 |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
 |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
 |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
|
 |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Kimo | Dec 28 | 08:50 AMFirst we bring the worst of the Gitmo prisoners to the US and give them constitutional protection and ...more» Kimo | Dec 28 | 08:49 AMFirst we bring the worst of the Gitmo prisoners to the US and give them constitutional protection and ...more» Thanks, Ginny.D. Mathiesen | Dec 27 | 10:39 PMAnother great article! As a child I always loved to watch the Christmas episode of "I Remember Mama" ...more» Response to Bil StoneHypocriteSpotter | Dec 27 | 08:04 PMYou're not a Dr are you "Dr Bil". If you were you would know that literature review does indeed constitute ...more» Long Live ChickengateThe Truth Squad | Dec 27 | 04:41 PMYou would think by now that AG Cooper would have released the findings on Chickengate. But the main ...more» Dr. Bill StoneBubba Bo, DrVP | Dec 27 | 01:47 PMtell you what good buddy...you get Al Gore and George Soros to release their "funding sources" and I'll ...more» |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Why does INTERPOL need immunity from American law?* "It's the road to internationalism on steroids."
|
December 28, 2009 Commentary on the news
*Hat tip to Andy McCarthy
The major news media has been almost completely silent on Obama's latest caper. But the blogosphere is all over it and the Observer has it all right here.
This is what's being said about what's been done.
Starting with Andrew McCarthy at The Corner:
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? Follow the link to Steve Schippert's post at ThreatsWatch.
NoisyRoom calls the president's amendment "…the road to internationalism on steroids." Read all the updates. Follow all the links. Read and learn.
Who benefits and why?
Die-hard leftists have been screaming for years for the Bush administration to stand trial for war crimes. Says McCarthy –
Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America's defense). Will this allow Bush officials, or even our service men and women, to be arrested on American soil, leaving Obama's hands clean?
The Quarryman says:
The President has just violated American sovereignty in the still of the night… There is now absolutely no check on Interpol's power. Some see this as one stop on Obama's roadmap to America becoming part of the International Criminal Court.
President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.
President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable. Candidate Obama, in 2008, called it "premature to commit" America to joining the ICC. However, his foreign policy advisor at that time, Samantha Power, laid out what would need to happen before Obama would think about signing the Rome treaty (which established the ICC). She said:
Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony. Sodahead's commentary continues:
In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.
The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.
When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body who's INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement..
For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds. Ed Morrissey says:
American law does not consider people as "assets." It does mean, though, that Interpol officers would have diplomatic immunity for any lawbreaking conducted in the US at a time when Interpol nations (like Italy) have attempted to try American intelligence agents for their work in the war on terror, a rather interesting double standard.
Americans who get arrested on the basis of Interpol work cannot get the type of documentation one normally would get in the discovery process, which is a remarkable reversal from Obama's declared efforts to gain "due process" for terrorists detained at Gitmo. Does the White House intend to treat Americans worse than the terrorists we've captured during wartime? An example of the potential of this action, and possibly those to come, can be seen in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent statement that the United States is willing to work closely with the United Nations in developing a treaty or convention to control the spread of firearms around the world. While that may seem like a good idea, imagine officials at Smith and Wesson being charged with weapons trafficking if their products turn up in a crime in a foreign country and INTERPOL "pays them a visit." While what they are doing (manufacturing firearms) is perfectly legal in the United States, the question becomes: Could they be subjected to arrest and removal from the U. S. courts' jurisdiction by INTERPOL? We don't know. But we do think the Obama Administration owes U. S. citizens the portection of the Second Amendment and a guarantee that his actions in amending this executive order will not infringe on any of our constitutional rights as Americans.
Baldilocks says:
Yes, that is exactly what this administration intends. There is only one force stronger than those who would curtail our liberty--and it isn't an earthly force.
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| | |
| |
|
| |
|
| S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
|
|
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
| Copyright 2009, Beaufort Observer Online, Inc.
No part of this website may be used without permission |
|
| |
|