote
December 31, 2009, 11:22 amOvertheTop says:
It looks like A. Zarkov’s arguments were off base the entire time. Because it is instructive, I think it’s worth watching how Zarkov’s arguments developed over time. So, I’ll pulled together each of his comments and analyzed them in light of the facts.
A clear pattern emerges. Let me know what you think. Oh — just for the record — the NYT notes that Interpol has no police force. Rather, “it serves its 188 member countries by working as a clearinghouse for police departments in different nations to share law enforcement information — like files on wanted criminals and terrorists, stolen cars and passports, and notices that a law enforcement agency has issued an arrest warrant for a fugitive.”
On 12/30 at 4:35 AM, Zarkov wrote:
Zarkov is already mistaken. As noted in the comments at the time, FOIA only applies to parts of the U.S. executive branch, and not foreign entities like Interpol. Even were it subject to FOIA, there’s an exemption for criminal investigations.
The Times notes that what changed is this immunity grants Interpol staff in the US immunity such as “immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure”
His point — “Years ago I noticed that INTERPOL changed policy and denied the public access to the crime statistics in its online database” — has never been addressed, but is seemingly irrelevant to the issue at hand.
But what’s most fascinating is what looks like Obama derangement syndrome: “if the change is without substance, then why did Obama issue the order?”
In other words, since I don’t know why this happened, it MUST be for nefarious reasons. As the NYT article explains, it was because INTERPOL now has 5 staffers permanently stationed in NY, which wasn’t the case in 1983 when an earlier executive order by Pres. Reagan granted INTERPOL some forms of immunity. This kind of immunity is common for international public organizations, and is akin to sovereign immunity.
Why should INTERPOL be immune? The NYT answers because they have: “access to law enforcement information submitted by other countries with restrictions on who may receive it.”
The only point where Zarkov is correct is why he identifies that the administration didn’t explain its executive order.
Then, on 12/30 at 11:00AM he wrote:
It turns out his speculations are almost entirely wrong. Interpol did ask for this immunity — in 2004 — which was then subsequently recommended by Pres. Bush’s state department. The Bush administration failed to finish processing the paperwork, essentially, and so the Obama administration ultimately approved the request.
Also, Zarkov’s allegations that Obama administration is closed goes against recent news about the changing of classification procedures, opening white house visitor logs, the Open Government Directive, and so on. It is simply counterfactual.
Indeed, Orin Kerr immediately responded by asking him “What are your guesses and speculation based on?” to which he responded at 11:44 AM
First an attempt to conflate Obama with Carter, after being blithely unaware that it was the Bush administration’s state department that approved the request for immunity.
Then Zarkov argues that getting security research and defense information unclassified is an act of obeisance to the super-powerful Federation of American Scientists and not an act of openness. Even if true — and it’s not — he still ignores all of the other openness measures taken by the administration, starting with the executive order issued on day 1.
At 12:21PM, he then wrote:
Off target again. By the way, the DOJ’s office that interacts with Interpol is subject to FOIA — although exemption 7 puts a huge hole in the applicability of the law. Exemption 7 exempts “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes” but with a number of caveats.
At 1:01 PM, he then adds:
This is a nonsense statement. Interpol is an international body — FOIA has never applied to it.
At 2:03 PM he writes:
Also wrong. See above — to the extent FOIA applied before to the Interpol desk at DOJ, it continues to apply now.
And now some poor civil servant — who is likely off on holiday break — is going to have a ton of crazy phone calls.
At 3:09 PM he adds:
Yes, lots of crazy phone calls.
Ten minutes later, at 3:18 he cites an AP article and criticizes Obama for not being “open.”
At 7:30pm that evening, Zarkov responds to Professor Kerr:
Professor Kerr is right that Zarkov’s analysis is delusional. Examples of Obama’s openness:
(1) Visitor logs released
(2) Open Government Directive
(3) Executive order issued on 1st day
(4) Lobbying disclosure rules
(5) National security declassification memo
What does Zarkov want? Obama’s college grades or senior thesis? That’s not government data.
And, Obama is now making all bills available online before he signs them for 5 days, not 3. And the health care bills (both H and S) have been online for more than 3 days prior to the vote.
And finally today, above, he blames the administration for the confusion at 1:26 AM
and 2:17 AM
So, we have first a blaming the victim of Zarkov’s political attack for not explaining things clearly while he pursues entirely off-base theories. Then we have a shift of topic to terrorism in the hopes that people forget what he’s been writing about all the time.
