Slashdot Mirror


INTERPOL Granted Diplomatic Immunity In the US

ShakaUVM writes "A couple of weeks ago without any fanfare or notice in the media, President Obama granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity while conducting investigations on American soil. While INTERPOL has been allowed to operate in the US in the past, under an executive order by President Reagan, they've had to follow the same rules as the FBI, CIA, etc., while on American soil. This means, among other things, the new executive order makes INTERPOL immune to Freedom of Information Act requests and that INTERPOL agents cannot be punished for most any crimes they may commit. Hopefully the worst we'll see from this is INTERPOL agents ignoring their speeding tickets." Update: 01/05 02:57 GMT by KD : Reader davecb pointed out an ABC News blog that comes to pretty much the opposite conclusion as to the import of the executive order.

36 of 450 comments (clear)

  1. but... by bsDaemon · · Score: 5, Funny

    But the question on everyone's mind is, can RadioHead expect the same deal?

  2. Headline is wrong by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Informative

    the headline says:

    INTERPOL Granted Diplomatic Immunity In the US

    The actual article says: "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.

    The headline seems to be wrong.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  3. Don't be silly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Come on, you're telling me that INTERPOL now has the same protection as the "International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission".

    Yeapsireee, gotta watch out for those rouge Halbut operatives. Goodness me.

    More seriously, remember INTERPOL actually has very little power - they're a coordination agency. They have no powers of arrest. They don't even DO investigations. What they DO is if a cop in Australia is tracking down a criminal who's fled to Los Angeles and therefore needs the LAPD assistance, INTERPOL is the agency that makes that inter-police-force connection happen. There are no "INTERPOL" officers in L.A. that do the arrest - that's for the LAPD (or FBI).

    1. Re:Don't be silly. by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come on, you're telling me that INTERPOL now has the same protection as the "International Pacific Halibut Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission".

      I'm not worried, as long as they lack the powers of the British Dental Association. Those guys are freakin' crazy.

  4. Re:How's this different from embassies? by bcmm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Indeed, and the reason that diplomatic immunity is not a "do whatever you want" license is that any laws you break result in embarrassing complaints to your home country, who will recall you and punish you in their own system.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  5. Just like the FBI is not under local jurisdiction by viking80 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is not diplomatic immunity. This is just protection against searches, IRS, etc. This basically allows a law enforcement officer to carry out his duties. It is identical to when the FBI comes to a local town to investigate, they can not be hindered or stopped by the local law enforcement. This is obvious and should not raise any issues.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
  6. Re:Easy come.... easy go.... by Zebra_X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is really a change of a default assumption than freedom to do anything without penalty. If INTERPOL starts going crazy, it only takes a presidential signature to take this exception back.

    No one is taking this exception back, it was granted in the first place.

    The question might be why was this ever granted in the first place? Easy - the government wants to make it easier to hunt terrorists on U.S. soil or any other citizen not following the rules. This basically allows to the U.S. government to go and ask interpol to conduct unconstitutional activities on U.S. soil and report their findings. Clap, fail.

  7. Misleading title by Gudeldar · · Score: 4, Informative

    The title and summary are pretty misleading, it appears the only thing Obama did was exempt INTERPOL from certain taxes and provided them with immunity from search and seizure. The article explicitly states that it is not the same thing as diplomatic immunity.

  8. Re:About time to arm ourselves by NaughtyNimitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By "this" i think you mean the US of A.
    What about the 'sovereignty' of other countries? Our founding tribes would run amok if they knew their ancestors would bow for the pressure of the US.

  9. Interpol agents?? What Interpol agents?? by Bazzargh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's no such thing as an interpol agent. They delegate to national agencies (ie the DoJ) who do /not/ get immunity. What they do have is a bunch of committees and advisors, and a (shared) database of people 'of interest'.

    Somebody's been watching the man from UNCLE a few too many times

  10. Re:About time to arm ourselves by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Political party X screwed us, vote Y!

    Seems like we've only got two valid choices here. Which is the one we hate and the one we like again?

