PDA

View Full Version : Diplomatic immunity



John Smith
01-04-2010, 08:47 AM
I got an email yesterday that implied Obama had signed an executive order giving Interpol the right to search/seize without warrant. I expect such emails will be circulating soon.

Near as I can tell, doing research in my tired state last night, we have a law dating back to, I believe, '43 (close to that anyway) that gave members of international organizations which we joined diplomatic immunity.

Reagan signed an executive order in '83 that included Interpol as an international organization, but excepted certain clauses from the earlier law.

The courts had a problem with those exceptions. I guess you can't welcome interpol into the community under the old law, but pick and choose which parts cover them.

Obama's executive order extends those clauses to Interpol, giving them the same diplomatic immunity all the other international organizations enjoy.

Now that I've explained as best as I understand it what has actually transpired here, I have the question:

Why is there diplomatic immunity?

paladin
01-04-2010, 09:17 AM
Supposedly to cover diplomats from other countries, as we exempt them from law suits involving accidents etc.....the U.S. has traditionally abused those laws and system, sending operatives over seas under diplomatic cover, which negates the original reason for it.

oznabrag
01-04-2010, 09:21 AM
Awright.

The sense I get of what you've typed is that Interpol can now arrest people on US soil without observing the niceties of our laws regarding the rights of the accused.

That sucks.

One can easily imagine a scenario where this was used as a loophole. If the loophole were used to haul Bushco before the World Court, I'd have a severe case of cognitive dissonance, but I hope I'd suck it up and condemn the practice anyway.

One can always hope.

downthecreek
01-04-2010, 09:40 AM
Awright.

The sense I get of what you've typed is that Interpol can now arrest people on US soil without observing the niceties of our laws regarding the rights of the accused.



I don't think "Interpol" can arrest anybody. It isn't a police force, it's an organisation to promote and facilitate co-operation between police forces internationally (especially in cases where co-operation is needed between countries that do not have diplomatic relations)

oznabrag
01-04-2010, 09:45 AM
Shows what I know! :p:D

John Smith
01-04-2010, 10:10 AM
Awright.

The sense I get of what you've typed is that Interpol can now arrest people on US soil without observing the niceties of our laws regarding the rights of the accused.

That sucks.

One can easily imagine a scenario where this was used as a loophole. If the loophole were used to haul Bushco before the World Court, I'd have a severe case of cognitive dissonance, but I hope I'd suck it up and condemn the practice anyway.

One can always hope.
That is what the conservative blogs are making of this. It's actually got nothing to do with our rights as American citizens. It just extends diplomatic immunity to member of Interpol, who, near as I can see, has no cops of its own.

My research last night indicated that we had a law from the 40's that gave people in international organizations diplomatic immunity. Reagan signed an Executive order accepting Interpol as an international organization, but excluded some of their immunity under the old law. At some points the courts seem to have said he can't do that.

Obama simply edited Reagan's EO so as not to exclude those sections which the courts ruled he couldn't exclude.

I post this because I suspect we're going to get bombarded with conservative talking heads, emails, etc. telling us that interpol can seize our property without a warrant, which is NOT what it says at all.