This isn’t an issue of poor communication. The administration responded to this issue within a day or so. Rather, it’s an example of going off without any information whatsover.
It’s one thing to ask questions — something Prof. Kerr does very ably. It’s another to make up your own facts and assume the worst.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 11:57 amsecond history says:
Because Second History failed to mention that everything Obama refrains from doing or saying is also in furtherance of The Conspiracy, I can only assume he is one of Them!
Touche!
Quote
December 31, 2009, 12:31 pmSteve P. says:
To be fair, I was also “blithely unaware” that it was the Bush administration that approved this request, at least as of the time he posted that comment. In fact, that never came up (that I saw) until the NYTimes article today. Hindsight is 20/20, and all of that.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 12:42 pmSarcastro says:
[But the hilarious thing, Steve P., is that Zarkov therefore unknowingly conflated Bush with Carter!]
Quote
December 31, 2009, 1:00 pmSW says:
While that is true of the fringes, I don’t think that’s true for most people. I think most people are put off by bizarre, factually incorrect and unsupported claims and hold it against the speaker. I think that this is why people with a reputation to protect (except as a rabid partisan) try to be fair and knowledgeable.
Perhaps, a larger percentage don’t bother to check the facts, unless it matters to them. But if it doesn’t matter to them, they don’t participate much.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 1:04 pmSW says:
As for Zarkov, while he misrepresented the facts (and given his cites it’s hard not to believe he did so in some cases knowingly, or at least extremely carelessly), he was often more moderate in his claims and tone than the others taking his position.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 1:33 pmOverTheTop says:
Steve P. said:
As was I. But we didn’t simply assume facts, either, which is my point. I don’t mind speculation if it is grounded in reality or reasonable inferences. Even the most cursory investigation by A. Zarkov would have revealed that many of his assumptions were wildly inaccurate.
Either he knew better, or he should have.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 1:42 pmBleepless says:
H’lo, wolfefan:
Why bother seeking diplomatic immunity for people who do nothing but facilitate the sending of information between overt, lawful police agencies?
Quote
December 31, 2009, 6:30 pmLeo Marvin says:
When Osama bin Laden was taking credit for 9/11, would it have killed him to anticipate the obvious questions about thermite and the temperature of burning jet fuel?
Quote
December 31, 2009, 7:13 pmLeo Marvin says:
That’s damning with faint praise if I’ve ever seen it. I will say that for someone whose (I believe extreme) views can elicit personal attacks, I admire Zarkov’s consistently civil tone.
Quote
December 31, 2009, 7:25 pmJaimeInTexas (Jam) says:
Please, no, don’t tell me that Spanish and Portugese troubadours are also part of the Illuminati!!!!!!!!
Quote
December 31, 2009, 8:34 pmpot meet kettle says:
also what’s with the grades and the lsat scores and THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, EH?
Quote
January 1, 2010, 5:10 ampot meet kettle says:
Operative word: naive.
Quote
January 1, 2010, 5:31 amuoen says:
interpol got their rights
Quote
January 3, 2010, 12:00 amMurphtheSurf says:
I appreciate the tone of conversation in this blog stream. It is generally very civil and fact based. The tone begins with the efforts to provide sound information to the reader via a thoughtful commentary and links to ABC and the NYT. Sampling other blogs reveals that this EO has quickly become a chapter in the canon that includes every conspiracy theory one might imagine. The words “communist”, “fascist”, and “liberal” figure prominently in these descriptions.
Quote
January 4, 2010, 3:22 amwolfefan says:
Hi bleepless —
I know this is late — sorry — I didn’t see your response until now. Probably for the same reason we give it to NGOs that deal with tuna and the social secretaries for the deputy assistant undersecretary of cultural affairs of Fijian consulate. I guess the other side of the question is why shouldn’t we give it to INTERPOL since we give it to lots and lots of other international organizations that don’t do much more than facilitate communication and maintain databases?
Quote
January 5, 2010, 2:50 pmRon says:
Hey All,
There are actually reasons NOT to give the same level of immunity to an international law enforcement organization that acts on behalf of the ICC — that you would to the ‘deputy assistant undersecretary of cultural affairs of Fijian consulate.’
I did a history & explanation of this over @ my place — 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
Quote
January 6, 2010, 1:34 am