Executive Order 13524 of December 16, 2009 Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a Public International Organization Entitled to Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of theInternational Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words ‘‘except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act’’ and the semicolon that immediately precedes them. Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945. EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them. After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly. Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes). And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed. Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece. 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. (Emphasis added.) Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.") Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets - Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers. Context: International Criminal Court The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - affordedINTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOLprovides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice. We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC's Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF). 29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such asSADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute - the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war. President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable. President Obama's words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely "premature to commit" to signing America on. However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception. Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty. "Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony. The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches. President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer. CONCLUSIONS In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves. The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions. When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empoweredINTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body who's INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement. For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds. This is the disturbing context for President Obama's quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media. Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil. If Britain's Gordon Brown gets his way, the term "climate change police" will become more than just a disparaging forewarning. A new global body dedicated to environmental stewardship is needed to prevent a repeat of the deadlock which undermined the Copenhagen climate change summit, Gordon Brown will say tomorrow. The UN’s consensual method of negotiation, which requires all 192 countries to reach agreement, needs to be reformed to ensure that the will of the majority prevails, he feels. The Prime Minister will say: “Never again should we face the deadlock that threatened to pull down those talks. Never again should we let a global deal to move towards a greener future be held to ransom by only a handful of countries. One of the frustrations for me was the lack of a global body with the sole responsibility for environmental stewardship. Britain is the country, remember, that has blanketed the land with closed-circuit cameras to such an extent that its information commissioner complained it had become a "surveillance society." At the time there were more than four million closed circuit TV cameras in Britain -- about one for every 14 people -- and that was three years ago. Once the climate change police are in place, would an escalation of closed circuit surveillance be justified? A mini-camera in every wall switch. Turn on too many lights at once and The Watcher sends a jolt of electricity through your body. David Suzuki would like that, because environmental purity is more important than the concerns of mere humans and their rinky-dink countries. Kelly McParland National Post Photo: The Royal Castle in Stockholm callously wastes energy on lighting in blatant disregard for international sensibilities about greenhouse gas emissions. If Britain's prime minister gets his way, climate police could arrest everyone in Sweden for such crimes. (REUTERS/Roger Vikstrom/Scanpix) (Steffen Kugler/AFP/Getty Images) Gordon Brown with world leaders on the final day of the Copenhagen summit on climate change A new global body dedicated to environmental stewardship is needed to prevent a repeat of the deadlock which undermined the Copenhagen climate change summit, Gordon Brown will say tomorrow. The UN’s consensual method of negotiation, which requires all 192 countries to reach agreement, needs to be reformed to ensure that the will of the majority prevails, he feels. The Prime Minister will say: “Never again should we face the deadlock that threatened to pull down those talks. Never again should we let a global deal to move towards a greener future be held to ransom by only a handful of countries. One of the frustrations for me was the lack of a global body with the sole responsibility for environmental stewardship. “I believe that in 2010 we will need to look at reforming our international institutions to meet the common challenges we face as a global community.” The summit failed to produce a political agreement among all the countries. Delegates instead passed a motion on Saturday “taking note” of an accord drawn up the night before by five countries: the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Despite being the first world leader to join the summit, Mr Brown was excluded from the key meeting where the compromise was decided. Ed Miliband, the Climate Change Secretary, admitted today that the results of the Copenhagen conference were “disappointing” because of the absence of agreement on emissions targets or a deadline for turning the accord into a legally binding treaty. Mr Miliband pointed the finger of blame at China for resisting a legal agreement and its rejection of a proposal for 50 per cent cut in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Efforts to give