PDA

View Full Version : INTERPOL trumps the US Constitution?



K G
01-02-2010, 11:23 AM
You decide...

http://www.examiner.com/x-27672-Portland-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m12d26-Why-make-Interpol-immune-from-American-law

Way to go, BHO....:rolleyes:

kg

Eric Johnson
01-02-2010, 02:46 PM
I'd like to see this explained a bit more fully than this. Sometimes a series of articles will become their own source and it all becomes a bit circular.

INTERPOL is first of all a clearinghouse for law enforcement information. When did they acquire the right to arrest or the agents to effect arrests?

Eric

YardleyLabs
01-02-2010, 03:33 PM
You decide...

http://www.examiner.com/x-27672-Portland-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m12d26-Why-make-Interpol-immune-from-American-law (http://www.examiner.com/x-27672-Portland-Political-Buzz-Examiner%7Ey2009m12d26-Why-make-Interpol-immune-from-American-law)

Way to go, BHO....:rolleyes:

kg
You can find the text of the International Organizations Immunities Act at http://www.ipu.org/finance-e/PL79-291.pdf. c applies to all international organizations of which the US is a part by treaty or law subject to decisions that may restrict these privileges at the discretion of the President. Reagan included such an exception in his 1983 executive order. Interpol has no arrest authority of which I am aware, although it may seek extradition of a wanted criminal in accordance with whatever extradition agreements may exist with a member country. This is also true of any country with which we have extradition agreements. The notion that the US government can protect the confidentiality of records by turning them over to Interpol is ridiculous on its face. We could do that now by sending them to the British embassy which would probably be much more willing to cooperate. That would still not prevent a subpoena fro being issued against the US government for delivery of the records any more than stashing prisoners in Guantanamo made them exempt from oversight by US Courts.

The more interesting question is why Reagan created the exception to begin with. I suspect that he would not be too happy if FBI records concerning active investigations could be obtained through FOIA requests by the subjects of investigation. It's is equally hard to understand why we would want active case records fro Interpol concerning, for example, cases of international terrorism, to be subject to FOIA requests by the people under investigation. Fortunately, I do not think FOIA requests apply to foreign governmental entities anyway.

How does any of this "trump" the US Constitution?

K G
01-02-2010, 03:58 PM
See paragraph 3, Jeff...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY3MTI4YTRjZmYwMGU1ZjZhOGJmNmQ0NmJiZDNmMDY

kg

YardleyLabs
01-02-2010, 04:29 PM
See paragraph 3, Jeff...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY3MTI4YTRjZmYwMGU1ZjZhOGJmNmQ0NmJiZDNmMDY

kg
The article states, erroneously, that:

"This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States."

In fact, the Interpol member country agreement prohibits Interpol from acting other than in accordance with the laws of the country in whic they are operating. You can see details of Interpol's structure and agreements at http://www.interpol.int (http://www.interpol.int/) and from The Police Chief (Association of Chiefs of Police) about the relationship with Interpol at http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1914&issue_id=102009. (http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1914&issue_id=102009)

K G
01-02-2010, 04:49 PM
So are you satisfied that you know everything there is to know about BHO's revision to Reagan's executive order and how it will affect us?

kg

YardleyLabs
01-02-2010, 05:09 PM
So are you satisfied that you know everything there is to know about BHO's revision to Reagan's executive order and how it will affect us?

kg
I'm satisfied that I read the executive order, read the underlying law extending protection to the records of international organizations that has been in effect since 1945, and satisfied that, as a matter of law, that no treaty or law can "trump" the US Constitution as you imply. I haven't discussed the EO with the President, so I can't say anything about his motives. However, given that the US is responsible for 20% of all "red" notices filed with Interpol in our efforts to track criminals and terrorists across internation boudaries, I suspect that we would not want to have its records subject to a form of discovery that would not be permitted with respect to our own police records.

dnf777
01-02-2010, 05:09 PM
So are you satisfied that you know everything there is to know about BHO's revision to Reagan's executive order and how it will affect us?

kg

Whatever credibility you had on POTUS PLACE just went to zero, KG. This "answer" doesn't even remotely back up your accusations.

Sad.


You may recognize the above passage. I only substituted the name to render it more accurate. It was directed at the person who just unveiled your attempt to stir up fear using "dubious" facts.

K G
01-02-2010, 05:47 PM
I recognize it alright. It's what I would expect from you.

