ABC'S JAKE TAPPER AND NEW YORK TIMES REPORT ON INTERPOL

The Interpol story, which started when Obama signed an amendment to Executive Order 12425, has apparently heated up sufficiently enough for the New York Times and Jake Tapper to take notice. Tapper, perhaps one of the MSM's more objective reporters, seems to make an honest attempt at investigating the story, which has been getting much attention in the blogosphere.

The issue involves the amendment giving Interpol (International Police Force) immunity from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and potentially exempts Interpol from the U.S. Constitution under the Fourth Amendment. As you can imagine, both Tapper and NYT's Savage play down the concerns, which are rooted in section 2(c) of the EO, although the exemptions included other sections as well. From TAPPER:

• Section 2(c), which provided officials immunity from their property and assets being searched and confiscated; including their archives;
• the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes;
• Section 4, dealing with federal taxes;
• Section 5, dealing with Social Security; and
• Section 6, dealing with property taxes.

My take is that overreaction is indeed a concern as well. However, I don't think that should end discussion on this matter. For now, let's throw out concern for Sections 2(d), 3, 4, 5, and 6. In my view, very close attention should continue to be given to 2(c). Questions should be asked and answered.

Tapper makes some very sound and reasoned arguments for allaying any fears people may have. However, at moments, he comes across as slightly condescending.

For example, with this comment: I'm told INTERPOL didn't have a permanent office in the US until 2004, which is why it wasn’t until this month afforded the same full privileges given, say, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission by President Kennedy in 1962.

Putting Interpol in the same category as the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is cute but not very relevant.

At the end of Tapper's piece - and possibly unwittingly - he actually gives an objective reader further pause while trying to pooh pooh the story. I take you to the very last paragraph:

Obama administration officials say this new executive order doesn't allow INTERPOL to do any more than they were allowed to do once Reagan recognized them as a public international organization. Though clearly the Executive Order does prohibit US law enforcement from searching and seizing INTERPOL records, officials say, those provisions can be waived by the president if need be.

With his last sentence, Tapper is conceding that the concerns of people who have a problem with this EO are indeed well founded except for the fact that "the president" can waive the immunity "if need be". He leaves off by encouraging American citizens to trust in Obama's "if need be"?! What exactly is Obama's "if need be"? Considering all of the people he's surrounded himself with, dismissing the Interpol story out of hand is a bit premature in my view. Questions should be asked and the matter should be subjected to sufficient sunlight.

If Tapper would step back and look at the last sentence of his own piece, re-thinking it, perhaps he too would feel the need to investigate further.

Onto the Charlie Savage piece a the NYT. He is certainly a bit more snarky with his analysis. Like Tapper's post, I found the ending of the Savage piece the most noteworthy:

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

LaTonya Miller, the spokeswoman for the Justice Department’s Interpol bureau, said the order would have no effect on the bureau. It routinely receives and responds to Freedom of Information Act requests, she said, and will continue to do so.

“Nothing has changed,” she said. “We’ve been really concerned about all the misinformation that has been out there on the blogs.”

Perhaps if this White House was more forthcoming and, dare I say it, transparent, the concerns of people who are at least mildly disturbed by this might be more easily assuaged.

If true, and there is nothing to be concerned about, the White House should welcome people keeping a close eye on what Interpol does. In fact, they appear to be doing just the opposite by playing it down.

One last thing. Am I the only one who is concerned every time this administration refutes critics who ask tough questions as engaging in "misinformation"? Isn't that what they did when the Van Jones story broke?

HERE is the Threats Watch story from December 23rd.