  11. Re:I wouuld say Unconstitutional by saihung · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And this is why you should not pretend to be a lawyer. Ready?

    Interpol has no police force. It conducts no investigations. It doesn't arrest anyone. As an international organization it was not subject to FOIA requests anyway, because it's not a department of the federal government.

    As a previous poster noted, this is NOT DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY. This is immunity from attachment of any property that Interpol may have in the USA. Any employees of Interpol, if any, stationed in the USA can and would still be arrested for crimes they commit. In summary, both the original submitter and basically every comment I've seen so far are not just wrong, they are comically wrong.

  12. Re:INTERPOL is a police agency! by jjohnson · · Score: 4, Informative

    You are ignorant. Interpol has no agents; it's a clearinghouse for information sharing, and it has a bunch of committees. It has never been subject to FOIA requests. Legal authorities working on behalf of Interpol are subject to the same restrictions they always have been. The RIAA has nothing to do with Interpol.

    This move by the Obama administration puts Interpol on the same footing as the International Pacific Halibut Commission. Oooh, scary!

    --
    Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  13. Re:About time to arm ourselves by zn0k · · Score: 5, Informative

    These are the additional privileges granted to Interpol:

      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.

    That's it. How exactly does that make you less sovereign?

  14. Hold the Phone, or even better Read the Article by starseeker · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here are the sections that were addressed by the order, according to the linked article:

      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.

    Whether or not they have criminal immunity (don't know offhand), there doesn't seem to be ANYTHING in the above executive order addressing such matters. Might have FOIA implications, but doesn't seem to have anything to do with punishment of crimes committed by agents. Summary is wrong.

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
  15. Right-wing propaganda by Bananenrepublik · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why are you linking to this "article"? It contains no information, only the Obama-bashing expected from your American right-wingers and unsupported hypotheses.

    If you care about facts, you can find them, a few seconds of searching revealed this for instance.

    Quote:

    Contrary to its portrayal in some movies, Interpol has no police force that conducts investigations and makes arrests. Rather, it serves its 188 member countries by working as a clearinghouse for police departments in different nations to share law enforcement information — like files on wanted criminals and terrorists, stolen cars and passports, and notices that a law enforcement agency has issued an arrest warrant for a fugitive.

    ...

    “We don’t send officers into the field to arrest people; we don’t have agents that go investigate crimes,” said Rachel Billington, an Interpol spokeswoman. “This is always done by the national police in the member country under their national laws.”

    When public international organizations are operating on United States soil, a law allows the president to grant them certain rights and immunities, just as foreign embassies receive privileges. More than 70 organizations — including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Bank and the International Pacific Halibut Commission — receive those rights.

    ...
    But Mr. Reagan’s order did not include other standard privileges — like immunity from certain tax requirements and from having its property or records subject to search and seizure — because at the time, Interpol had no permanent office or employees on United States soil.

    That changed in 2004, when Interpol opened a liaison office at the United Nations in New York City.

    ...
    The State Department recommended approving the request, but the Bush White House did not complete the matter before its term ended, and so it rolled over.

    In other words there appears to be nothing to get worked up about. Even if you believe whatever republicans do is right. Because they would have done the same.

    You Americans are crazy.

  16. Actually they already had diplomatic immunity by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 4, Informative

    They had diplomatic immunity since Reagan's executive order. The statement in the original post that "the new executive order makes INTERPOL immune to Freedom of Information Act requests and that INTERPOL agents cannot be punished for most any crimes they may commit." is factually wrong. The infallible mr. Reagan's executive order did that ... it and not the new executive order gave Interpol the following :

    "(b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located, and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract."

    AND

    " (a) Persons designated by foreign governments to serve as their representatives in or to international organizations and the officers and employees of such organizations, and members of the immediate families of such representatives, officers, and employees residing with them, other than nationals of the United States, shall, insofar as concerns laws regulating entry into and departure from the United States, alien registration and fingerprinting, and the registration of foreign agents, be entitled to the same privileges, exemptions, and immunities as are accorded under similar circumstances to officers and employees, respectively, of foreign governments, and members of their families.

