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.

OBAMA GIVES INTERPOL A PASS ON AMERICAN SOIL

The act of distracting with one hand while perpetrating something else with the other hand seems to come as naturally to Barack Obama as breathing. On December 16th, 2009, while the country is already distracted at Christmas time by an obscene healthcare debate, Barack Obama signed an amendment to Executive Order 12425 (EO), giving Interpol (International Police) who are on American soil, immunity from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Andy McCarthy at NRO explains, in part, why this is such a big deal:

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.

Guess what else. Interpol operates inside the U.S. Justice Department, headed up by Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder's DOJ has been stonewalling quite a bit lately. Could we be seeing information that is harmful to this administration being sent to Interpol and the amendment to EO 12425 being invoked?

In the United States, the FBI works very closely with the DOJ. Similarly, in this one-world Utopia envisioned by these hardcore socialists, Interpol works closely with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Imagine a scenario in which the FBI was permitted to target an individual or entity in the United States, arrest individual(s), and not have to release information that could prove said person(s) innocence. Essentially, that framework appears to be getting built with Interpol and the ICC.

In any case, Interpol will be allowed to operate inside the United States while not being bound by the U.S. Constitution.

For much more detail on this, THREATS WATCH breaks it down quite well. Word of caution, Threats Watch makes the argument that it's conceivable the "assets" it wouldn't have to relinquish to information requests could include "human assets". I tend to come down on the side of Ed Morrissey at HOT AIR who claims that may be a bit of a reach. Nonetheless, considering all of the problems with transparency this administration has been having, it is more than just a little troubling to see Obama, with the stroke of his pen, give an international police force immunity from accountability for its actions as it operates inside Eric Holder's Justice Department.

Threats Watch speculates that the next step might be for Obama to allow members of the American military to be tried in the ICC after being arrested by Interpol. Think about this angle in terms of the CIA and the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques debate this past year. Under such a framework, Holder would be off the hook in the arena of public debate. He would simply be able to defer to Interpol / ICC and say they're immune from releasing information - end of story.

Domestically, the U.S. Constitution is being shredded before our very eyes. Obama's actions indicate he views it as a huge nuisance. In any case, in light of this amendment being signed, think about Amendments III and IV to the U.S. Constitution and see if this EO begins to encroach upon them, if ever so slightly.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Could members of Interpol one day be considered "soldiers"? If Interpol barged into your home and took property to be used against someone in an ICC court, would they be immune from presenting it at trial?

That takes bullying tactics to an entirely new level. I wonder if ACORN or SEIU thugs might be offered jobs at Interpol soon. For some reason, this just came to mind.



Remember, we have watched this president seemingly have more disdain for a significant segment of his country's own population than he does for the world's most seediest of dictators.

Why?

h/t to FR