Page 99 of 344 FirstFirst ... 49899596979899100101102103109149199 ... LastLast
Results 1,471 to 1,485 of 5150

Thread: President Obama

  1. #1471
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,822

    Re: President Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    Do this scare anyone else?
    No, because if you read the deleted portions from the original act signed by Reagan regarding the International Organizations Immunities Act, all it does is allow InterPol to follow the money and not give foreign powers or foreign individuals protections from InterPol just because they are an International Organization.

    That OpEd of yours that was looking for Beck to jump on the bandwagon of misinformation was overwhelmingly off in jumping to assertions that 42 U.S.C. is affected for it is not mentioned in deleted lines of the IOIA. At least I can't find it and want to know from where that comes.

  2. #1472
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: President Obama

    in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL)
    Do you understand diplomatic immunity? Why would you want to extend that immunity to a foreign police force operating within our borders? The regular diplomatic immunity is bad enough and allows foreign spies to operate here.

    And note the word "extend". Why did he need to go beyond what Reagan had in place?
    Brian

  3. #1473
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: President Obama

    Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable.
    ok, what if they were to kidnap a US citizen and put them in a cargo container owned by them to ship off shore? We could not search the container or stop them from moving it. What if the White House wanted to keep secret records on US citizens? They could simply ask Interpol to "hold onto them for a while".
    Brian

  4. #1474
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,822

    Re: President Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    Do you understand diplomatic immunity? Why would you want to extend that immunity to a foreign police force operating within our borders? The regular diplomatic immunity is bad enough and allows foreign spies to operate here.

    And note the word "extend". Why did he need to go beyond what Reagan had in place?
    Yes I do. I also understand how every Foreign organization we have a treaty with gets it.

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    ok, what if they were to kidnap a US citizen and put them in a cargo container owned by them to ship off shore? We could not search the container or stop them from moving it. What if the White House wanted to keep secret records on US citizens? They could simply ask Interpol to "hold onto them for a while".
    So aside from all the striking of the IRS related materials, you are focusing on InterPol having a cargo container while every other foreign organization can have one? Sorry. I'm not upset that members of InterPol working in the US are now exempt from federal taxes like every other organization any more than I suspect them of kidnapping US citizens any more than other treaty organizations.

  5. #1475
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: President Obama

    Diplomats are a lot different than having a foreign police force. Why do we need a foreign police force within our borders anyway? Also, those foreign diplomats at least have to answer to their own government. Who does Interpol answer to? :shrug: I glad you aren't worried about a loss of our sovereignty but some how that doesn't bring me much comfort. Why did Obama strike that language anyway (and, no, I don't care about the IRS, regardless of how many times you throw that into the conversation)?
    Brian

  6. #1476
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,822

    Re: President Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    Diplomats are a lot different than having a foreign police force. Why do we need a foreign police force within our borders anyway? Also, those foreign diplomats at least have to answer to their own government. Who does Interpol answer to? :shrug: I glad you aren't worried about a loss of our sovereignty but some how that doesn't bring me much comfort. Why did Obama strike that language anyway (and, no, I don't care about the IRS, regardless of how many times you throw that into the conversation)?
    First the organization
    http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/about.asp

    Second, the method to request documents...
    http://www.interpol.int/Public/ccf/acces.asp

    Third, their defining constitution...
    http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/...nstitution.asp

    We haven't lost sovereignty. I think your fears are better spent towards other nations as well as realizing that InterPol is dealing with terrorists, drug dealers, gun runners, pirates, white slavers...

  7. #1477
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: President Obama

    oh, that makes me feel better.

    Take a look at the member nations. Now I can have a Yemeni policeman running all over the place with immunity.
    Brian

  8. #1478
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,822

    Re: President Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    oh, that makes me feel better.

    Take a look at the member nations. Now I can have a Yemeni policeman running all over the place with immunity.
    We have Yemini princes already doing that. Look, I respect the position you don't trust InterPol any more than you don't trust Obama's intentions. I just don't agree and stated why.

  9. #1479
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: President Obama

    No problem. For the record, I don't like the original EO written by Reagan either. It is not just about not trusting Obama.
    Brian

  10. #1480
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,822

    Re: President Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    No problem. For the record, I don't like the original EO written by Reagan either. It is not just about not trusting Obama.
    lol, great, but to your point I really chuckled at Reagan's taxation of pay made by InterPol members here in the states.

  11. #1481
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,822

    Re: President Obama

    a little more on the InterPol situation...
    Just What Did President Obama's Executive Order regarding INTERPOL Do?

    December 30, 2009 1:22 PM
    abcNewsShare.render(false,false,false,'http://feeds.abcnews.com/abcnews/politicalpunchblog',false,'addthis',false,'blog entry');