            (b) Representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity and falling within their functions as such representatives, officers, or employees except insofar as such immunity may be waived by the foreign government or international organization concerned."

    Reagan gave Interpol diplomatic immunity, Obama removed their duty to pay taxes and extended their immunity to an immunity to searches.

    1. Re:Actually they already had diplomatic immunity by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 4, Informative

      I should add that Reagan obviously didn't make them immune to FOIA requests ... not being part of the United States government did that.

  17. Re:About time to arm ourselves by thomasinx · · Score: 5, Informative

    This summary is flat out WRONG. It's phrased to start a flamewar. Click the news link, and see what it says. He did not grant full diplomatic immunity to INTERPOL. I quote from the article: "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." FOIA might be affected, but they are not immune to crimes.

  18. Re:About time to arm ourselves by alexhard · · Score: 5, Funny

    There you go again, ruining a perfectly good flamewar with your fancy schmancy facts and logic and whatnot. We don't take kindly to your kind around here..

    --
    Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
  19. Classic slashdot summary by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How fucking classic is it that the submitter linked the words "granted INTERPOL full diplomatic immunity" to an article that explicitly states in caps and everything that this is NOT a granting of diplomatic immunity?

    According to the article titled "Just What Did President Obama's Executive Order regarding INTERPOL Do?", what it didn't do is grant diplomatic immunity, and what it did do is grant a limited amount of immunity mostly related to taxes and document seizure. The idea seems to be to to allow international organizations like Red Cross, IAEA, IMF, and now INTERPOL to do their work without participating nations worrying that the U.S. will spy on them by reading these organization's records.

    Now I'm not sure I like granting a police force any more immunity of any kind, but that's a hell of a lot less than diplomatic immunity and not as hard to revoke. Maybe other countries were getting concerned about the U.S.'s nosiness and this will enhance international cooperation. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I do know the summary was classic bullshit.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  20. Re:About time to arm ourselves by bhartman34 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Reading the article, I would've agreed with you, but if you read the act, you'll see that immunity is what it grants.

    (b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of Judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.

    That sure sounds pretty cut and dried to me.

  21. Snopes says this is an exageration as does NYTimes by DJRumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

    It doesn't give them universal immunity to do as they will within our borders. Interpol has no police force. It's just an administrative organization that basically acts as a go-between between countries.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/interpol.asp

  22. Re:About time to arm ourselves by bhartman34 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What? I'm a whackjob that believes in the Illuminati as a secret, nefarious society because I can read and quote the act?

  23. "Technically"? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Technically they were already immune? That's a rather important technicality ... because you explicitly blamed Obama for giving them immunity from prosecution. In actuality 12425 is the executive order which gave them that ... the one with Ronald Reagan's signature below it.

  24. Re:Snopes says this is an exageration as does NYTi by bhartman34 · · Score: 4, Informative
    INTERPOL also has law enforcement agents:

    Each INTERPOL member country maintains a National Central Bureau staffed by national law enforcement officers. The NCB is the designated contact point for the General Secretariat, regional offices and other member countries requiring assistance with overseas investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives.

    If these agents work for INTERPOL, doesn't this order (and it doesn't really matter whether it was Reagan or Obama who authorized it) give those INTERPOL members immunity?

  25. No, it's not full diplomatic immunity by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because the Slashdot editors mangled my entry. There was no link to the ABC News article in what I submitted, but I did have a link to the story on unpaid UN parking tickets.

    Ah, so a slashdot editor actually managed to improve a submission by linking to accurate information? I'm honestly shocked.

    What really irks me is that this actually is a granting of full diplomatic immunity. If you go through the list of all the possible options for diplomatic immunity (it comes in different kinds), INTERPOL now has them all. So, yeah, I called it full diplomatic immunity.

    No, it isn't, as your own links state.

    Either you don't understand the difference between "immune to prosecution" and "immune to prosecution for official acts", or you don't understand what INTERPOL's official business is in the U.S. Or you somehow think "immunity for some actions" is the same as "full" immunity.

    FULL diplomatic immunity means free from prosecution for any and all acts.

    Let me spell it out for you.

    If I was the French Ambassador to the U.S., and I was caught in L.A. snorting cocaine from from the ass crack of a dead 12 year old boy who I'd just raped and killed (not necessarily in that order), then the worst that the U.S. or local governments could do to to me would be to kick me out of the country -- unless of course France revoked my immunity, which you can certainly imagine happening in this case, but you get my point.

    Now if I were an employee of INTERPOL, I would be prosecutable under U.S. and local law. As in NOT full immunity.

    Unless you can explain how rape, murder, and drug use are official actions,

    And you know what INTERPOL's official business is in the U.S.? Handing information provided by other nations' police forces over to U.S. police forces. That's it. That doesn't cover a very wide variety of actions, thus doesn't provide immunity for a very wide variety of actions, and thus only someone either completely foolish or deliberately stirring shit would call that "full immunity".

    If you weren't wrong, I'd agree with you.

    If you were any judge of right and wrong, you wouldn't have written such a shitty summary to begin with.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  26. Interpol "agents"? No such fucking thing by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 4, Informative

    Interpol is an organisation whose member are nations and their police. They coordinate information sharing between member states. They don't do police work themselves. The only Interpol employees stricto sensu are administrative staff. That's it. The only "agents" are those of the FBI in the US, or the RMCP in Canada, and so on and so forth for other members. Nobody's going to show up at your door with an Interpol badge -- ever. Or maybe as a joke or a fraud.

    That slashdot falls for this right wing scaremongering bullshit is disheartening. Goddamn it, it's not that hard to look shit up on Wikipedia, morons.

  27. Re:About time to arm ourselves by JustOK · · Score: 4, Funny

    sudo release me

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  28. Re:How's this different from embassies? by jjohnson · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your absolutely and utterly incorrect, thanks for playing though

    No, I was correct, and you're the moron.

    They are in fact the EU equivalent of the FBI

    No, they're not. You may have been thinking of Europol, or you may be lost in your own delusional fantasy. Either way, you're wrong. Interpol has a staff of around 600 people, and a budget of $60 million; the FBI has 32,700+ employees, and a $7 billion budget.

    Which is why.. every member country has a national central office/bureau staffed with national law enforcement/police..

    This is, in fact, correct. They are national law enforcement police who are subject to national laws. An FBI agent on loan to Interpol's office in New York receives no immunities or privileges he didn't have as an FBI agent. Obama's order is regarding the organization itself, the Interpol General Secretariat.

    From the Wikipedia page on Interpol:

    The NCB is the designated contact point for the Interpol General Secretariat, regional bureau and other member countries requiring assistance with overseas investigations and the location and apprehension of fugitives.

    Read that closely: When two police agencies need to co-operate across borders, they go through Interpol. Interpol doesn't investigate and arrest them; national law enforcement does, with Interpol acting as the co-ordinating agency. They don't originate investigations, and they don't make arrests on their own authority--that's the whole point of each country setting up an NCB staffed by locals with the authority to be police officers.

    And to be perfectly clear, a national law enforcement officer in the NCB receives no benefit from the order Obama signed, which doesn't confer diplomatic immunity anyway--it's a lesser form of organizational immunity granted to international organizations that applies to Interpol's records and bureaucratic operations, not to their personnel.

    Got that? Interpol doesn't have diplomatic immunity, they have International Organizations Immunity:

    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.

    In other words, if someone from the general secretariat works in the NY office, they don't have to pay NY taxes and their paperwork can't be searched. If they jerk off on the subway, they can still be arrested for indecent exposure.

    Thanks for playing, though.

    --
    Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
  29. Yes, read for yourself to see the BS by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As WP and the law itself clearly states, agents of International Organizations are immune from prosecution for official acts only.

    That is nothing like "full diplomatic immunity", which is immunity from all prosecution.

