jeffchr
Well-Known Member
Clinton didn't change anything in that PDD - he just continued what had been going on for years. "launch on warning" was never a US (or Russian) official policy.
Executive order 12425!!!
- Thread starter kappainf
- Start date
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
INTERPOL works for the International Criminal Court. They are deployed mostly in nations where war crimes and genocide are somewhat common. i don't know what they are doing here, but if they arrest somebody, they are going before the ICC.
much like the FBI only has jurisdiction on inter-state crime, INTERPOLL only has jurisdiction on inter-country crime.
i am inclined to believe that this EO is tied to terrorism somehow. just a guess.
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
those are scary. i had a taste of this in 1970 when the state police invaded campus.
and for all the 2nd amendment freaks, you're not going to want to do battle with the Feds. so what are those guns for anyway?
InsaneInTheBrain
Active Member
Don't fool yourself... They are all clearly biased.
Please back up your statement with facts - what are you basing your statement on? Do you watch Fox, CNN or MSNBC? Give me a couple of solid instances of clear bias that I can confirm - facts, not opinions & we'll go from there.
I'll wait.
GWN
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
I'll contribute evidence
Part One
[youtube]5rqdtZlec0s[/youtube]
Part Two
[youtube]yXJIV4f4ZQ0[/youtube]
Interesting, but I was hoping for something a bit more personal than a Youtube cut-n-paste debate because we all know that most any position can be supported via the internet regardless of how preposterous.
How about your own personal observations? What precisely have you seen on Fox that leads you to believe there is bias?
As for myself, so far the biggest lie I've seen on CNN/MSNBC/FOX et al. is BHO promising an open and transparent government with no more back room deals.
Change was promised but he is cut from the same cheesy cloth as most self serving politicians.
How about your own personal observations? What precisely have you seen on Fox that leads you to believe there is bias?
As for myself, so far the biggest lie I've seen on CNN/MSNBC/FOX et al. is BHO promising an open and transparent government with no more back room deals.
Change was promised but he is cut from the same cheesy cloth as most self serving politicians.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Alas, IMO he is cut from a woefully inferior piece of cloth.
He is a megalomaniacal prevaricator...and we will all suffer the dire consequences.
SmokeyMcChokey
Well-Known Member
Uh oh. I smell a 9/11 truther/
SmokeyMcChokey
Well-Known Member
dont act like cnn doesnt do the exact same thing. Besides if you want to talk about selective journalism I bet you have no idea the context of half of those debates and the fact that they were cut off for continuously repeating the same issue or turning every question into your a right wing nut. Im not saying FOX hasnt been un truthful but is incredibly ignorant of you to think they are the only guilty party here. come on, its a joke.
medicineman
New Member
I must agree that he has not stayed true to his campaign promises, that pisses me off bigtime. I voted for him based on what he said he wanted to do for the country, not much has changed except him. He has done a few things, but the real powers have basically shut him down. More war, Medical insurance giveaway, no rules on bankers, making insurance paymenta mandatory with no price controls on the industry, the list of fuck yous to the left is enormous. Although, I'm not sure I'd lable him as you, that is coming from the right and an attack. I'll still say, he's better than McCain. With McCain, we'd probably be full at war with Iran, killing thousands more of our military personel in the area.
Wavels
Well-Known Member
Hi med, belated Happy New Year!
I can certainly sympathize with your post.
Both ends of the political spectrum appear to be sharing a similar sense of sinking disappointment with this POTUS.
He really seems to have a supremely overconfident ego problem. He is unable to perceive his own obvious shortcomings.
The next three years will certainly be chock full of entertainment value at least!
TreesAsMedicine
Active Member
I live near the coast, I see interpol trucks around. There is a decent size port here, so I guess that why I see them around.
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
I never said that they were the ONLY GUILTY PARTY. How convenient of you to assume I said something that I didn't so you could call my thinking "ignorant". Congratulations, you have managed to insult and misrepresent, all in the same sentence.
Of course they all have a slant and/or agenda. It's not news anymore. It's mostly commentary (disguised as analysis). The headlines are there only to kick-start the discussions.
Fox is the worst.
jeffchr
Well-Known Member
Well, he's got a lot of resistance. The issues are complex because they are so big and one wrong major move economically would be disastrous. It is the obstructionist republican party that has slowed progress legislatively.
iblazethatkush
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that's how I feel too, bro. This shit would of go down, no matter, who won the election. This is some scary shit, for sure, though.
MacGuyver4.2.0
Well-Known Member
According to the former Attorney General, PDD's are as legally binding as EO's are.
LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS OF A PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE, AS COMPARED TO AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
A presidential directive has the same substantive legal effect as an executive order. It is the substance of the presidential action that is determinative, not the form of the document conveying that action.Both an executive order and a presidential directive remain effective upon a change in administration, unless otherwise specified in the document, and both continue to be effective until subsequent presidential action is taken.
-here's more of that letter from the U.S. Justice Department:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/predirective.htm
CrackerJax
New Member
This is old news and if you read the last sentence of the ORIGINAL executive order, our constitution is still king. It's to help get bad guys...
==================================================================
Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983
International Criminal Police Organizations
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.
Ronald Reagan
The White House,
June 16, 1983.
==================================================================
Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983
International Criminal Police Organizations
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.
Ronald Reagan
June 16, 1983.
fulbright
Member
This simply says that the Executive Order does not abridge any other privileges INTERPOL may or may yet have.
Abridge is defined as follows:
1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one's freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.
In other words, the privileges and immunities INTERPOL has obtained cannot be reduced/lessened/deprived/etc. This statement does not say the Constitution is king, nor does it say Congress can remove the Immunities provided for in the International Organizations Immunity Act.
NOW. That being said. Section 1 of the same act says: "[...]The President shall be authorized, if in his judgment such action should be justified by reason of the abuse by an international organization or its officers and employees of the privileges, exemptions, and immunities herein provided or for any other reason, at any time to revoke the designation of any international organization under this section, whereupon the international organization in question shall cease to be classed as an international organization for the purposes of this title."
i.e. The President can refute these immunities at any time.
So as long as our President isn't a fucking tard, we have an escape hatch for this one... I'll leave you to decide whether our President is or is not a fucking tard.
Also, before people fly into a panic about INTERPOL and their newfound powers, it would be worth looking into what INTERPOL is exactly and how they operate.
This is from INTERPOL's own website:
http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/default.asp
"INTERPOL is the worlds largest international police organization, with 188 member countries. Created in 1923, it facilitates cross-border police co-operation, and supports and assists all organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent or combat international crime.
INTERPOL aims to facilitate international police co-operation even where diplomatic relations do not exist between particular countries. Action is taken within the limits of existing laws in different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. INTERPOLs constitution prohibits any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.'"
From Wikipedia's entry on INTERPOL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol#Methodology
"Interpol maintains a large database charting unsolved crimes and both convicted and alleged criminals. At any time, a member nation has access to specific sections of the database and its police forces are encouraged to check information held by Interpol whenever a major crime is committed. The rationale behind this is that drug traffickers and similar criminals have international ties, and so it is likely that crimes extend beyond political boundaries."
So I don't think there is any imminent danger from this. That being said, I do recognize the potential for misuse and abuse this kind of action could lead to. And that does worry me.
Article from the New York Times which details a bit more fully on why this came about: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/world/31interpol.html
Stay classy, America.
