Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law?

[Irving]

Here is an article from the other side of the spectrum that explains a little more about what Interpol actually is: http://www.undispatch.com/interpol-u...ormed-bloggers

Doesn't make this any less unconstitutional though, at least in my opinion.

[BPTactical]

What I cant help to wonder is this:
Does this open the door to "Other" foreign agencies/organizations to the same immunity?
Under whose authority?

At what point in times does ones actions constitute Treason?





The chair is against the wall......
John has a long moustache.......

[uhplumber]

Just more of Obama's giddy globalization ideas. Every day it is something off the wall with this guy.

[SA Friday]

Almost every embassy and consulate posted position around the world from every country and in every country has diplomatic immunity. Even many military members assigned to these positions have diplomatic immunity. For US passports, blue is a civ passport, maroon is a military passport, and black is a diplomatic passport with the immunities agreed upon with the country they reside attached.

It would take a DOJ international relations lawyer to explain this one. As it so happens, I just might send this to a lawyer friend of mine that did just that job for a while and ask a few questions.

[SA Friday]

OK, here's what my DOJ lawyer friend had to say about it. (Side Note; I never worked with Interpol when a Fed. I have no working knowledge of their agency.) She wrote the following:

While you may not care for the NYTimes, here is an article that I read there a day or two ago, which gives a pretty good explanation: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/31interpol.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=interpol&st=cse

In particular, it explains as follows:
Contrary to its portrayal in some movies, Interpol has no police force that conducts investigations and makes arrests. 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.

In the United States, a bureau at the Justice Department staffed by American officials transmits information between law enforcement agencies and Interpol. If a foreign country issues an arrest warrant for a person inside the United States, it is up to the United States government, based on its own laws, to decide whether to apprehend the suspect.

So, it's probably not as scary as it sounds.

[GunTroll]

OK, here's what my DOJ lawyer friend had to say about it. (Side Note; I never worked with Interpol when a Fed. I have no working knowledge of their agency.) She wrote the following:

While you may not care for the NYTimes, here is an article that I read there a day or two ago, which gives a pretty good explanation: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/31interpol.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=interpol&st=cse

In particular, it explains as follows:
Contrary to its portrayal in some movies, Interpol has no police force that conducts investigations and makes arrests. 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.

In the United States, a bureau at the Justice Department staffed by American officials transmits information between law enforcement agencies and Interpol. If a foreign country issues an arrest warrant for a person inside the United States, it is up to the United States government, based on its own laws, to decide whether to apprehend the suspect.

So, it's probably not as scary as it sounds.

Lets hope so. Anyone else getting chaffed from your hat?

[mutt]

I have to agree with SA Friday's lawyer friend that this is really a non-issue. I'm more worried about the so called Patriot Act than this. In case anyone cares, here's a pretty good write up on what INTERPOL is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol

[SA Friday]

When considering legislation/regulation/etc, it is rarely the intended purpose a person really needs to worry about or consider. It is the potential for any future misuse that naive legislators never considered when they passed it that one needs to potentially worry about.

"The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions".

Thought about this for a day before responding. This really isn't a valid arguement. It could be used for an legislation/regulation/etc. Nobody can predict the future, and arguing an unknown future misuse as justification for potential bad legislation is dangerous. Afterall, isn't that want the anti's argue about the 2nd ammendment? Our founding fathers would have been hard pressed to envision repeating firearms?

I don't know if this EO is going to turn out to be potentially dangerous or not, but my initial fears concerning the EO are much less now that I have a better understanding how Interpol interacts with US LE, and has no independent capability to attempt to enforce law in this country.

[Irving]

My concern is directed at setting the president that it is okay to grant immunities to foreign bodies that local agencies don't have. Actually just granting immunities to foreign bodies at all. Say no to global government.

[mutt]

Nobody can predict the future, and arguing an unknown future misuse as justification for potential bad legislation is dangerous. Afterall, isn't that want the anti's argue about the 2nd ammendment? Our founding fathers would have been hard pressed to envision repeating firearms?

I find it interesting that you equate our founding father's inability to envision repeating firearms as an unintended consequence of the 2nd Amendment SA Friday. Care to elaborate what you mean?