legal force to the commitments in the Copenhagen accord came up against “impossible resistance from a small number of developing countries, including China, who didn’t want a legal agreement”, he said. Challenged over accusations that the agreement reached in Copenhagen failed to protect poor people in developing countries, Mr Miliband said: “The eventual outcome was disappointing. But the idea that walking away from agreement would have been better for people facing climate change is frankly ridiculous. “I think we can protect and help those people’s lives and indeed protect them from climate change through this agreement. “The fact is that we have got fast-start finance of $10 billion a year flowing as a result of this agreement.” He said it was important that countries had agreed for the need to make emissions cuts, even though they had failed to commit to specific targets. “We won’t know the precise shape of [the national emission targets] until the beginning of February, and we are going to have to push for them to be higher. “Even though there were things we didn’t achieve, the fact is we have got for the first time developing countries coming together and saying that they are going to reduce emissions, and the finance is flowing.” Mr Miliband rejected claims that Britain and the European Union were “sidelined” by their absence from a meeting at which President Obama and the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa thrashed out the basic shape of the accord. “I don’t think that was the meeting that in the end decided the agreement,” he said. “The big decisions took place in a group of about 30 countries in which President Sarkozy, Chancellor Merkel and Gordon Brown were represented.” In the accord • Agreement that “deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science” • “Long co-operative action” needed to keep the global temperature increase below 2C • Rich countries should submit proposals for economy-wide emission reduction targets for 2020 to the UN by January 31 • By the same date, developing countries should produce plans to cut the rate of growth of their emissions • There should be international monitoring of any emission cuts in developing countries that are funded by rich countries • A reassessment of the accord by 2015 to check whether emission reductions are on track to keep the temperature increase below 2C • Consideration in 2015 of strengthening the goal to 1.5C Not in the accord • Emission targets, either for 2020 or 2050 • A date by which global emissions should peak • Any deadline for turning the accord into a binding treaty • A commitment on how much of the climate protection funding would be additional to existing overseas aid pledges • Agreement on an international body to verify the emissions reported by each country Executive Order 13524
←Executive Order 13523 Executive Order 13524 by President of the United States Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a Public International Organization Entitled to Enjoy Certain Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities Executive Order 13525→ Signed by President Barack Obama December 16, 2009 Federal Register page and date: 74 FR 67803, December 21, 2009 See the Notes section for a list of Executive Orders affected by or related to the issuance of this Executive Order. 
[edit]Notes
This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105). Return to the top of the page. 
ThreatsWatch.Org:
PrincipalAnalysis
Wither Sovereignty
Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next?
By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton
Notes
Gordon Brown calls for new group to police global environment issues
Gordon Brown calls for new group to police global environment ...
Britain calls for international climate change police - Full Comment
Gordon Brown calls for new group to police - Unexplained Mysteries ...
Gordon Brown calls for new group to police global environment ...
Gordon Brown calls for new group to police global environment ...
Gordon Brown announces Afghanistan military and anti-corruption ...
Gordon Brown announces Afghanistan military and anti-corruption ...
Gordon Brown calls for new group to police global environment ...
BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | UK to get 'unified' border force
Gordon Brown calls for new group to police global environment ...
Now Gordon Brown wants to police the entire world – how controlling can a freak get?
Saturday, 26 December 2009
Barack Obama
The White House,
December 16, 2009.
[FR Doc. E9–30413 Filed 12–18–09; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–W0–P
There is a reason this was done at this time...
NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION!!!
BHO signs EXECUTIVE ORDER 13524- amended 12425 FOR
INTERNATIONAL TROOPS TO COME TO THIS COUNTRY !!!
I don’t think we are going to get a chance to change anything in an election.
last 15 mins on our site.
PLEASE LISTEN TO THE LAST 15 MINUTES OF
The Steve Malzberg Show-December 23, 2009-Hour #1 !!!
Go to… http://www.wor710.com/pages/3600488.php Scroll down and play hour # 1 ...THE LAST 15 MINUTES!!!
FOLKS, WE ARE IN TROUBLE!
THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!
Send to your email list. The media is not reporting this. It has been on National Review... Just yesterday. I don't think anyone is seeing this!
"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. 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?" Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law? – Andy McCarthy – The Corner on National Review Online | North Houston Tea Party Patriots
__________________ People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
The White House: Executive Order - Amending Executive Order 12425 Patriot Room: Obama exempts INTERPOL from search and seizure on US lands ICC: Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF) UN Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Foreign Policy in Focus: Global Cooperation: The Candidates Speak Pierre Legrand's Pink Flamingo Bar: Executive Order 12425 What The Hell Is This? What Did Obama Just Do? Brutally Honest: Did Obama give INTERPOL more power last week? NoisyRoom.net: Of Executive Orders and Trojan Horses Twitter / Steve Schippert: Can someone please explain ...