    Some viewers/readers have asked me about an executive order President Obama signed earlier this month regarding INTERPOL, an issue that has exploded on the conservative blogosphere with all sorts of nefarious insinuations and accusations.
    Here are some background and the facts:
    On June 16, 1983, President Reagan signed Executive Order 12425, which designated the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act.
    The International Organizations Immunities Act, signed into law in 1945, established a special group of foreign or international organizations whose members could work in the U.S. and enjoy certain exemptions from US taxes and search and seizure laws.
    Experts say there are about 75 organizations in the US covered by the International Organizations Immunities Act -- including the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the International Committee of the Red Cross, even the International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
    (These privileges are not the same as the rights afforded under "diplomatic immunity," they are considerably less. "Diplomatic immunity" comes from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which states that a "diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State." That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.)
    Basically, recognizing a group under the International Organizations Immunities Act means officials from those organizations are exempt from some taxes and customs fees, and that their records cannot be seized.
    This, I'm told, is so these organizations can work throughout the world without different countries spying on each other by accessing the records of these groups.
    Each president has designated some organizations covered by the International Organizations Immunities Act.
    President Nixon did it for the United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property.
    President Reagan bestowed these privileges to the African Development Bank, the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico, and the World Tourism Organization, among others.
    President Bush through Executive Orders covered the European Central Bank, the African Union and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS Tuberculosis and Malaria.
    INTERPOL is course a different type of organization -- it's an investigative law enforcement body. In fact, it's the world’s largest international police organization.
    Created in 1923, INTERPOL has 188 member countries including the US. Its purpose is to facilitate cross-border police co-operation and to work with other legitimate law enforcement organizations worldwide to prevent and combat international crime, with a focus on: drugs and criminal organizations; financial and high-tech crime; fugitives; public safety and terrorism; trafficking in human beings; and corruption.
    The US historically has participated whole-heartedly in INTERPOL; the current Secretary General of INTERPOL is Ronald Noble, a former Undersecretary of Enforcement of the Department of the Treasury during the Clinton administration.
    "The FBI and other law enforcement agencies have closely coordinated with INTERPOL for many, many years," a former counterterrorism official who served during the Bush administration says approvingly.
    In Lyon, France, 2003, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft spoke to INTERPOL and said to Noble, "INTERPOL was already a top-flight law enforcement organization, but your dynamic leadership has brought new dimensions to this global crime-fighting resource."
    Reagan's 1983 executive order, however, did not provide blanket exemptions for INTERPOL officials, who at the time did not have a permanent office in the US. The provisions of the International Organizations Immunities Act that INTERPOL officials were not exempt from included:
    • 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.
    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.
    In September 1995, President Clinton updated Reagan's executive order with Executive Order No. 12971, giving INTERPOL officials exemption from some of the customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes’.
    Then in his December 17, 2009, executive order President Obama exempted INTERPOL from the rest of the exceptions Reagan listed -- Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6.
    So what does the counterterrorism official from the Bush years think of this?
    He can't believe it's taken this long.
    "To the extent that granting these immunities to INTERPOL furthers the efficacy or ease of information-sharing or joint action on an expedited basis to act on warrants
    seems like a no brainer to me," the official says.
    "Conservatives can't have it both ways," the official says. "You can't be complaining about the hypothetical abdication of US jurisdiction at the same time you're complaining the Obama administration is not being tough enough on national security."
    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.
    - jpt

  12. #1482
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    West Richland, WA
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: President Obama

    This last paragraph is telling.
    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.
    First it says it doesn't do anything and then tells us what it does.
    Brian

  13. #1483
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,822

    Re: President Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by bk94si View Post
    This last paragraph is telling.


    First it says it doesn't do anything and then tells us what it does.
    I saw that and can only assume as to the context for obviously there were changes.

    Perhaps the administration was addressing your original fear of InterPol kidnapping US citizens and locking them into cargo boxes. After all, there are laws pertaining to US citizen rights that this change does not have power over.

  14. #1484
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    10,822

    Re: President Obama

    we get attacked and the Cheney attacks the administration...
    Cheney Attacks; White House Hits Back

    By PETER BAKER The White House fired back at former Vice President •••• Cheney on Wednesday, accusing him of making “untrue” allegations against President Obama and charging that the former administration allowed Al Qaeda to thrive while it diverted attention to Iraq.

    The latest back and forth escalated an already partisan exchange that has consumed Washington since the attempted terrorist attack on an American passenger jet on Christmas Day. Republicans have attacked Mr. Obama and his administration for not taking terrorism seriously enough while Democrats have accused Republicans of voting against funding for better security.

    The skirmish moved to a higher level as Mr. Cheney sent a statement to Politico accusing Mr. Obama of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists. “We are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe,” Mr. Cheney said. “Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency — social transformation — the restructuring of American society.”

    The White House has pointed out that the system that missed the would-be bomber was put in place by President George W. Bush and responded sharply to Mr. Cheney on its own Web site on Wednesday afternoon.
    “The former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claim that the President — who is this nation’s Commander-in-Chief — needs to realize we are at War,” Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, wrote on a blog posting. “I don’t think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama.”

    Although Mr. Obama has eschewed the Bush-era phrase “war on terror,” arguing that terror is a tactic, not an enemy, Mr. Pfeiffer pointed out that Mr. Obama has repeatedly said the nation is at war with Al Qaeda, even if he “doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it,” like the last administration.

    Mr. Pfeiffer went on to argue that the Bush-Cheney administration’s focus on Iraq allowed Al Qaeda to reconstitute itself not only in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan but in Yemen, which seems to be the origin of the latest attempted attack. “Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country,” Mr. Pfeiffer wrote. “And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.”
    Let's see, Obama has stated that the intel system failed and is making moves to change it so that we may better prevent attacks.

    Cheney, who was responsible for the intel system that failed makes a soundbite that Obama doesn't take terror seriously.

    Geez.

  15. #1485
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    A Little South of Sanity
    Posts
    12,925

    Re: President Obama

    Quote Originally Posted by otoc View Post
    we get attacked and the Cheney attacks the administration...

    Let's see, Obama has stated that the intel system failed and is making moves to change it so that we may better prevent attacks.

    Cheney, who was responsible for the intel system that failed makes a soundbite that Obama doesn't take terror seriously.

    Geez.
    I like the logic and agree. So much in fact, because it's the logic I and many others have used on 9/11.

    Clinton's policies were the center of the problem.

    Thanks!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •