We NEED to stand up against this anti-american!
http://townhall.com/columnists/Floy...ve_order_alters_your_legal_protections?page=1
http://townhall.com/columnists/Floy...ve_order_alters_your_legal_protections?page=1
Please Read: Obama has to be stopped!
- Thread starter Britton
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
May be part of our governments future growth. I have several unemployed friends i'll pass it along to. We should atleast try to get a few people on the inside.
http://www.justice.gov/usncb/whoweare/job.php
BTW: It should be interesting to see if this superceeds the CIA/FBI as part of our World Presidents scope.
Mr. Timothy A. Williams commenced his appointment in October 2009 as the Director of INTERPOL Washington - USNCB, a subcomponent of the U.S. Department of Justice. As the Director of INTERPOL Washington, Mr. Williams acts on behalf of the Attorney General as the official representative to the International Criminal Police Organization located in Lyon, France. He also directs all operations, policies and procedures related to INTERPOL Washington.
http://www.justice.gov/usncb/whoweare/job.php
BTW: It should be interesting to see if this superceeds the CIA/FBI as part of our World Presidents scope.
Mr. Timothy A. Williams commenced his appointment in October 2009 as the Director of INTERPOL Washington - USNCB, a subcomponent of the U.S. Department of Justice. As the Director of INTERPOL Washington, Mr. Williams acts on behalf of the Attorney General as the official representative to the International Criminal Police Organization located in Lyon, France. He also directs all operations, policies and procedures related to INTERPOL Washington.
NRA response
I emailed the NRA regarding Obama's amendment to Reagan's Executive Order 12425. Hope they're right...
Thank you for your question about a recent Executive Order by President Obama concerning INTERPOL. Some have argued that the order would make INTERPOL and its officials immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, and that it would therefore allow INTERPOL personnel to seize firearms, kidnap Americans, and otherwise violate U.S. citizens' rights. Our legal staff has reviewed this order and does not believe it poses any of these threats.
President Obama's order amends a 1983 order by President Reagan, in which the U.S. recognized INTERPOL as an international organization that is entitled to certain legal immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA).
One of those immunities is immunity from civil lawsuits. Under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," foreign governments generally can't be sued, and the IOIA extended that protection to international organizations. This has been applied to block suits against the United Nations, Organization of American States, and other international bodies.
This means that articles on the recent order are incorrect in claiming that the order made INTERPOL immune from civil suit; INTERPOL was already immune.
Some have also suggested that under the order, INTERPOL agents would receive diplomatic immunity, so they could violate Americans' rights without fear of criminal prosecution. There are several misconceptions here.
First, diplomatic immunity only protects diplomats, and the IOIA specifically says it does not confer diplomatic immunity on international organization employees.
Second, while the IOIA does provide a limited type of immunity for international organization employees, this is only immunity "relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity." U.S. courts have interpreted this narrowly. In one case, a court found that a U.N. employee was not immune to a local speeding ticket even though he was actually driving the Secretary General of the U.N. to an official conference. In other cases, courts have found that employees of international organizations can be prosecuted for espionage, because espionage is not among their official duties.
Law enforcement officers working with INTERPOL are detailed there from agencies in various countries, such as the FBI or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They have no power of arrest outside their own countries. Therefore, a seizure of an American (or of an Americans' firearms) would likely not fall within the official duties for which INTERPOL officials would be immune from prosecution.
I hope this answers your question, and thank you for your message to NRA-ILA.
Should you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact us again at any time.
Sincerely,
Michael Land
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
I emailed the NRA regarding Obama's amendment to Reagan's Executive Order 12425. Hope they're right...
Thank you for your question about a recent Executive Order by President Obama concerning INTERPOL. Some have argued that the order would make INTERPOL and its officials immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution, and that it would therefore allow INTERPOL personnel to seize firearms, kidnap Americans, and otherwise violate U.S. citizens' rights. Our legal staff has reviewed this order and does not believe it poses any of these threats.
President Obama's order amends a 1983 order by President Reagan, in which the U.S. recognized INTERPOL as an international organization that is entitled to certain legal immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA).
One of those immunities is immunity from civil lawsuits. Under the doctrine of "sovereign immunity," foreign governments generally can't be sued, and the IOIA extended that protection to international organizations. This has been applied to block suits against the United Nations, Organization of American States, and other international bodies.
This means that articles on the recent order are incorrect in claiming that the order made INTERPOL immune from civil suit; INTERPOL was already immune.
Some have also suggested that under the order, INTERPOL agents would receive diplomatic immunity, so they could violate Americans' rights without fear of criminal prosecution. There are several misconceptions here.
First, diplomatic immunity only protects diplomats, and the IOIA specifically says it does not confer diplomatic immunity on international organization employees.
Second, while the IOIA does provide a limited type of immunity for international organization employees, this is only immunity "relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity." U.S. courts have interpreted this narrowly. In one case, a court found that a U.N. employee was not immune to a local speeding ticket even though he was actually driving the Secretary General of the U.N. to an official conference. In other cases, courts have found that employees of international organizations can be prosecuted for espionage, because espionage is not among their official duties.
Law enforcement officers working with INTERPOL are detailed there from agencies in various countries, such as the FBI or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They have no power of arrest outside their own countries. Therefore, a seizure of an American (or of an Americans' firearms) would likely not fall within the official duties for which INTERPOL officials would be immune from prosecution.
I hope this answers your question, and thank you for your message to NRA-ILA.
Should you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact us again at any time.
Sincerely,
Michael Land
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division
thatwhichisnt
Well-Known Member
Gives them diplomatic immunity.
That's just Marvelous.
no it doesn't. It gives a certain level of immunity but no where near what a foreign diplomat would have.
The tinfoil hat crowd has gone bananas over this, and I never much understood why.
I'm glad the NRA has a legal opinion on it, and I'm even happier it pretty much agrees with what I thought.
Of course trying to convince most people that something they already believe is false is usually a waste of time... so I'm ready to be called naieve and stupid for not thinking the sky is falling.
I'm glad the NRA has a legal opinion on it, and I'm even happier it pretty much agrees with what I thought.
Of course trying to convince most people that something they already believe is false is usually a waste of time... so I'm ready to be called naieve and stupid for not thinking the sky is falling.