That's the only way you lefties know how to roll, dnf....didn't stop him, won't stop me...;-) I don't pretend to know everything about everything...BIG difference!:D I also don't throw out random accusations of my own creation indicting anyone who ever said anything negative about Islamic extremists as a Christian terrorist...:cool:

Backatcha regards,

kg

YardleyLabs
01-02-2010, 06:28 PM
I recognize it alright. It's what I would expect from you.

That's the only way you lefties know how to roll, dnf....didn't stop him, won't stop me...;-) I don't pretend to know everything about everything...BIG difference!:D I also don't throw out random accusations of my own creation indicting anyone who ever said anything negative about Islamic extremists as a Christian terrorist...:cool:

Backatcha regards,

kg

Actually, it sounds more like back at me.:rolleyes:

I didn't reply to your credibility comment on the other thread since I couldn't even figure out what you were talking about. It sounds here like you are referencing "random accusations" by me to make up for the random non-facts with which you started this thread. I have tremendous respect for your understanding of AKC rules and competitive processes. Your assessments of comments made by others tends to be incisive and supported by the relevant source documents. I wish you would bring the same critical insight to the garbage you cited in this thread.

With respect to my "random accusations", I thought I was pretty clear.


If we define fellow travelers as those who hate America's freedoms and do all they can to undermine them, then Senator Joe McCarthy and his friends from HUAC would certainly head my list. Today, if I were to look for the comparable fellow travelers, I would look to our own version of Christian "Jihadists", those who seek some form of holy war against Islam.

I mentioned specific examples of people that I considered to be such hate mongers:
Jerry Falwell -- known for his descriptions of Muhammad as a pedophile and terrorist (CBS 60 minutes, 2002)
Pat Robertson -- Known for comments such as " Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world." (The 700 Club, 2009). He continued to say Muslims "want to take over and ... to impose Sharia on you. And before long, ladies are going to be dressed in burqas and whatever garments they would put on them, and next thing you know, men are going to be allowed to have wife-beating and you'll be beheading adulterers and so on and so forth."
Rick Santorum -- Known for regularly mocking the term "War on Terror" since the real war is a war on Islam. “They just happen to be Muslims?” he asked incredulously. “That’s false! It has everything to do with Islam,” (Comments at Stanford College, March 2009)In my mind these are the fellow travelers of hate in our country.

Your reply, at the end of the thread, was:


Whatever credibility you had on POTUS PLACE just went to zero, Jeff. This "answer" doesn't even remotely back up your accusations.

Sad.

kg

I'm not sure what accusations or fact you were expecting. I believe the ones I presented are good samples of exactly what I was talking about. I only wish it were not so easy to find similarly bigoted and ignorant comments from so many people in leadership roles. Fortunately, neither Christians nor Muslims are monolithic. Few Christians would think to classify all who believe in evolution to be atheists, or classify the Teletubbies as some form of conspiracy to promote gay lifestyles. Similarly few Muslims expect their women to wear Burqas or their sons to become suicide bombers.

K G
01-02-2010, 09:32 PM
I had to decide if I wanted to address all your "issues" individually or at all. I decided not to parcel them separately because it's just not worth the time.

Here's my main issue with your "radical Christian" point of view....the "radicals" like Falwell, Robertson, and Stanhope are mouthpieces. Granted, they have a following of sorts, but I don't see them encouraging armed uprisings...I don't (and neither do you) read of them inspiring suicide attacks at church services or town squares or high school sporting events. They have the First Amendment in their corner...as do you...as do I...and if we don't want to listen to them, we turn off the TV or radio. We have that option here. It's called "free speech." The protests in Iran, the disappearance of protestors, and the "conscriptions" by the Taliban and al Qaeda of young people into their ranks would make most rational folks believe that the same sort of freedoms we have here are not available to the muslim nation's radical followers.

Radical muslims are raised from birth to believe that all Americans are infidels, and are encouraged during their youth and adolescence to hate the western nations and all they stand for, the US in particular. We are the "infidels" that MUST be purified by fire, hence their almost-exclusive use of high explosives. They believe that "sacrificing" their lives furthers the jihad to which they have been called and ensures their place in paradise. We (in the west in general and the US in particular) are not raised to think that way; we don't "live" to "die" taking the biggest number of "infidels" with us, including innocents and even their own kind if they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You sound more and more like you are trying to justify the efforts of the mullahs and other radical Islamic leaders by using the, by comparison, not-even-REMOTELY-in-the-ballpark efforts of HARD right religious leaders who have nothing more than a microphone and a TV show to promote their views...UNARMED, passive-insurrection views that do nothing but fire up the lefties like you. Your "answer" to my question about examples for comparison is what brought forth my "no credibilty" reply. I've seen nothing to make me believe otherwise.

