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

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?

Anonymous: Based on a naive reading of their status

Operative word: naive.

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

also what’s with the grades and the lsat scores and THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, EH?

SW: 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.

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.

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.

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.

pireader: 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.

EGD: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.

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.

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.

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.

Touche!

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:

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

This is a nonsense statement. Interpol is an international body — FOIA has never applied to it.

At 2:03 PM he writes:

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.

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:

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.

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:

“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.]

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

The Times says:

The White House said it put out no statement with Mr. Obama’s order because it viewed the matter as uninteresting.

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.

and 2:17 AM

Orin Kerr: 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?

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.

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.

Second history: Don’t you know everything Obama says or does is in furtherence of the conspiracy?

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!

Money quote:

And an editorial in The Washington Examiner this week declared that “this new directive from Obama may be the most destructive blow ever struck against American constitutional civil liberties.”

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

Martinned:
…sigh…deep breath… one more time: They’re not law enforcement officers.

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?

Anonymous:
Of non-domestic law enforcement officers? That’s not routine.

…sigh…deep breath… one more time: They’re not law enforcement officers.

Guy: routine bureaucratic determination of diplomatic immunity

Of non-domestic law enforcement officers? That’s not routine.

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.

If the State Dept. “get’s” to do this, it’s because of President Reagan’s order, not the current one.

pireader: 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.

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.

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.

David Nieporent:
Illuminati?What about the tuna?Those guys are really sneaky.

I’ll meet you halfway and say the Itunanati were responsible.

A. Zarkov:
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.

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.

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 ?

Orin Kerr: 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?

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.

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?

The White House said it put out no statement with Mr. Obama’s order because it viewed the matter as uninteresting.

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.