Obama Grants Interpol
Immunity as Foreign
‘Assets’ Assigned to U.S.
Homeland
Friday 25th December
Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law? / Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America -
Is The ICC Next?Friday,
25 December, 2009 2:40 PM
While you were preoccupied with the holidays . . .
Obama slipped in another dimishment of U.S. law.
Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law? Andy McCarthy
December 23, 2009 http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY3MTI4YTRjZmYwMGU1ZjZhOGJmNmQ0NmJiZDNmMDY=
You just can't make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, 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?
Steve Schippert has more at ThreatsWatch, here. ThreatsWatch.Org: PrincipalAnalysis Wither Sovereignty Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America -
Is The ICC Next?
By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton December 23, 2009 http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/print/wither_sovereignty/ Last Thursday, December 17, 2009,
The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425."
It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.
By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
For Immediate Release December 17, 2009 Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425 EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them. BARACK OBAMA THE WHITE HOUSE, December 16, 2009.
After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.
Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization."
In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL.
Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).
And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama.
The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed. Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.
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. (Emphasis added.) Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.") Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that.
Wherever they may be in the United States.
This could conceivably include human assets - Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers. Context: International Criminal Court The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.
We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC's Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF). 29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF.
This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency.
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute - the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency.
Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world.
But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.
President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces.
The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.
President Obama's words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC.
While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely "premature to commit" to signing America on.
However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power.
She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.
Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty. "Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.
The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches. President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members.
He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.
CONCLUSIONS
In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.
The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions. When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court.
It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body who's INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement. For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices.
They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department.
That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.
This is the disturbing context for President Obama's quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure.
Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here.
But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media. Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil. By Steve Schippert on December 23, 2009 3:00 AM
PLEASE LISTEN TO THE LAST 15 MINUTES OF The Steve Malzberg Show-December 23, 2009-Hour #1 !!! CLICK TO LISTEN
http://domain1638172.sites.streamlinedns.co.uk/listenagain/sm-a.mp3
Executive Order 13523 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13523 Jump to: navigation, search ←Executive Order 13522 Executive Order 13523 by President of the United States Half-Day Closing of Executive Departments and Agencies on Thursday, December 24, 2009 Executive Order 13524→ Signed by President Barack Obama December 11, 2009 Federal Register page and date: 74 FR 66563, December 16, 2009 See the Notes section for a list of Executive Orders affected by or related to the issuance of this Executive Order.
Executive Order 15323[1] of December 11, 2009 Half-Day Closing of Executive Departments and Agencies on Thursday, December 24, 2009
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. All executive branch departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall be closed and their employees excused from duty for the last half of the scheduled workday on Thursday, December 24, 2009, the day before Christmas Day, except as provided in section 2 of this order. Sec. 2.
The heads of executive branch departments and agencies may determine that certain offices and installations of their organizations, or parts thereof, must remain open and that certain employees must remain on duty for the full scheduled workday on December 24, 2009, for reasons of national security, defense, or other public need.
Sec. 3. Thursday, December 24, 2009, shall be considered as falling within the scope of Executive Order 11582 of February 11, 1971, and of 5 U.S.C. 5546 and 6103(b) and other similar statutes insofar as they relate to the pay and leave of employees of the United States. Sec. 4.
This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. Barack Obama The White House, December 11, 2009. [FR Doc. E9–30020 Filed 12–15–09; 8:45 am] Billing code 3195–W0–P [edit]
Notes See Related Executive Order 11582, February 11, 1971 ↑
This EO designation was the original issued by the Office of the Federal Register.
It was later corrected to ‘‘Executive Order 13523’’ in Vol. 74, No. 242, page 67049, FR Doc. Z9-30020 Filed 12/17/2009 at 8:45 am; Billing Code 1505-01-D; Publication Date: 12/18/2009, (see 74 FR 67049 ).
This work is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13523" ←Executive Order 13522 Return to the top of the page. Executive Order 13524→ Categories: Executive orders of 2009 | Executive orders of Barack Obama | PD-USGov
National Post
Britain calls for international climate change police
From
December 21, 2009
Posts