If you DO believe they are equal comparisons, God help you.

kg

YardleyLabs
01-03-2010, 05:58 AM
I had to decide if I wanted to address all your "issues" individually or at all. I decided not to parcel them separately because it's just not worth the time.

Here's my main issue with your "radical Christian" point of view....the "radicals" like Falwell, Robertson, and Stanhope are mouthpieces. Granted, they have a following of sorts, but I don't see them encouraging armed uprisings...I don't (and neither do you) read of them inspiring suicide attacks at church services or town squares or high school sporting events. They have the First Amendment in their corner...as do you...as do I...and if we don't want to listen to them, we turn off the TV or radio. We have that option here. It's called "free speech." The protests in Iran, the disappearance of protestors, and the "conscriptions" by the Taliban and al Qaeda of young people into their ranks would make most rational folks believe that the same sort of freedoms we have here are not available to the muslim nation's radical followers.

Radical muslims are raised from birth to believe that all Americans are infidels, and are encouraged during their youth and adolescence to hate the western nations and all they stand for, the US in particular. We are the "infidels" that MUST be purified by fire, hence their almost-exclusive use of high explosives. They believe that "sacrificing" their lives furthers the jihad to which they have been called and ensures their place in paradise. We (in the west in general and the US in particular) are not raised to think that way; we don't "live" to "die" taking the biggest number of "infidels" with us, including innocents and even their own kind if they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You sound more and more like you are trying to justify the efforts of the mullahs and other radical Islamic leaders by using the, by comparison, not-even-REMOTELY-in-the-ballpark efforts of HARD right religious leaders who have nothing more than a microphone and a TV show to promote their views...UNARMED, passive-insurrection views that do nothing but fire up the lefties like you. Your "answer" to my question about examples for comparison is what brought forth my "no credibilty" reply. I've seen nothing to make me believe otherwise.

If you DO believe they are equal comparisons, God help you.

kg
My comment was about "fellow travelers", those who become enablers of hate. The overwhelming bulk of Muslims in the world are not terrorists or even enablers of terrorism. As a group, they are more likely to live in areas that are poor and have third world governments; they are more likely to be among the "have nots" while we are the "haves". Among the things that they "have not" are good, free public education systems and that has devastating ramifications for their future development. Those who use the actions of a few to characterize an entire religion believed by about 1.5 billion people often justify this by arguing that those people have not condemned the actions of the minority. Of course, that ignores the fact that they have. But there is no uniform Muslim voice any more than there is a uniform Christian voice and haters are therefore free to listen to only those voices they choose. Do I believe that we are capable of creating terrorists in this country who, in the name of some warped notion of Christ, would attack others based on their religion or belief? Yes. We have already done that in small measure with attacks on abortion clinics and physicians who perform abortions, and the enablers of hate in this country have often been silent or sought to rationalize that terrorism based on the "crimes" being committed. We have seen it in the assault and murder of immigrants, most recently in a situation where the police and a good portion of the town's population allegedly acted to trivialize and cover up the crime. Given the right economic conditions and the right leaders, I have little difficulty envisioning and evolution of a small group of domestic terrorists engaging in wanton acts of violence. If that happens in the future as it has happened in the past (e.g., KKK or the Weathermen), the "fellow travelers will be a large part of what made that violence come to fruition. And, by the way, most of the mullahs who voice their hate are also unarmed and not part of any direct terrorist activities. They too are fellow travelers who help crerate the soil in which terrorists may grow.

cotts135
01-03-2010, 08:27 AM
I had to decide if I wanted to address all your "issues" individually or at all. I decided not to parcel them separately because it's just not worth the time.

