Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 07 Jan '10 14:11
    President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.

    Interpol is the shorthand for the International Criminal Police Organization. It was established in 1923 and operates in about 188 countries. By executive order 12425, issued in 1983, President Reagan recognized Interpol as an international organization and gave it some of the privileges and immunities customarily extended to foreign diplomats. Interpol, however, is also an active law-enforcement agency, so critical privileges and immunities (set forth in Section 2(c) of the International Organizations Immunities Act) were withheld. Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.

    On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations. That is, Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. 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.

    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).

    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?
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '10 14:20
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    On Wednesday, however, for no apparent reason, President Obama issued an executive order removing the Reagan limitations.
    Well, if there really is no apparent reason, as you claim, the only way we can debate this matter is to make up reasons of our own and debate them. Unless, of course, we debate why and how executive orders can be signed for "no reason".
  3. 07 Jan '10 14:35
    Originally posted by FMF
    Well, if there really is no apparent reason, as you claim, the only way we can debate this matter is to make up reasons of our own and debate them. Unless, of course, we debate why and how executive orders can be signed for "no reason".
    Well, it is for no "apparent" reason because Obama has not explained why he felt a need to do this before or after amending the executive order Reagan had in place.Even though he promised transparency.
    The questions I put in bold text at the bottom would be good things to discuss.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '10 14:36
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Well, it is for no "apparent" reason because Obama has not explained why he felt a need to do this before or after amending the executive order Reagan had in place.
    Is that so? There has been no press release or explanation of any kind? Or you haven't looked for one?
  5. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    07 Jan '10 14:38
    "for no apparent reason" ha ha ha

    This is pure comedy, keep it up
  6. 07 Jan '10 14:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Is that so? There has been no press release or explanation of any kind? Or you haven't looked for one?
    Excuse me, there was a mention of it in the N.Y. Times where the White House explanation after the bill was quietly signed was "nothing has changed" bla,bla, bla, Not really a reason but a response, yes.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '10 15:17
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Excuse me, there was a mention of it in the N.Y. Times where the White House explanation after the bill was quietly signed was "nothing has changed".
    So, strike that statement from my OP thats really not my point any how. The questions proposed in bold text are.
    Well if there is no explanation and, as you claim, there is no reason, then I think it's reasonable to say that it makes no difference and nothing has changed, right? How can it have? If, on the other hand, it has changed something then presumably that was the reason the change was made. And yet, as you say, there was no reason.
  8. 07 Jan '10 15:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Well if there is no explanation and, as you claim, there is no reason, then I think it's reasonable to say that it makes no difference and nothing has changed, right? How can it have? If, on the other hand, it has changed something then presumably that was the reason the change was made. And yet, as you say, there was no reason.
    of course it has changed as I have laid out above.And yes there is a explanation or response from the white house but it is b.s.
    if nothing has changed why the executive order? my question is why would he do this?for what purpose? is it a good thing for the u.s.?

    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?
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '10 15:26
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    yes there is a explanation or response from the white house but it is b.s.
    Oh so there IS an explanation after all? Why did you suggest that was not the case in your OP? This won't be the first time one of your OPs contained uh hum, er... inaccuracies.
  10. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    07 Jan '10 15:29
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    of course it has changed as I have laid out above.And yes there is a explanation or response from the white house but it is b.s.
    if nothing has changed why the executive order? my question is why would he do this?for what purpose? is it a good thing for the u.s.?

    Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we i ...[text shortened]... ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?
    Why do you give diplomats immunity? Why do you elevate the status of foreign representatives above your own citizens? Is that a good thing?
  11. 07 Jan '10 15:45
    Originally posted by FMF
    Oh so there IS an explanation after all? Why did you suggest that was not the case in your OP? This won't be the first time one of your OPs contained uh hum, er... inaccuracies.
    The statement was "for no apparent reason" and for them to say "nothing has changed" is not a "reason" in my book.


    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?
  12. 07 Jan '10 15:47
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Why do you give diplomats immunity? Why do you elevate the status of foreign representatives above your own citizens? Is that a good thing?
    No I dont believe it is good. I dont know why they do it either. Many heinous crimes have been committed w/immunity from justice by diplomats over the years,it makes no sense to me.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '10 15:51
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    The statement was "for no apparent reason" and for them to say "nothing has changed" is not a "reason" in my book.[/b]
    So yet another deceptive/disengenuous OP from you. Surprise surprise.
  14. 07 Jan '10 16:09
    Originally posted by FMF
    So yet another deceptive/disengenuous OP from you. Surprise surprise.
    You have been sitting in your sisters spare bedroom to long,it must be getting to you.
    There is no apparent reason that I can see.and you are deliberatley disrupting this thread,as usual. Either answer/debate these questions or shut the hell up.

    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?
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '10 16:36
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    There is no apparent reason that I can see.
    And yet there is a reason. Why do you need to deceive in so many of your OP's? Isn't the issue important enough without misrepresenting it?