    INTERPOL's official business in the U.S. is one of information coordinator between the police forces of various nations, NOT anything related to actual investigation or law enforcement. They do not arrest. They do not investigate.

    So to answer the salient question raised by the summary: Can INTERPOL agents now violate due process or other Constitutional protections within the United States with impunity, is a big fucking NO because any such action would not be an official act and thus not protected.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Yes, read for yourself to see the BS by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Go to Interpol.int and read up a bit. They do more than coordinate agencies. My previous question was rhetorical - they actually do all of those things.

      Oh believe me I already have. And the last thing I would do at this point is take your word for the information contained in some document.

      They do not arrest. They do not conduct primary investigations. They are information coordinators/managers. As their web site clearly states. They provide access to databases and expert advice, they assist communication between law enforcement agencies. They make information obtained by other organizations investigations available. That's what they do. That's what their website says they do.

      You suggest they perform actual law enforcement activity within participating countries, and ergo continue to be full of shit.

      You're confusing legal-under-American-law acts and acts-done-as-part-of-their-job acts, which may or may not be the same thing.

      No I'm not. I'm saying that they cannot possibly have immunity from the provision of unreasonable search and seizure, because search and seizure is not one of their official capacities. Legal or not, it's not one of their official activities. Ergo the immunity cannot protect them if it is illegal.

      If you think about all the espionage that has gone on under the umbrella of diplomatic immunity, you'll see where your error lies.

      Yes, under actual, FULL diplomatic immunity.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  30. There are no "interpol agents" by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 4, Informative

    That does not exist. Just like the Universal Postal Union will not deliver letters to your home, nor will you ever be able to lease a phone line from the ITU.

    Goddamnit, you people are so fucking stupid, it's unconscionable.

  31. Re:Snopes says this is an exageration as does NYTi by DJRumpy · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read the supplied Snopes link, it will tell you that the local governments have the right to decide upon the legality of warrants passed on by Interpol, meaning they are allowed only as much latitude as the states deign to grant. The local governments decide on the legality, the local governments send law enforcement if needed, etc. Interpol does not of those things. Interpol doesn't even issue warrants, it requires one of the member countries to do so. They simply pass them on to the necessary recipient.

    Interpol does NOT have a police force, it does not conduct criminal investigations, and it does not make arrests. It acts as a data manager of sorts, for any member nations, coordinating information, passing warrants as needed from one member country to another, etc. They are basically an administration/secretarial service on an international scale. Whatever odd idea of Interpol people may have gotten from the Bond flicks or whatnot, are not quite accurate:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol

    For those that don't want to read through all of the Snopes/NYTimes information:

    These are the same standard rights that are granted to some 70+ other international organizations. These additional rights were not granted to Interpol because it did not have a local office on US soil at the time. This was submitted prior to Bush leaving office and the State Department suggested approving it so that Interpol had the same legal status as other international organizations. It was not completed before Bush left office however. This is a bit of house cleaning to complete the request.

  32. Re:Easy come.... easy go.... by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Exactly what 'unconstitutional' things do you think INTERPOL can/will do? They provide information. They don't investigate, issue warrants, or arrest. They have no 'agents'. They are as threatening as the other organizations with this status, such as the International Red Cross.

  33. Re:About time to arm ourselves by laddiebuck · · Score: 4, Informative

    That section doesn't pertain to anything we're discussing here. Congrats for being part of the FUD.

    I know it's a little complicated, but basically in 1983 Reagan signed an executive order granting Interpol international organization status, which just means they get certain (mostly tax- and customs-related) protections and privileges. Section 2(b) of the act defining those privileges is what you quoted above, and is what Reagan gave them. Now, Reagan excepted Interpol from certain protections, viz Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6. These exceptions are what Obama has just withdrawn. Go ahead and read them, they pertain partly to taxes and social security, and also protect the property of international organizations (all of them, not just Interpol) from seizure and search.

    So either you don't really understand what's going on or you're just fearmongering. As to the whoever started this, well, that was pure FUD.