Here's my main issue with your "radical Christian" point of view....the "radicals" like Falwell, Robertson, and Stanhope are mouthpieces. Granted, they have a following of sorts, but I don't see them encouraging armed uprisings...I don't (and neither do you) read of them inspiring suicide attacks at church services or town squares or high school sporting events. They have the First Amendment in their corner...as do you...as do I...and if we don't want to listen to them, we turn off the TV or radio. We have that option here. It's called "free speech." The protests in Iran, the disappearance of protestors, and the "conscriptions" by the Taliban and al Qaeda of young people into their ranks would make most rational folks believe that the same sort of freedoms we have here are not available to the muslim nation's radical followers.

Radical muslims are raised from birth to believe that all Americans are infidels, and are encouraged during their youth and adolescence to hate the western nations and all they stand for, the US in particular. We are the "infidels" that MUST be purified by fire, hence their almost-exclusive use of high explosives. They believe that "sacrificing" their lives furthers the jihad to which they have been called and ensures their place in paradise. We (in the west in general and the US in particular) are not raised to think that way; we don't "live" to "die" taking the biggest number of "infidels" with us, including innocents and even their own kind if they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You sound more and more like you are trying to justify the efforts of the mullahs and other radical Islamic leaders by using the, by comparison, not-even-REMOTELY-in-the-ballpark efforts of HARD right religious leaders who have nothing more than a microphone and a TV show to promote their views...UNARMED, passive-insurrection views that do nothing but fire up the lefties like you. Your "answer" to my question about examples for comparison is what brought forth my "no credibilty" reply. I've seen nothing to make me believe otherwise.

If you DO believe they are equal comparisons, God help you.

kg

My question to you is what does it matter what your beliefs are if the end result is an act of terrorism? Does it matter if you were raised with a bunch of Radical Muslims and were taught that all Americans are infidels and that they must pay the ultimate price or if you were raised in a fine home here in America and became radicalized because of the influence of a far right or far left nut job? Does it make a difference if you proclaim your radical ideas from an obscure web site or you keep it quiet for fear of exposure?
It is not so much the process or the proclamations that matter most when defining a terrorist it is the act itself. Having such a narrow definition of what a terrorist is, as you seem to have,is just an exercise in rationalization and exceptionalism

pat addis
01-07-2010, 05:40 PM
Actually, it sounds more like back at me.:rolleyes:

I didn't reply to your credibility comment on the other thread since I couldn't even figure out what you were talking about. It sounds here like you are referencing "random accusations" by me to make up for the random non-facts with which you started this thread. I have tremendous respect for your understanding of AKC rules and competitive processes. Your assessments of comments made by others tends to be incisive and supported by the relevant source documents. I wish you would bring the same critical insight to the garbage you cited in this thread.

With respect to my "random accusations", I thought I was pretty clear.



I mentioned specific examples of people that I considered to be such hate mongers:
Jerry Falwell -- known for his descriptions of Muhammad as a pedophile and terrorist (CBS 60 minutes, 2002)
Pat Robertson -- Known for comments such as " Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination of the world." (The 700 Club, 2009). He continued to say Muslims "want to take over and ... to impose Sharia on you. And before long, ladies are going to be dressed in burqas and whatever garments they would put on them, and next thing you know, men are going to be allowed to have wife-beating and you'll be beheading adulterers and so on and so forth."
Rick Santorum -- Known for regularly mocking the term "War on Terror" since the real war is a war on Islam. “They just happen to be Muslims?” he asked incredulously. “That’s false! It has everything to do with Islam,” (Comments at Stanford College, March 2009)In my mind these are the fellow travelers of hate in our country.

Your reply, at the end of the thread, was:



I'm not sure what accusations or fact you were expecting. I believe the ones I presented are good samples of exactly what I was talking about. I only wish it were not so easy to find similarly bigoted and ignorant comments from so many people in leadership roles. Fortunately, neither Christians nor Muslims are monolithic. Few Christians would think to classify all who believe in evolution to be atheists, or classify the Teletubbies as some form of conspiracy to promote gay lifestyles. Similarly few Muslims expect their women to wear Burqas or their sons to become suicide bombers.

i was just wondering jeff do you work for the democrat party? i only ask this becouse you seem to know more about these things than my local representive.i just wondered how you had time to look this stuff up?

YardleyLabs
01-07-2010, 06:08 PM
i was just wondering jeff do you work for the democrat party? i only ask this becouse you seem to know more about these things than my local representive.i just wondered how you had time to look this stuff up?
I don't work for the Democratic party unless you are counting the check I send them every month. When you remember what someone said and all you want to do is confirm the exact wording, date or place, Google is a pretty easy resource.